England will beat India in upcoming series

[pinkfreud]

You've spent the past few weeks dissing the English team, the English media, the English crowds and just about anything English. Given that they are obviously such a crap nation, how does it feel to have your team absolutely bladdered by such a bunch of losers? :haha:

It does suck, Captain Obvious, but what does the loss have anything to do with what I said about English crowd/commie/media behaviour? And you're the one who inadvertently called yourself a loser, not me. Or are you taking on the role of wobbly's momma?

[Maundy Gregory]

It does suck, Captain Obvious, but what does the loss have anything to do with what I said about English crowd/commie/media behaviour? And you're the one who inadvertently called yourself a loser, not me. Or are you taking on the role of wobbly's momma?

The loss has nothing to do with what any of us say or do here, I'd have thought that much was obvious. Yes, England are a bunch of losers, that much is clear from reading the posts here :sherlock:

[Maundy Gregory]

True- We have been made to eat humble pie for once. It is good. Such things need to happen once in a while. BTW This is a serious question. Are you a cross dresser ?

No. That picture is of me in my work uniform

[pinkfreud]

Yes' date=' England are a bunch of losers[/quote'] If you insist :cantstop:

[HyroProto]

As far as the impact of losing out on injured players goes, India has had a lot more to lose than England. The guys we've lost out on are complete gamechangers. As for England- Swann's lousy anyway, Tremlett hasn't been as deadly as the other seamers, and Trott's absence can be pretty much made up for by their depth in batting- unless they fall like a pack of cards tomorrow.

Agreed on Zaheer (Your number 1 bowler) & Shevag (the most devastating opening bat ever) But England loosing Tremlett is the same as you lot loosing zaheer (Tremlet is their number 1 bowler in current form..) he has better bounce than anderson & you would've been in more trouble if he has played Trott is in good form.. He is their number 1 test batsmen on current form.. So yes..you lost 2 major players & they lost 2 major players..but that is no excuse for your 300+ runs defeat..its humiliating If Swann is crap so is harbajan at the moment..currently Swann is in better form than Harbajan

[pinkfreud]

Agreed on Zaheer (Your number 1 bowler) & Shevag (the most devastating opening bat ever) But England loosing Tremlett is the same as you lot loosing zaheer (Tremlet is their number 1 bowler in current form..) he has better bounce than anderson & you would've been in more trouble if he has played Trott is in good form.. He is their number 1 test batsmen on current form.. So yes..you lost 2 major players & they lost 2 major players..but that is no excuse for your 300+ runs defeat..its humiliating If Swann is crap so is harbajan at the moment..currently Swann is in better form than Harbajan

Of course that's no excuse; the losses had more to do with horrible playing rather than key players being absent, but the latter has still pretty much dented our chances significantly. As for your point about Tremlett- who replaced him? Tim Bresnan, who had a magnificent run in any case, with both bat and ball. To me, as a viewer, Bresnan seemed more lethal than Tremlett, even though Tremmy did set the stage for Broad in the first Test match by shaking up the batsmen. That's the thing- England is seriously cranking it up in all depts.(in Tests), be it bowling, batting, and now, even replacements. They are spoilt for choice, so losing someone like Tremlett and having to bank on Bresnan to do the job isn't a scenario that would leave them shaking in their boots, would it? On the other hand, who does India have as a fitting replacement for Zaheer? Absolutely nobody, and the same goes for Sehwag and Gambo. The fact that England bat so deep down the order also negates Trott's absence to some degree. Contrast that with losing two opening batsmen and having to slug it out with a seriously poor tail that cannot even stay put for a few overs. Oh, and do believe me- as of now, Darty makes Swann look like Terminator. Anyone is better than Bhajji atm. I've been praying for him to get dropped for quite a while now. Regardless of whatever I've said though, going down 0-2 is still largely to do the ghastly way in which we played... or rather, didn't.

[wobblydoggy]

Of course that's no excuse; the losses had more to do with horrible playing rather than key players being absent, but the latter has still pretty much dented our chances significantly. As for your point about Tremlett- who replaced him? Tim Bresnan, who had a magnificent run in any case, with both bat and ball. To me, as a viewer, Bresnan seemed more lethal than Tremlett, even though Tremmy did set the stage for Broad in the first Test match by shaking up the batsmen. That's the thing- England is seriously cranking it up in all depts.(in Tests), be it bowling, batting, and now, even replacements. They are spoilt for choice, so losing someone like Tremlett and having to bank on Bresnan to do the job isn't a scenario that would leave them shaking in their boots, would it? On the other hand, who does India have as a fitting replacement for Zaheer? Absolutely nobody, and the same goes for Sehwag and Gambo. The fact that England bat so deep down the order also negates Trott's absence to some degree. Contrast that with losing two opening batsmen and having to slug it out with a seriously poor tail that cannot even stay put for a few overs. Oh, and do believe me- as of now, Darty makes Swann look like Terminator. Anyone is better than Bhajji atm. I've been praying for him to get dropped for quite a while now. Regardless of whatever I've said though, going down 0-2 is still largely to do the ghastly way in which we played... or rather, didn't.

But you have 2 billion to chose from. We only have 70 million and any SA rejects:haha:

[ganeshran]

^ 2 billion :hmmmm:

[wobblydoggy]

^ 2 billion :hmmmm:

Sorry did I count a zero wrong is it 200 million?

[ganeshran]

Sorry did I count a zero wrong is it 200 million?

It is 1.2 billion. however the population of the country has nothing to do with its sporting potential. It has more to do with the infrastructure and facilities available.

[wobblydoggy]

It is 1.2 billion. however the population of the country has nothing to do with its sporting potential. It has more to do with the infrastructure and facilities available.

For grass roots cricket ours are getting worse every year

[darkknight]

For grass roots cricket ours are getting worse every year

People might say in 10 yrs time, you might struggle to replace the current players who wants to retire. But, quality is what it matters and Eng and Auz never runs of good cricketers.

[Cricket Tragic]

People might say in 10 yrs time' date=' you might struggle to replace the current players who wants to retire. But, [b']quality is what it matters and Eng and Auz never runs of good cricketers.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Maundy Gregory]

Of course that's no excuse; the losses had more to do with horrible playing rather than key players being absent, but the latter has still pretty much dented our chances significantly. As for your point about Tremlett- who replaced him? Tim Bresnan, who had a magnificent run in any case, with both bat and ball. To me, as a viewer, Bresnan seemed more lethal than Tremlett, even though Tremmy did set the stage for Broad in the first Test match by shaking up the batsmen. That's the thing- England is seriously cranking it up in all depts.(in Tests), be it bowling, batting, and now, even replacements. They are spoilt for choice, so losing someone like Tremlett and having to bank on Bresnan to do the job isn't a scenario that would leave them shaking in their boots, would it? On the other hand, who does India have as a fitting replacement for Zaheer? Absolutely nobody, and the same goes for Sehwag and Gambo. The fact that England bat so deep down the order also negates Trott's absence to some degree. Contrast that with losing two opening batsmen and having to slug it out with a seriously poor tail that cannot even stay put for a few overs. Oh, and do believe me- as of now, Darty makes Swann look like Terminator. Anyone is better than Bhajji atm. I've been praying for him to get dropped for quite a while now. Regardless of whatever I've said though, going down 0-2 is still largely to do the ghastly way in which we played... or rather, didn't.

So in essence, England are a better team. No surprises that they are winning this series two zip:haha:

[pinkfreud]

But you have 2 billion* to chose from. We only have 70 million and any SA rejects:haha:

1.2, actually. And what does the population count have anything to do with cricketing potential?

So in essence' date= England are a better team. No surprises that they are winning this series two zip:haha:

As of now, of course- more so in Tests though, particularly on their home grounds. It'll be interesting to see how they will fare against SA in some time to come. That said, I've yet to see England make a huge impact on the ODI front. And as for them winning, it'd be most certain, but I'd wait for the Test series to get over before jumping to conclusions about the win margin.

[Maundy Gregory]

1.2, actually. And what does the population count have anything to do with cricketing potential? As of now, of course- more so in Tests though, particularly on their home grounds. It'll be interesting to see how they will fare against SA in some time to come. That said, I've yet to see England make a huge impact on the ODI front. And as for them winning, it'd be most certain, but I'd wait for the Test series to get over before jumping to conclusions about the win margin.

The series isn't over, but there's absolutely no chance of India winning it. The very best they can hope for is a draw, just like they did against SA (yes, I know plenty of Indians have been running around treating it like a victory). I didn't jump to any conclusions about a winning margin, I simply said that England were winning this series two zip (which they are-look it up if you don't believe me). It's also interesting to note that you write about home grounds, given that India has for years been lions at home and lambs away. Not that they managed to beat SA at home last time they were over there. As for ODIs, well, this is a Test Match series, so ODI form is of no relevance. It will be of some relevance when they actually play some ODIs, I wonder how you will react if England win those too? Still, you might get a chance to score a fluke win in the only T20 game being played, though odds are against seeing as England are World Champs at this form of the game too! :hysterical:

[pinkfreud]

It's also interesting to note that you write about home grounds' date=' given that India has for years been lions at home and lambs away.[/quote'] Well, have you paused to think when was the last time England even won a Test series in India? We at least managed to win on alien soil back in 2007. As of now England are the lions at home at well (barring that total wipeout Oz faced on their own home turf during the Ashes, which was fantastic). http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/content/records/307847.html Year by year breakdown, if you will. There's still a long way to go as far as retaining the #1 position is concerned. Becoming #1 and maintaining that position is a whole other ball game. Granted this is a Test series, but what I was trying to say in my previous post was that England are inconsistent when it comes to dominating all forms of the game (especially ODIs) over the long term. And what's that hogwash about being T20 champs? India and Pak were T20 champs too- what does that have to do with anything?

[Maundy Gregory]

Well, have you paused to think when was the last time England even won a Test series in India? We at least managed to win on alien soil back in 2007. As of now England are the lions at home at well (barring that total wipeout Oz faced on their own home turf during the Ashes, which was fantastic). http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/content/records/307847.html Year by year breakdown, if you will. There's still a long way to go as far as retaining the #1 position is concerned. Becoming #1 and maintaining that position is a whole other ball game. Granted this is a Test series, but what I was trying to say in my previous post was that England are inconsistent when it comes to dominating all forms of the game (especially ODIs) over the long term. And what's that hogwash about being T20 champs? India and Pak were T20 champs too- what does that have to do with anything?

Of course, maintaining the No.1 position is difficult, hence India's inability to do so. As for winning on alien soil, if you have to go back to 2007 for it, then it hardly bodes well for the supposed No.1 team. If you're number one, you *expect* to win, home or away. Yes, England are inconsistent when it comes to dominating all forms of the game, just as India are. As we write, England are No.1 in Tests and T20, India in ODIs, so I'd suggest England are slightly more consistent than India. It isn't hogwash to say England are World champs at T20, they won the last tournament, check it out if you don't believe me. I'd suggest the hogwash is in saying India are ODI champs-don't you realise that Australia, SL, Pak & WI are the ODI champs too! :hysterical:

[pinkfreud]

^ WTF is so funny? You do have bragging rights, but the degree to which you're gloating prematurely only makes you look silly. You keep forgetting that there are still 2 matches to go, and this post of yours only sheds light on your knowledge (or lack of) of the game. We've been the best Test team for almost 2 years now, so what's with the 'inability to do so' bit? And 2007 was the example I cited here because that was the last time we played a Test series against England in England. You'd do well to at least look up your facts and comprehend before getting all keyboard happy. England is not the #1 in Tests yet. It has to go down 3-1 for that to happen, which is likely, but try sustaining that spot for 2 years. Also, India is not #1 in ODIs either, btw, even though we're World Champions. Which reminds me- when did England ever win the WC? So really, don't give me that codswallop about consistency. And yes, it's hogwash to talk about Tontee Tontee here if you think my bringing ODIs into the equation is irrelevant as well. Stop digging yourself further into the rabbit hole. Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time replying to such ignorant posts.

[TheWall]

Unless England win in subcontinent - can never be No.1