Ashes teams only real test playing nations.

[deathmonger]

I think you miss the point. India were a better test team! No one is denying that, but your 20 years of greatness revolves around the careers of three or four players, all of which + Khan are getting past their sell by date. Real cricket fans in England do not value the shorter form of the game, we may watch it for fun, but it is like another poster said, 'like 5 a side footbal compared to the full game'. India are no longer a 'better test team than England' or even Sri lanka, they are in severe decline and only living on past victories. Surely you can see that 4-0 in England, now what I expect to be 4-0 in Aus I am afraid that you and many Indian posters like you are in denial and far too attached to a one day win, that in the eyes of real cricket fans matters little. When England Tour India later this year, I expect to see a hard fought series only because of a large home advantage and even then I expect England to win it either 1-0 or 2-1 If to stop all you whingers we played India on a neutral venue to prove superiority, we would quite frankly slaughter you, until you stop looking at your navel and make changes, it will only get worse as sides like us, SA and a newly emerging Aus side get better and better

No way. In India Sadagopan Ramesh, Murali Vijay etc have kicked asses of Oz bowlers who were the good bowlers of that time.

[deathmonger]

No you idiot' date=' we are a small cricketing country, you have 1.2 billion to choose from[/quote'] No matter how many ppl are there 11 will play. Also 1.2 billion ppl follow cricket not play it. If population were a criteria how come you got owned by the Indies in 2009?

[wobblydoggy]

No matter how many ppl are there 11 will play. Also 1.2 billion ppl follow cricket not play it. If population were a criteria how come you got owned by the Indies in 2009?

Because half our test team was ill and our captain was having a bust up with the coach, a bit like you guys now with your big 5 players hardly talking to Fletcher. See any similarities?

[vvvslaxman]

Nothing to do with race young man. Just haven't got the talent.

Ashes teams are good only in Ashes lands. Not in subcontinent.

[Sundar88]

I think people find us arrogant because we speak our minds about our home as well as away sides. Indians are more reserved true, but it takes a lot to make a world

I just find Test Cricket "purists" annoying. If you think Test Cricket is a superior form of Cricket that's your personal opinion. I personally give equal importance to all forms of Cricket, slightly higher importance to world cup wins than the no.1 test rank. If the Test Championship I'd treat it as a world cup as well. If you're going to objectively judge which country has been better overall in the sport of Cricket you have to take all formats into account, you cannot give preference to Test Cricket just because you like that format more. I used to hate the Indian public for the same reason I now hate the English public. However, the Indian public at least didn't diss formats of Cricket we weren't good at, probably because we've been decent in every format unlike England who have always been a poor ODI side.

[deathmonger]

Because half our test team was ill and our captain was having a bust up with the coach, a bit like you guys now with your big 5 players hardly talking to Fletcher. See any similarities?

we won in indies.

[Sundar88]

No you idiot' date=' we are a small cricketing country, you have 1.2 billion to choose from[/quote'] Learn to read idiot, it was a joke referring to Special K's post calling India and Sri Lanka "small" cricketing nations. I did not claim India was a small country lmfao. So what if we have a higher population? You've been playing Cricket for much longer and you have 3 teams (England, Ireland and Scotland). Don't give me that "Ireland and Scotland are separate countries" crap, I'm not buying that, the real reason is that you suck and send multiple teams to increase your chances of winning. China and the USA haven't been very successful in Soccer despite their populations either.

[daryl1985]

Learn to read idiot, it was a joke referring to Special K's post calling India and Sri Lanka "small" cricketing nations. I did not claim India was a small country lmfao. So what if we have a higher population? You've been playing Cricket for much longer and you have 3 teams (England, Ireland and Scotland). Don't give me that "Ireland and Scotland are separate countries" crap, I'm not buying that, the real reason is that you suck and send multiple teams to increase your chances of winning. China and the USA haven't been very successful in Soccer despite their populations either.

Ireland is not part of the UK. Football (soccer) is not the number 1 spot in China or the USA.

[Nova]

Test cricket is joke cricket. The Ashes barely gets a mention over here. The matches all get televised but nobody cares less. The CWC is riight up there with the second coming of jesus. Only countries where cricket is a small part time sport like England and Oz care about Test cricket.

What? Well can't blame you really. Most of the country is going towards instant gratification. :headshake:

[howzatandall]

Because half our test team was ill and our captain was having a bust up with the coach, a bit like you guys now with your big 5 players hardly talking to Fletcher. See any similarities?

Come on now you are fibbing, there were no illnesses and Strauss was captain - not Pietersen, there was no bust up with the coach on the West Indies tour.

[jonas10]

Poor fella still doesn't get it. ODI cricket is joke cricket. The CWC barely gets a mention over here. The matches all get televised but nobody cares less. The ashes is right up there with the football world cup. Only small cricket countries like Sri Lanka and India care about ODI cricket. Australai has won it 4 times and their fans care more about the ashes. So it isn't sour grapes with them. Let me guess, their excuse is they've won it too much so don't care.:punter:

ODI cricket being a joke is your opinion. Youre quite cocky for being the supporter of a country that has been the #1 test country for not even a year. To top this you guys have always sucked at ODIs l:hysterical: I dont blame you and the Swanns for wanting to end them. Basicially in the 21st century people dont have 5 days to watch sporting matches anymore so thats why the are the most popular. Maybe the chaps in london do since you guys are defualting it seems every week in Europe. You guys suck at the most popular format of the game ODIs. LOL your bloody queen met the West Indies winning side, hosted the first 3 world cups etc. Yet you claim no one cares about ODIs/WC in England?? Ummm maybe cause you guys are about the equivalent of Bangladesh and Ireland...no scratch that lol I got an awesome Idea..if you dont wanna play India in tests dont. Play Australia and only Australia. India will improve in tests the way they have in ODIs and there will be plenty more Nasser Hussains/Tony Greig/KP mercenaries you guys can recruit to your test team this decade since your own indigenous population is pathetic in the sport. LOL at the cocky brit...bragging about Ashes this is a 2 nation tournament against a former colony in a sport that English have invented yet only managed to win 25% of the time. Pathetic. :hatsoff:

[special K]

ODI cricket being a joke is your opinion. Youre quite cocky for being the supporter of a country that has been the #1 test country for not even a year. To top this you guys have always sucked at ODIs l:hysterical: I dont blame you and the Swanns for wanting to end them. Basicially in the 21st century people dont have 5 days to watch sporting matches anymore so thats why the are the most popular. Maybe the chaps in london do since you guys are defualting it seems every week in Europe. You guys suck at the most popular format of the game ODIs. LOL your bloody queen met the West Indies winning side, hosted the first 3 world cups etc. Yet you claim no one cares about ODIs/WC in England?? Ummm maybe cause you guys are about the equivalent of Bangladesh and Ireland...no scratch that lol I got an awesome Idea..if you dont wanna play India in tests dont. Play Australia and only Australia. India will improve in tests the way they have in ODIs and there will be plenty more Nasser Hussains/Tony Greig/KP mercenaries you guys can recruit to your test team this decade since your own indigenous population is pathetic in the sport. LOL at the cocky brit...bragging about Ashes this is a 2 nation tournament against a former colony in a sport that English have invented yet only managed to win 25% of the time. Pathetic. :hatsoff:

What's India's win percentage against Aus? Actually it's worse against us. ODI's is the weakest form of cricket. The legends were judged on their ability in test matches. The best sloggers play 20/20. ODI cricket is neither here nor there. It's says a lot about the inferiority of ODI cricket. You say England lost to Bangladesh whcih is true, but what you fail to point out was so did the great Australian teams. You can be a less quality team and cause an upset in ODI's. India have been causing a lot of upsets against us in ODI cricket recently, but it's inferior form of cricket. Let me tell you. After the Ashes 5-0 whitewash we suffered, we went on to win the ODI tri- series in Aus with NZ and Aus. Nobody cared about it. We won the ashes last year down under but lost the ODI series 6-1. Still nobody cared.

[special K]

I just find Test Cricket "purists" annoying. If you think Test Cricket is a superior form of Cricket that's your personal opinion. I personally give equal importance to all forms of Cricket, slightly higher importance to world cup wins than the no.1 test rank. If the Test Championship I'd treat it as a world cup as well. If you're going to objectively judge which country has been better overall in the sport of Cricket you have to take all formats into account, you cannot give preference to Test Cricket just because you like that format more. I used to hate the Indian public for the same reason I now hate the English public. However, the Indian public at least didn't diss formats of Cricket we weren't good at, probably because we've been decent in every format unlike England who have always been a poor ODI side.

Right take all formats into account. We have a better head to heads record against you in tests and 20/20. So we are the superior cricket country.:dancing::dancing::dancing:

[1983-2011]

first try to beat pakistan in UAE, then blow your trumpets!!! i have a feeling that pakistan are going to grind out 1-0 win in test series

[1983-2011]

try to win something with home grown players instead of imports

[Sundar88]

Ireland is not part of the UK. Football (soccer) is not the number 1 spot in China or the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Football

[Sundar88]

What's India's win percentage against Aus? Actually it's worse against us. ODI's is the weakest form of cricket. The legends were judged on their ability in test matches. The best sloggers play 20/20. ODI cricket is neither here nor there. It's says a lot about the inferiority of ODI cricket. You say England lost to Bangladesh whcih is true, but what you fail to point out was so did the great Australian teams. You can be a less quality team and cause an upset in ODI's. India have been causing a lot of upsets against us in ODI cricket recently, but it's inferior form of cricket. Let me tell you. After the Ashes 5-0 whitewash we suffered, we went on to win the ODI tri- series in Aus with NZ and Aus. Nobody cared about it. We won the ashes last year down under but lost the ODI series 6-1. Still nobody cared.

I've already pointed out to you several times that the reason why England has a high win % against India is because many of those wins came several decades ago when India was just starting out in Cricket. In modern times the stats would be a lot closer, England hasn't won a series in India since 1985. What's the point in having a higher win % if you can't perform when it matters (world cups) anyway. EVERY team has a poor win % against Australia. Nobody is talking about ODI bilateral series here, we're talking about World Cups which really are the pinnacle of every major world sport. The ultimate achievement in ODI cricket is to win the world cup, since Test Cricket does not have a world cup the ultimate goal is to try and win as many test series as possible and become the no.1 test team. Once the test Championship comes along rankings may not be that important (apart from determining which teams will participate). England have only ever been competitive in Test Cricket, whereas India have been good at both formats. You may consider Test Cricket a superior form of Cricket but if you're going to objectively compare two teams you have to take all forms of Cricket into account because regardless of whether you like them or not, ODI's are also a form of Cricket. Besides, it's not like England have dominated Test Cricket for years, they've only JUST become no.1. Like I've said earlier India have held the no.1 test rank way longer than England have as of now.

[daryl1985]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Football

Fair enough.

[jonas10]

What's India's win percentage against Aus? Actually it's worse against us. ODI's is the weakest form of cricket. The legends were judged on their ability in test matches. The best sloggers play 20/20. ODI cricket is neither here nor there. It's says a lot about the inferiority of ODI cricket. You say England lost to Bangladesh whcih is true, but what you fail to point out was so did the great Australian teams. You can be a less quality team and cause an upset in ODI's. India have been causing a lot of upsets against us in ODI cricket recently, but it's inferior form of cricket. Let me tell you. After the Ashes 5-0 whitewash we suffered, we went on to win the ODI tri- series in Aus with NZ and Aus. Nobody cared about it. We won the ashes last year down under but lost the ODI series 6-1. Still nobody cared.

Okay Special K, let me explain it to you in quite simple terms. You commenting that ODIs mean nothing? Fine that is your opinion. Thats fantastic if people dont care about it in London. Quite frankly people dont care much for cricket in England compared to 40 years ago. Thats your opinion. Rest of the world India, Pakistan, Australia, West Indies SAF etc all love ODIS T20 etc. Maybe they dont in England fine. Your opinion. Next point the great test players - we agree no need to compare ODI/T20 players since its a no contest in Indias favour. Your point on India having a poorer record against Australia in tests well taken. But youre claiming a team that has a 25% record against Australia is good enough to play tests and them alone. What exactly is your measuring bar? 25%? :hysterical: Next, who are Englands great test batsmen last 30 years? Any Tendulkars, Dravids, Sehwags, Laxmans? Bowlers that take a few hundred wickets? LOL even Bhajji has 400. We can bring the Pakistanis in on this too since you feel its your right to "expel" them from test. LOL you guys dont have any Wasims or Imrans of your own. Who do you have that is a "great"? Flintoff?? :haha: Test players India/Pakistan last 35-40 years way better than English players only Botham i can put at the greats level. Too many to name. India were humiliated in England no doubt. Same thing is happening in Australia. IT HAS BEEN AN AWFUL TEST 12 MONTHS!! No arguements there. LOL but you guys havent won an away series against us in DECADES. We beat you it seems like yesterday. I didnt run in here claiming we should "kick England out" lol where will all the SAFER rejects and Nasser play then? :hysterical: I have no doubt India will bounce back in a few years, GET BACK their #1 test rank theyve kept much longer and do it with an all Indian team. Thats right...after Kumble retired no huge cash offer from BCCI to Bishoo to play here...no offer to Rampaul etc. Dont you find it truely truely pathetic that a country like England cant even field a full English born squad? They have to rely on foreigners since their own quality is so poor? India/Pakistan/SA/WI/Australia etc can take credit in fielding indigenous squads. Only countries like Canada and England are required to have as much foreign players to field a respectable side. Very sad that England is in league with Canada. At the end of the day you have zero relevant arguments. I'll explain to you the difference in fact and opinion. Below are facts that we both agree upon. As well my opinion. Facts: India has an all Indian team - something the English cannot and dare not ever try. India has beaten England many times in India. Also done in England quite recently a few years ago! England havent beaten India in India in most of our lifetimes. India have been the #1 test team for much longer than England! Opinion: India have the better test players last 2 generations. India is the vastly superior limited overs side. ODI cricket is the most exciting format. Most India test matches I just wanna watch Sehwag bat and go to sleep as im in Canada. Greatest test match ever India beating the "invincible" Australians in Eden Gardens 2001. (Something England cant even comprehend)

[special K]

I'm not bothering to go through all that again. I explained it all in previous posts. The only reason you batsman and bowlers have more runs and wickets is because personal milestones ean more to India then success. If KP started test cricket at 17 and retired at 39 how many runs do you think he'd have? Same as Swann in terms of bowling, he'd have about 600 plus wickets by now. The list goes on and on.