Nasser Hussain - egg on the face

[1983-2011]

Nasser Hussain is a coconut

[Sean Bradley]

Nasser Hussain Mr. "**** Face" :finger:

[zep1706]

You serious ??? :hysterical::hysterical:

That's the only way Whinga and the Lady get paid :haha:

[ShebbySB]

:WTF: :hysterical::hysterical:

:embaressed_smile:

[ravishingravi]

Nasser isn't anti-Indian cricket like what many people think.

Yeah loves Indians just hates India

[Zero_Unit]

I had to LMAO at Ian Bothom's article ... Walk with chin up bahahahhaha

[Marut]

Walk with chin up - so that it can be smacked!

[achilles]

:haha: You're not the only one mate. Anybody with an Indian background and who tends not to take their Anglo-Australo biased shite is immediately branded upon as my multi there...

Haha. I've read a few of your posts. They are absolutely epic. You are an idol for all anti-British trollers

What's the forum? Would love to go to a english/british cricket forum if one exists.

CW :D

[Ultimate_Game]

Haha. I've read a few of your posts. They are absolutely epic. You are an idol for all anti-British trollers CW :D

CW

[Bumper]

The recent thumpings England received sure serves the likes of Botham and Willis well. But to England's credit, they did compete even while going down. In the games they lost, they won a few sessions and at times looked like winning the test. But we were thoroughly outclassed in our 0-8 mauling. England can make a few improvements to arrest their slide, but we need years to rebuilding to be a serious contender in tests again.

[kabira]

>But we were thoroughly outclassed in our 0-8 mauling. Atleast in 3 test matches we had window of opportunity...

[Chandan]

The recent thumpings England received sure serves the likes of Botham and Willis well. But to England's credit' date=' they did compete even while going down. In the games they lost, they won a few sessions and at times looked like winning the test. But we were thoroughly outclassed in our 0-8 mauling. England can make a few improvements to arrest their slide, but we need years to rebuilding to be a serious contender in tests again.[/quote'] Question is not the comparison of Indian and English team here. It is the simple fact that India were able to keep the No 1 tittle for 20 months, without losing a single series, while England will lose it after 7 months only, losing all the series and matches after getting to the No 1 in tests. At this moment, England team is far better than Indian team because its bowlers are way way better than that of India and batsmen too are not too far behind as our experienced batsmen are retiring/on the verge of retirement are younger batsmen are too inexperienced. But the fact will remain that the GREAT English team were dethroned after just 6 matches, if they fail to win the 2nd test SL while the AVERAGE Indian kept it for more than 20 months, 20+ matches.

[rkt.india]

CW

kirkutweb i think

[Bumper]

Question is not the comparison of Indian and English team here. It is the simple fact that India were able to keep the No 1 tittle for 20 months, without losing a single series, while England will lose it after 7 months only, losing all the series and matches after getting to the No 1 in tests. At this moment, England team is far better than Indian team because its bowlers are way way better than that of India and batsmen too are not too far behind as our experienced batsmen are retiring/on the verge of retirement are younger batsmen are too inexperienced. But the fact will remain that the GREAT English team were dethroned after just 6 matches, if they fail to win the 2nd test SL while the AVERAGE Indian kept it for more than 20 months, 20+ matches.

Chandan, India's #1 status was a house of cards, a myth that was going to be busted sooner or later. We did not have to tour England and Australia during the time we were #1. We sustained the #1 spot by mostly winning games in the subcontinent. Had England had the same luxury, they'd have kept their #1 spot for a bit too longer. Anyways, once you lose the #1 spot, it no longer matters how long you were at the top (unless you dominated for decades). All that matters is whether you can get back to the top again. In England's case, i think the answer is yes. They just need to improve their batting a bit, their bowlers are good enough to keep them in the game all the time.

[rkt.india]

Chandan, India's #1 status was a house of cards, a myth that was going to be busted sooner or later. We did not have to tour England and Australia during the time we were #1. We sustained the #1 spot by mostly winning games in the subcontinent. Had England had the same luxury, they'd have kept their #1 spot for a bit too longer. Anyways, once you lose the #1 spot, it no longer matters how long you were at the top (unless you dominated for decades). All that matters is whether you can get back to the top again. In England's case, i think the answer is yes. They just need to improve their batting a bit, their bowlers are good enough to keep them in the game all the time.

But we had defeated England already in 2007 which helped us reaching #1, drew in SA as well, won in New Zealandl. It was sure not the strongest #1 team, but still they reached #1 because had won. They had lost only 2 series one in Australia and one in SL since 2007, so it was a result of good work done for 3-4 years and it was not like we only did well at home. It is a myth that we became #1 because we only did well at home.

[Chandan]

Chandan, India's #1 status was a house of cards, a myth that was going to be busted sooner or later. We did not have to tour England and Australia during the time we were #1. We sustained the #1 spot by mostly winning games in the subcontinent. Had England had the same luxury, they'd have kept their #1 spot for a bit too longer. Anyways, once you lose the #1 spot, it no longer matters how long you were at the top (unless you dominated for decades). All that matters is whether you can get back to the top again. In England's case, i think the answer is yes. They just need to improve their batting a bit, their bowlers are good enough to keep them in the game all the time.

House pf cards or myth or whatever but it was the same system, no? We reached there accumulating points by visiting England, Australia, SA and other places too, and that is a truth. It is not that we played all the matches for 20 months at home only, and playing at England and Australia is not the only criteria to get to the number one as the ranking will tell you. We sustained the number one spot by playing in NZ, SA, WI and they are not sub continent by any means. We played just one series vs Bangladesh in 2010, one vs SL in 2010, one vs SA in Ind, one vs Aus in India and one vs NZ in India. This much even England plays at home and even they gained the no 1 title at home. So why was their gaining the title not called a pack of cards, a myth etc etc, especially when they blew it within just 2 series away. India kept it for 5 series away, 2 in SC, 3 outside SC and 3 home home series.

[Marut]

But we had defeated England already in 2007 which helped us reaching #1' date=' drew in SA as well, won in New Zealandl. It was sure not the strongest #1 team, but still they reached #1 because had won. They had lost only 2 series one in Australia and one in SL since 2007, so it was a result of good work done for 3-4 years and it was not like we only did well at home. It is a myth that we became #1 because we only did well at home.[/quote'] The main problem seems to be this. WHen India win they win narrowly with lot of struggle and when they loose they get ousted. Let us take the SA tour for example. First test: India 136 and 459; South Africa 620/4d Second test: India 205 and 228; South Africa 131 and 215 Third test: South Africa 362 and 341; India 364 and 166/3 On paper this series may appear like 1-1 draw but India were thoroughly routed in terms of numbers. Is the first test innings loss compensated by a second test relatively narrow win? Note SA score 620/4 - India was innings defeated and SA lost just 4 wickets in that match. India never crush their opponents when on song but themselves get crushed when they get defeated.

[Karan114]

But we had defeated England already in 2007 which helped us reaching #1' date=' drew in SA as well, won in New Zealandl. It was sure not the strongest #1 team, but still they reached #1 because had won. They had lost only 2 series one in Australia and one in SL since 2007, so it was a result of good work done for 3-4 years and it was not like we only did well at home. It is a myth that we became #1 because we only did well at home.[/quote'] Well said. Whatever our debacles since July last year, our no.1 ranking prior to that was entirely deserved.

[Karan114]

The main problem seems to be this. WHen India win they win narrowly with lot of struggle and when they loose they get ousted. Let us take the SA tour for example. First test: India 136 and 459; South Africa 620/4d Second test: India 205 and 228; South Africa 131 and 215 Third test: South Africa 362 and 341; India 364 and 166/3 On paper this series may appear like 1-1 draw but India were thoroughly routed in terms of numbers. Is the first test innings loss compensated by a second test relatively narrow win? Note SA score 620/4 - India was innings defeated and SA lost just 4 wickets in that match. India never crush their opponents when on song but themselves get crushed when they get defeated.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Dude there is no such thing as "looks like a 1-1 draw on paper". Its either 1-1 or it isn't. No one is claiming India were a dominant team who used to crush opponents when they were no.1 (or never lost the odd Test heavily) but this extent of self loathing in trying to claim a 1-1 draw was actually worse than it was is quite incredible.

[saneindian]

The main problem seems to be this. WHen India win they win narrowly with lot of struggle and when they loose they get ousted. Let us take the SA tour for example. First test: India 136 and 459; South Africa 620/4d Second test: India 205 and 228; South Africa 131 and 215 Third test: South Africa 362 and 341; India 364 and 166/3 On paper this series may appear like 1-1 draw but India were thoroughly routed in terms of numbers. Is the first test innings loss compensated by a second test relatively narrow win? Note SA score 620/4 - India was innings defeated and SA lost just 4 wickets in that match. India never crush their opponents when on song but themselves get crushed when they get defeated.

On paper that looks like a draw, but SA were 130/6 and one wicket away from losing that series.