Ashes teams only real test playing nations.

[jairamesh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/cricket/england_v_new_zealand/427262.stm

Ranked lower than Zimbabwe!, classic, Ashes the epitome of Test cricket. August 1999. :hehe: ^^^^^^ :hysterical:

[Sundar88]

If the subcontinent teams should be banned from Test Cricket as a result of not being able to win outside their countries, England should have been banned from ODI cricket decades ago. In fact England should have been banned from Cricket altogether based on their form in the 90's.

[special K]

If the subcontinent teams should be banned from Test Cricket as a result of not being able to win outside their countries, England should have been banned from ODI cricket decades ago. In fact England should have been banned from Cricket altogether based on their form in the 90's.

And yet even in the 90's we never took as big a mauling as India are now. Even away to Australia in the 90's we'd win the odd test match. And that was one of our worst ever teams against one of their greatest. India playing an average Aus side and getting owned.

[Sundar88]

Yeah this seems quite racist young man. And you accuse me of being racist.:clap: Anyway, I mean both ashes teams have the best win/loss ratio of any test teams.

That is because those those teams have played Cricket for a much longer time than the others. In Australia's case they have no doubt been dominant consistently, England however have only recently started competing with the top teams after a long slump during the 80's and 90's. Win/Loss records in bilateral series are irrelevant if your team is not able to perform in global tournaments like world cups. I'd rather support a team that has a poor win/loss record against most teams as long as it wins world cups, than a team that wins meaningless bilateral matches but flops at the world stage.

[deathmonger]

And yet even in the 90's we never took as big a mauling as India are now. Even away to Australia in the 90's we'd win the odd test match. And that was one of our worst ever teams against one of their greatest. India playing an average Aus side and getting owned.

even if we get whitewashed our scoreline will be better than the 2006-07 one. :yay:

[Sundar88]

And yet even in the 90's we never took as big a mauling as India are now. Even away to Australia in the 90's we'd win the odd test match. And that was one of our worst ever teams against one of their greatest. India playing an average Aus side and getting owned.

A win is a win and a defeat is a defeat, the margin of defeat is not as relevant. Who cares if England won a test match or two as long as they still lost the series? India have played poorly for a period of about 6 months whereas England's slump lasted well over a decade, there is no comparison. England lost their last two ODI series in India 5-0 and have not won a series in India since 1985. England lost to Ireland and Bangladesh in last year's world cup and almost lost to Holland, and have never won a single ICC trophy in ODI's EVER. Therefore England should be banned from ODI Cricket before subcontinent teams are banned from Test Cricket since subcontinent teams are at least dominant at home in test cricket and occasionally win overseas as well.

[special K]

even if we get whitewashed our scoreline will be better than the 2006-07 one. :yay:

It's getting equalled when you next tour over here. You play us in a 5 test series. More pain for you chaps. ho ho ho

[special K]

A win is a win and a defeat is a defeat, the margin of defeat is not as relevant. Who cares if England won a test match or two as long as they still lost the series? India have played poorly for a period of about 6 months whereas England's slump lasted well over a decade, there is no comparison. England lost their last two ODI series in India 5-0 and have not won a series in India since 1985. England lost to Ireland and Bangladesh in last year's world cup and almost lost to Holland, and have never won a single ICC trophy in ODI's EVER. Therefore England should be banned from ODI Cricket before subcontinent teams are banned from Test Cricket since subcontinent teams are at least dominant at home in test cricket and occasionally win overseas as well.

ODI's are crap. But recently in ODI's we've won home series against India, Aus, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Also beat South Africa away. Not that it really means much.

[Sundar88]

ODI's are crap. But recently in ODI's we've won home series against India, Aus, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Also beat South Africa away. Not that it really means much.

Repeating yourself won't make your point anymore meaningful. You may think ODI's don't matter (though I'm convinced you're just saying that because England are terrible at it) but clearly the ICC and majority of Cricket followers think otherwise. If Test Cricket indeed was the best format of Cricket ODI's and T20's wouldn't have been introduced to prevent the sport from dying slowly but surely. Like I said earlier the ICC itself considers the ODI world cup to be THE most important event in Cricket and England have never won it. Winning bilateral series is meaningless if you're never going to win at the highest level. Even in Test Cricket the only time England were any good was several decades ago when there were only two teams that played the game. They were a very poor side throughout the 90's and only recently have they become the no.1 test team for a period of about 4 months. India on the other hand have excelled in all formats of Cricket, winning 2 world cups a Champions Trophy and being the no.1 test team for a period of 22 months. India = 2 world cups, a champions trophy, a world t20, no.1 test team for 22 months. England = a world t20, no.1 test team for 4 months. I rest my case.

[special K]

Repeating yourself won't make your point anymore meaningful. You may think ODI's don't matter (though I'm convinced you're just saying that because England are terrible at it) but clearly the ICC and majority of Cricket followers think otherwise. If Test Cricket indeed was the best format of Cricket ODI's and T20's wouldn't have been introduced to prevent the sport from dying slowly but surely. Like I said earlier the ICC itself considers the ODI world cup to be THE most important event in Cricket and England have never won it. Winning bilateral series is meaningless if you're never going to win at the highest level. Even in Test Cricket the only time England were any good was several decades ago when there were only two teams that played the game. They were a very poor side throughout the 90's and only recently have they become the no.1 test team for a period of about 4 months. India on the other hand have excelled in all formats of Cricket, winning 2 world cups a Champions Trophy and being the no.1 test team for a period of 22 months. India = 2 world cups, a champions trophy, a world t20, no.1 test team for 22 months. England = a world t20, no.1 test team for 4 months. I rest my case.

ODI cricket is not bigger the test cricket. All the legends were judged by how they did at test level not ODI level. ODI's is like 5 a side football. When the test championship coes along ODI's will largely be irrelevent. 20/20 is taking over fro ODI's anyway. Even that is way inferior to tests.

[Sundar88]

ODI cricket is not bigger the test cricket. All the legends were judged by how they did at test level not ODI level. ODI's is like 5 a side football. When the test championship coes along ODI's will largely be irrelevent. 20/20 is taking over fro ODI's anyway. Even that is way inferior to tests.

It doesn't matter what you think about ODI cricket because the governing body of Cricket (the ICC) considers the ODI world cup to be THE most important event in Cricket and England have never won it whereas India have won it twice. Besides there are several players like Sanath Jayasuriya, Sourav Ganguly, Inzamam Ul-Haq, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds and Lance Klusener who didn't do particularly well at the test level but are still considered all-time greats due to their performances in ODI cricket. The Test Championship won't be played until 2017 and it remains to be seen if it will be played even then. There is a reason why the T20 cup is called the world T20 and not a world cup. It is also played once every 2 years as opposed to once every 4 years. T20 cricket is not taking over ODI cricket at all, the ICC have already stated several times that every form of Cricket has its place. T20 will not replace ODI cricket. The only "inferior" form of Cricket is test Cricket because it cannot sustain itself, which is why ODI's and T20's were introduced to attract more viewership and prevent Cricket from dying. Australia and England are the countries that claim to value Test Cricket the most but it was in these countries where ODI's and T20's were initially introduced, which shows just how viable Test Cricket is as a sport.

[deathmonger]

ODI cricket is not bigger the test cricket. All the legends were judged by how they did at test level not ODI level. ODI's is like 5 a side football. When the test championship coes along ODI's will largely be irrelevent. 20/20 is taking over fro ODI's anyway. Even that is way inferior to tests.

Even in test cricket you are hardly great. At top for a few months, that too in conditions suitable to them. Let's see how England does in Asia. I won't be surprised if plenty of players drop out due to depression.:giggle:

[Sachinism]

Can't believe an obvious troll got this many replies :headshake:

[BERGKAMP]

wow i must compliment your trolling stamina. you are like the duracell bunny just keep going and going spouting your crap. on another note, as english football fans chant at times - YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WINNING SING WHEN YOUR WINNING YOU ONLY SING WHEN YOUR WINNINGGG WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU WERE SHIITT? WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU WERE SHIITTT? you are a jonny come lately part time piss taker, nowhere to be seen for the past 18 months while we were on top, now we have turned shite you are spreading faster than a deadly cancer.

[special K]

It doesn't matter what you think about ODI cricket because the governing body of Cricket (the ICC) considers the ODI world cup to be THE most important event in Cricket and England have never won it whereas India have won it twice. Besides there are several players like Sanath Jayasuriya, Sourav Ganguly, Inzamam Ul-Haq, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds and Lance Klusener who didn't do particularly well at the test level but are still considered all-time greats due to their performances in ODI cricket. The Test Championship won't be played until 2017 and it remains to be seen if it will be played even then. There is a reason why the T20 cup is called the world T20 and not a world cup. It is also played once every 2 years as opposed to once every 4 years. T20 cricket is not taking over ODI cricket at all, the ICC have already stated several times that every form of Cricket has its place. T20 will not replace ODI cricket. The only "inferior" form of Cricket is test Cricket because it cannot sustain itself, which is why ODI's and T20's were introduced to attract more viewership and prevent Cricket from dying. Australia and England are the countries that claim to value Test Cricket the most but it was in these countries where ODI's and T20's were introduced, which shows just how viable Test Cricket is as a sport.

None of those players you've mentioned will go down as legends. 20/20 is called a world cup. So we've won a world cup at cricket only we don't care about it unlike Indians. This is because you minnows can't win a series in SA or Aus so you big up meaningless ODI series. We sent our bowling reserves out to India, we don't care for these slogfests.

[Sundar88]

None of those players you've mentioned will go down as legends. 20/20 is called a world cup. So we've won a world cup at cricket only we don't care about it unlike Indians. This is because you minnows can't win a series in SA or Aus so you big up meaningless ODI series. We sent our bowling reserves out to India' date=' we don't care for these slogfests.[/quote'] " 20/20 is called a world cup. So we've won a world cup at cricket only we don't care about it unlike Indians." No you have NOT won a world cup in Cricket ever, I've already mentioned why the world T20 is not considered a world cup in my previous post but even if you count it as a world cup win, that only makes England 1 time world champs whereas India are still 3 time world champs, in addition to the 2002 Champions Trophy of which India and Sri Lanka were announced joint winners. "None of those players you've mentioned will go down as legends." I'm pretty sure majority of Cricket followers consider Jayasuriya as one of the best all rounders of all time and Michael Bevan as one of the best run chasers of all time. But even if these players are not considered legends, how does it matter? We're not talking about players here, we're talking about TEAMS. "This is because you minnows can't win a series in SA or Aus so you big up meaningless ODI series." What meaningless ODI series? I'm talking about the world cup which the ICC itself considers the PINNACLE of Cricket. It is YOU who keeps bringing up meaningless bilateral series. Yes we haven't won a TEST series in SA or Aus but we've won in other formats. Head-to-Head records aren't as relevant in the larger scheme of things as compared to world cup wins. Brazil is considered to be the best at Soccer because they've won more world cups than anyone else, teams like Holland, Portugal and Spain have all done well consistently but are not considered as good because they haven't won enough titles on the world stage. Similarly, teams like England and South Africa are mere pretenders until they win something significant on the world level. In fact England should be ashamed of their performance in Cricket, all they've managed in all these years of Cricket is a world T20 win. Even Sri Lanka has done better than that. I'd wager a few decades down the line even Bangladesh would sport more ICC silverware than England. "We sent our bowling reserves out to India, we don't care for these slogfests." England hasn't won a series of ANY kind in India since 1985 whereas I remember at least 2 instances where India won in England post 2000, in 2002 and 2007. India have also won a world cup in England. Look at the averages and strike rates of England's main bowlers in the subcontinent and you will realize why England chose not to send them to India this time around, so they wouldn't be demoralized. Don't forget, England will be touring India sometime in 2012/2013, we shall see how they fare.

[jonas10]

ODI cricket is not bigger the test cricket. All the legends were judged by how they did at test level not ODI level. ODI's is like 5 a side football. When the test championship coes along ODI's will largely be irrelevent. 20/20 is taking over fro ODI's anyway. Even that is way inferior to tests.

England now basically does what the Darkies in India tell them to do and they cant take it l:hysterical: Anyways best of luck to your Saffer mercenary team against the Padosis. Ill be cheering for the Padosis.

[special K]

Let's forget about ODI cricket. It's forcountries who don't know how to play real cricket. Let's get Ireland in tests. They'd be a bigger challenge then India.

[deathmonger]

Let's forget about ODI cricket. It's forcountries who don't know how to play real cricket. Let's get Ireland in tests. They'd be a bigger challenge then India.

Let's forget test cricket. It's a dead form of a game and will disappear in a few years. Let's get Ireland in ODIs. They'd be a bigger challenge then England. (Remember WC 2011)

[howzatandall]

Let's forget about ODI cricket. It's forcountries who don't know how to play real cricket. Let's get Ireland in tests. They'd be a bigger challenge then India.

Ashes is overrated , its been one sided boring series for a long while. Its just commentators who scream its exciting think it will make it so. And the morons who buy tickets fall for it hook line and sinker. The best test series' for a long time does not include the Ashes. Only gullible soap dodgers believe otherwise, the same people who still dine out on 1966.