special K Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 who used to use lame excuses like "we are football fan nation" not long ago. India can't use this excuse.
Sundar88 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 No s***. Australia and England are credited with inventing Cricket so they are supposed to be best at it. However, despite this England have managed only ONE ICC trophy so far and even that was only a world T20 event which is played every 2 years as opposed to the world cup or Champions Trophy which are played every 4 years. That's an abysmal record considering they invented the game. Every subcontinent team, even Sri Lanka who were never considered a top team until their 1996 world cup win have more ICC trophies than England. Also note that England have hosted more ICC tournaments than any other country which shows they really are terrible at the world stage even in conditions that favor them. The only reason England gloat about being the best in Test Cricket is because they know they will never be competitive in the other formats. It's no wonder the so called "United Kingdom" sends separate teams from England, Ireland and Scotland to sporting events. They know they have a poor chance of winning anything significant with 1 team so they send multiple teams to increase their chances and still fail. Don't even get me started about English football, the last time they won the world cup in that sport was way back in 1966 despite inventing that game as well. The only reason I even watch the FIFA world cup is to watch England supporters and commentators hype their team and then weep after they get thrashed time and again, it's hilarious. While I've got nothing against test cricket and am disappointed to see India not doing well in it of late, Test Cricket is a dying and inherently boring format of Cricket. If this was not the case ODI and T20 cricket wouldn't exist. I'd rather India wins more global tournaments like the world cup than win just bilateral series (in any format) like England and SA do. The reason England have won twice as many test matches as India have against them is mainly because many of those matches were played several decades ago when India were fairly new to International Cricket. If you consider recent head-to-head records I bet the win/loss ratio would be much less one-sided. The last time India won a series in England was in 2007 whereas the last time England won a series in India was way back in 1985. India have also won a world cup in England and made the finals of the 2003 world cup in South Africa. Yes, India do struggle in England, Australia and South Africa but most of these teams also struggle when they play in the subcontinent, the only exception being Australia who have managed to excel all around the world. South Africa have also performed better in India than India have in South Africa but until they win a world cup they will never be considered a top team. England on the other hand have been notoriously poor in Indian conditions. Just look at how dominant they were at home against India and how poor they were when they played India a month later in India. If you don't believe this just watch what happens when England comes over to India this year (or next year, not sure when) to play the tests and ODI's. India were the no.1 test team for almost 2 years whereas England have been no.1 for how long, 4 months? Overall I'd say the subcontinent teams have done pretty well and have achieved a lot more success than England, South Africa and New Zealand have despite playing the game for a much shorter time than most of those countries. The only country that has consistently done well and can be considered the best overall is Australia.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Is 15 years long enough? Yeah West Indies had a period in 70's/80's when they dominated. England struggled in the 90's. Now both teams are back to being the top and near the top for Aus. Apart from those three decades those two were the strongest teams. SA had a brief period in the late 60's but were blocked from playing cause of apartheid. So 130 years of test cricket and these two have been the top for a 100 of them. lol leave the discussion for a minute and tell me why are poms so humble?:hmmm:
special K Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 We are humble. I'm just stating facts.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 We are humble. I'm just stating facts. why?:haha:
f.b.m Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 At least this troll is better than Dravid the Wall..
Old guy Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 No s***. Australia and England are credited with inventing Cricket so they are supposed to be best at it. However, despite this England have managed only ONE ICC trophy so far and even that was only a world T20 event which is played every 2 years as opposed to the world cup or Champions Trophy which are played every 4 years. That's an abysmal record considering they invented the game. Every subcontinent team, even Sri Lanka who were never considered a top team until their 1996 world cup win have more ICC trophies than England. Also note that England have hosted more ICC tournaments than any other country which shows they really are terrible at the world stage even in conditions that favor them. The only reason England gloat about being the best in Test Cricket is because they know they will never be competitive in the other formats. It's no wonder the so called "United Kingdom" sends separate teams from England, Ireland and Scotland to sporting events. They know they have a poor chance of winning anything significant with 1 team so they send multiple teams to increase their chances and still fail. Don't even get me started about English football, the last time they won the world cup in that sport was way back in 1966 despite inventing that game as well. The only reason I even watch the FIFA world cup is to watch England supporters and commentators hype their team and then weep after they get thrashed time and again, it's hilarious. While I've got nothing against test cricket and am disappointed to see India not doing well in it of late, Test Cricket is a dying and inherently boring format of Cricket. If this was not the case ODI and T20 cricket wouldn't exist. I'd rather India wins more global tournaments like the world cup than win just bilateral series (in any format) like England and SA do. The reason England have won twice as many test matches as India have against them is mainly because many of those matches were played several decades ago when India were fairly new to International Cricket. If you consider recent head-to-head records I bet the win/loss ratio would be much less one-sided. The last time India won a series in England was in 2007 whereas the last time England won a series in India was way back in 1985. India have also won a world cup in England and made the finals of the 2003 world cup in South Africa. Yes, India do struggle in England, Australia and South Africa but most of these teams also struggle when they play in the subcontinent, the only exception being Australia who have managed to excel all around the world. South Africa have also performed better in India than India have in South Africa but until they win a world cup they will never be considered a top team. England on the other hand have been notoriously poor in Indian conditions. Just look at how dominant they were at home against India and how poor they were when they played India a month later in India. If you don't believe this just watch what happens when England comes over to India this year (or next year, not sure when) to play the tests and ODI's. India were the no.1 test team for almost 2 years whereas England have been no.1 for how long, 4 months? Overall I'd say the subcontinent teams have done pretty well and have achieved a lot more success than England, South Africa and New Zealand have despite playing the game for a much shorter time than most of those countries. The only country that has consistently done well and can be considered the best overall is Australia. :haha::haha::haha::haha::cantstop::cantstop: so they send multiple teams cant stop and its true and in each team they import players from all other countries they should be banned from being called england!
special K Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 why?:haha: This forum needs an unbiased view from a neutral.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 This forum needs an unbiased view from a neutral. lol trust me.. there arem any unbaised people who actually defend england.. trolls like u make them go against them.. im being honest im the one who siad they are the best side right now.. deserve no 1... dont u have anything better to do ? how bad is ur life to come here when ur at top and troll how bad could it be feel bad for ya!
daryl1985 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 No s***. Australia and England are credited with inventing Cricket so they are supposed to be best at it. However, despite this England have managed only ONE ICC trophy so far and even that was only a world T20 event which is played every 2 years as opposed to the world cup or Champions Trophy which are played every 4 years. That's an abysmal record considering they invented the game. Every subcontinent team, even Sri Lanka who were never considered a top team until their 1996 world cup win have more ICC trophies than England. Also note that England have hosted more ICC tournaments than any other country which shows they really are terrible at the world stage even in conditions that favor them. The only reason England gloat about being the best in Test Cricket is because they know they will never be competitive in the other formats. It's no wonder the so called "United Kingdom" sends separate teams from England, Ireland and Scotland to sporting events. They know they have a poor chance of winning anything significant with 1 team so they send multiple teams to increase their chances and still fail. Don't even get me started about English football, the last time they won the world cup in that sport was way back in 1966 despite inventing that game as well. The only reason I even watch the FIFA world cup is to watch England supporters and commentators hype their team and then weep after they get thrashed time and again, it's hilarious. While I've got nothing against test cricket and am disappointed to see India not doing well in it of late, Test Cricket is a dying and inherently boring format of Cricket. If this was not the case ODI and T20 cricket wouldn't exist. I'd rather India wins more global tournaments like the world cup than win just bilateral series (in any format) like England and SA do. The reason England have won twice as many test matches as India have against them is mainly because many of those matches were played several decades ago when India were fairly new to International Cricket. If you consider recent head-to-head records I bet the win/loss ratio would be much less one-sided. The last time India won a series in England was in 2007 whereas the last time England won a series in India was way back in 1985. India have also won a world cup in England and made the finals of the 2003 world cup in South Africa. Yes, India do struggle in England, Australia and South Africa but most of these teams also struggle when they play in the subcontinent, the only exception being Australia who have managed to excel all around the world. South Africa have also performed better in India than India have in South Africa but until they win a world cup they will never be considered a top team. England on the other hand have been notoriously poor in Indian conditions. Just look at how dominant they were at home against India and how poor they were when they played India a month later in India. If you don't believe this just watch what happens when England comes over to India this year (or next year, not sure when) to play the tests and ODI's. India were the no.1 test team for almost 2 years whereas England have been no.1 for how long, 4 months? Overall I'd say the subcontinent teams have done pretty well and have achieved a lot more success than England, South Africa and New Zealand have despite playing the game for a much shorter time than most of those countries. The only country that has consistently done well and can be considered the best overall is Australia. No it is because there are 4 separate countries in the UK but the UK is a political entity.
Chalks Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 who used to use lame excuses like "we are football fan nation" not long ago. and they're not much good at that either. Just one World Cup, and that too nearly half a century ago. :hysterical:
Sundar88 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 No it is because there are 4 separate countries in the UK but the UK is a political entity. I don't buy that argument. For all intents and purposes, the rest of the world recognizes the United Kingdom as one nation. The real reason why they send separate teams is the one I've mentioned. They really should just send one British team to world cups and world T20's which will allow more associate teams to participate in these events and help Cricket grow.
deathmonger Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I just wanted somebody to talk to. Ooooooooooooooooh. No one wants to be friends with you in real life. :((
daryl1985 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I don't buy that argument. For all intents and purposes' date=' the rest of the world recognizes the United Kingdom as one nation. [b']The real reason why they send separate teams is the one I've mentioned. They really should just send one British team to world cups and world T20's which will allow more associate teams to participate in these events and help Cricket grow. You are very wrong. Welsh, Scottish and the Catholic population of Northern Ireland all dislike the English so a UK team in all sports would never work.
special K Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 I don't buy that argument. For all intents and purposes, the rest of the world recognizes the United Kingdom as one nation. The real reason why they send separate teams is the one I've mentioned. They really should just send one British team to world cups and world T20's which will allow more associate teams to participate in these events and help Cricket grow. Wales is already joined up with England. England and Wales cricket board. Northern Ireland doesn't play cricket and doesn't care for it. That just leaves Scotland who are getting a referendum for independence and would refuse to join England at anything.
special K Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 and they're not much good at that either. Just one World Cup' date=' and that too nearly half a century ago. :hysterical:[/quote'] Are good are India at football mister? How many olympic medals will India get later this year. Will they break their record of one?
daryl1985 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Are good are India at football mister? How many olympic medals will India get later this year. Will they break their record of one? No but India have never claimed to be the best in the world which England often have before getting knocked out in the quarter finals of a major tournament.
Sundar88 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 You are very wrong. Welsh' date=' Scottish and the Catholic population of Northern Ireland all dislike the English so a UK team in all sports would never work.[/quote'] Many North Indians dislike South Indians and many South Indians dislike North Indians as well. The eastern states of India are hardly ever represented in anything so by your logic India should send 3 teams to world cups. On a serious note, whether British people can get along with each other or not is their problem, the rest of the world does not give a hoot to be honest. They have one Prime Minister and presumably one embassy, allowing them to have multiple sports teams is just unfair.
daryl1985 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Many North Indians dislike South Indians and many South Indians dislike North Indians as well. The eastern states of India are hardly ever represented in anything so by your logic India should send 3 teams to world cups. On a serious note, whether British people can get along with each other or not is their problem, the rest of the world does not give a hoot to be honest. They have one Prime Minister and presumably one embassy, allowing them to have multiple sports teams is just unfair. They are separate countries. It is different to India.
special K Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 No but India have never claimed to be the best in the world which England often have before getting knocked out in the quarter finals of a major tournament. Our media claims this. Even they've given that up. We're always in or near the top 10 in rankings football anway.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now