Nasser Hussain - egg on the face

[Marut]

: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.

Do you mwan to say that the fans here would have criticized Indian equallly if our losses to England and Austrialia were closely fought white washes instead of lopsided white washes. The victory or defeat margins themselves do not mean everything, the extent of victory or defeat also matters. India never crush even when they win but when they loose they loose rather heavily.

[Marut]

On paper that looks like a draw' date=' but SA were 130/6 and one wicket away from losing that series.[/quote'] That is a champion side that pulled itself out of trouble and finsihed with honors even.

[Chandan]

That is a champion side that pulled itself out of trouble and finsihed with honors even.

So?

[The Outsider]

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.

Rankings are calculated over a 3-4 years time period and India's ranking had tours to England, South Africa, and Australia all included in it though they only toured South Africa while they were number one. England's number 1 ranking only had a 2 test tour to India in it before these recent Pakistan and Sri Lanka series.

[Cricket Tragic]

Some people on this forum would do well to have a quick look at how the rankings work.

[Karan114]

Do you mwan to say that the fans here would have criticized Indian equallly if our losses to England and Austrialia were closely fought white washes instead of lopsided white washes. The victory or defeat margins themselves do not mean everything' date=' the extent of victory or defeat also matters. India never crush even when they win but when they loose they loose rather heavily.[/quote'] No, I'm not saying victory margins are meaningless. Obviously winning by innings and 50 runs is different to winning by 20 runs. But what I take severe issue is to silly statements like these: The series was drawn, that was the result and that is the result that will forever stand in history - this "just on paper" line of argument is rubbish. If India were "thoroughly routed" then they would have lost 3-0 or at least 2-0 (and we were indeed destroyed 4-0 in Aus and England). As regards India's problems of not crushing opposition, well that's bound to happen when you have such a weak attack historically. Our best bowlers average in the 28-31 range. For a country like Australia, 28-31 is nothing special (no Aussie rates Brett Lee that highly, even though he has 300 wickets at 31 in Tests - that would be a brilliant record by Indian standards) - their all time greats average in the early 20s. You aren't going to be running through teams unless you have brilliant bowlers and we don't.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kabira]

^that was home victory, that doesn't count for sure.

[Chandan]

Nothing much else other than some good old fashioned self loathing . The bleddy crab mentality just wont go away that easily Chandan ... because just few months before that test we won at Mohali vs Aus in surreal fashion against all odds ... don't expect people like Marut to remember them ... you might as well be told how that doesn't count. Stay tuned.

I just can't understand this mentality! If England, Australia, SA, NZ, Pakistan, WI or for that matter any team win at home, it is so impressive, but if India wins at home, or even away home, in the sub-continent, the reaction is ..."oh so what! They won in the sub continent", as if winning here is a piece of cake and winning at home for other countries is like conquering the universe!! Why? Didn't England win against us at their home? Didn't Australia win against us at their home? Why were their victories so impressive and so much talked about? Likewise why were our victories against England in 2008 and Australia in 2010 at home not praised with as much intensity? Why?

[ravishingravi]

I do believe we were a better no. 1 than England have been. However, the embarassment of these defeats does tilt the argument slightly. We were still far from being undisputed no.1. But for this success starved nation, it was good enough.

[Cricket Tragic]

I just can't understand this mentality! If England, Australia, SA, NZ, Pakistan, WI or for that matter any team win at home, it is so impressive, but if India wins at home, or even away home, in the sub-continent, the reaction is ..."oh so what! They won in the sub continent", as if winning here is a piece of cake and winning at home for other countries is like conquering the universe!! Why? Didn't England win against us at their home? Didn't Australia win against us at their home? Why were their victories so impressive and so much talked about? Likewise why were our victories against England in 2008 and Australia in 2010 at home not praised with as much intensity? Why?

No. England's home is in SA.

[The Outsider]

Why? Didn't England win against us at their home? Didn't Australia win against us at their home? Why were their victories so impressive and so much talked about? Likewise why were our victories against England in 2008 and Australia in 2010 at home not praised with as much intensity? Why?

Why? Because England and Australia totally dismantled India. 0-8 with 4 innings defeat and another 3 by 200+ runs. Even Bangladesh performed better in England than the Indian team did, and Sri Lanka did much better there just a couple of months back and New Zealand in Australia. Absolutely pillaging the best ever Indian test team over 8 successive test matches and you are still wondering why those wins were so impressive and talked about? Isn't the 2001 series against Australia still talked about even though it was at home, but came against one of the best Australian teams and wasn't even close to the hammering India got?

[asterix]

I think the issue has been the way #1 ranking is being lost. In our case, we were caught at the wrong time and the perception of not putting up a 'fight' came up...but it was mainly due the batting going downhill and injury issues. In England's case it's pure incompetence of not able to play spin bowling, there bowling is good & has pretty decent average...

[Chandan]

Why? Because England and Australia totally dismantled India. 0-8 with 4 innings defeat and another 3 by 200+ runs. Even Bangladesh performed better in England than the Indian team did, and Sri Lanka did much better there just a couple of months back and New Zealand in Australia. Absolutely pillaging the best ever Indian test team over 8 successive test matches and you are still wondering why those wins were so impressive and talked about? Isn't the 2001 series against Australia still talked about even though it was at home, but came against one of the best Australian teams and wasn't even close to the hammering India got?

Certainly we won against one of the greatest teams in the history of test cricket in 2001 and that is why it is talked about. But which team did England and Australia dismantled? An average team, no, whose number one ranking had just been a myth, a house of cards, as many mentioned here along with English and Oz media, copied by Indian media back home? So why were those victories at their home so special, so much talked about? It was the same as we defeated NZ, SL, WI, Aus (in 2008, 2010), England etc at our home, no? Defeating an average team? I don't think we witnessed so much euphoria after those average victories!

[Bumper]

Rankings are calculated over a 3-4 years time period and India's ranking had tours to England' date=' South Africa, and Australia all included in it though they only toured South Africa while they were number one. England's number 1 ranking only had a 2 test tour to India in it before these recent Pakistan and Sri Lanka series.[/quote'] Getting to #1 spot is easier than staying there. I was just responding to some of the posts pooh-poohing England such as "Hey, look at you, you could not last at the top spot for even 7 months, we stayed there for a year and a half" etc etc. England's meeting Pak, SL & India (three of its biggest challenges) away right after it became #1. This is the equivalent of India having to meet Eng, Aus & SAF right after it became #1. Had that happened we would not have stayed #1 for 18 months. England's problems are likely fixable. Even when they are losing they are in the game most of the time (and could have won some of the games they lost). Our issues are more deep rooted, we may never reach the #1 spot again in the forseeable future - that's all am saying.

[CSK Fan]

Certainly we won against one of the greatest teams in the history of test cricket in 2001 and that is why it is talked about. But which team did England and Australia dismantled? An average team, no, whose number one ranking had just been a myth, a house of cards, as many mentioned here along with English and Oz media, copied by Indian media back home? So why were those victories at their home so special, so much talked about? It was the same as we defeated NZ, SL, WI, Aus (in 2008, 2010), England etc at our home, no? Defeating an average team? I don't think we witnessed so much euphoria after those average victories!

Two perfect gem of posts Chandan, thank you. Looks like the mentality of 'US' still needing to prove to 'THEM' that we are good enough still exists among sub-continent teams

[Ultimate_Game]

Getting to #1 spot is easier than staying there. I was just responding to some of the posts pooh-poohing England such as "Hey, look at you, you could not last at the top spot for even 7 months, we stayed there for a year and a half" etc etc. England's meeting Pak, SL & India (three of its biggest challenges) away right after it became #1. This is the equivalent of India having to meet Eng, Aus & SAF right after it became #1. Had that happened we would not have stayed #1 for 18 months. England's problems are likely fixable. Even when they are losing they are in the game most of the time (and could have won some of the games they lost). Our issues are more deep rooted, we may never reach the #1 spot again in the forseeable future - that's all am saying.

India did tour Eng, SA and Aus as part of FTP and reached no. 1 ranking based on results of those series. Ind beat Eng, drew with SA and lost narrowly to Aus (Bucknor series) to get to no. 1 and managed to beat almost everyone at home. That's pretty darned good! Just because India didn't travel away immediately after becoming no. 1 doesn't mean india just ot there wthout playing away. India deserved to be ranked at the top for nearly 2 years which they did. And as for India not getting back to the top I wouldn't bet on it. India will always have a decent team based on the money that's in the game. It's just a question of getting a couple of decent bowlers and who knows we may unearth a couple in one of the IPLs. India will almost always be one of the top teams and just a decent bowler or two will et them back to the top.

[Bumper]

India did tour Eng, SA and Aus as part of FTP and reached no. 1 ranking based on results of those series. Ind beat Eng, drew with SA and lost narrowly to Aus (Bucknor series) to get to no. 1 and managed to beat almost everyone at home. That's pretty darned good! Just because India didn't travel away immediately after becoming no. 1 doesn't mean india just ot there wthout playing away. India deserved to be ranked at the top for nearly 2 years which they did. And as for India not getting back to the top I wouldn't bet on it. India will always have a decent team based on the money that's in the game. It's just a question of getting a couple of decent bowlers and who knows we may unearth a couple in one of the IPLs. India will almost always be one of the top teams and just a decent bowler or two will et them back to the top.

You are missing the point. You are debating the point i never contested. I was not questioning India's rise to #1 status. The same rules that applied to other teams applied to us and we rightly rose to #1. But the fact that we stayed there for 18 months and England did not, means diddley squat. The length of our stay at #1 is just attributable to our schedule. As for our resurrection to #1, we can keep dreaming. We have several fundamental issues in our cricket. We need test quality batsmen, bowlers (pacers, spinners) and a captain. That's everything you need to build a test team. You cannot fix so many problems while investing full time in Tontee Tontee. England's issues, OTOH, are fixable. They already have a good bowling unit with variety and bench strength. They have test quality batsmen who have made runs in the subcontinent before. Our fans and board seem to be using England as a punching bag to vent out our frustrations resulting from a 0-8 mauling. That wont serve us well. Lets laugh at Engerland because we love to. But lets not delude ourselves thinking that they are as bad as us. They are not. They are much better than us.

[Ultimate_Game]

You are missing the point. You are debating the point i never contested. I was not questioning India's rise to #1 status. The same rules that applied to other teams applied to us and we rightly rose to #1. But the fact that we stayed there for 18 months and England did not' date= means diddley squat. The length of our stay at #1 is just attributable to our schedule. As for our resurrection to #1, we can keep dreaming. We have several fundamental issues in our cricket. We need test quality batsmen, bowlers (pacers, spinners) and a captain. That's everything you need to build a test team. You cannot fix so many problems while investing full time in Tontee Tontee. England's issues, OTOH, are fixable. They already have a good bowling unit with variety and bench strength. They have test quality batsmen who have made runs in the subcontinent before. Our fans and board seem to be using England as a punching bag to vent out our frustrations resulting from a 0-8 mauling. That wont serve us well. Lets laugh at Engerland because we love to. But lets not delude ourselves thinking that they are as bad as us. They are not. They are much better than us.

Nope te length of the stay at the top doesn't mean "diddley squat". We followed the FTP schedule just like everyone else and the fact we remained at the top lot longer means we were a better no. 1 team than England (if they indeed lose the top spot soon). You can't expect India to play away all the time. India played away at all the top test teams, and did so again in 2011. Are you saying India should only play away whereas other teams can play at home? As for quality batsmen Kohli showed that we have depth in our batting and I am sure likes of Pujara, Rahane, Rohit, Mukund etc. won't be that bad. s for our bowling you will be surprized how one decent bowler will tun things around for us. With Umesh & Ishant round the corner I am sure we won't be that bad in the longer run. As for Eng's batsmen scoring in the subcontinent, that claim is laughable. Eng have only scored runs in subcontinent when they got flat wkts. On turners they have always been found out and I'm sure when Eng tour India later this year they will get turners.

[jairamesh]

I think the issue has been the way #1 ranking is being lost. In our case' date=' we were caught at the wrong time and the perception of not putting up a 'fight' came up...but it was mainly due the batting going downhill and injury issues. In England's case it's pure incompetence of not able to play spin bowling, there bowling is good & has pretty decent average...[/quote'] +1 India's recent approach to West Indies, England and Australia tours took pre-series preps to new lows. I thought the South Africa tour was a joke, arriving like 3-4 days before a top of the table clash. It was thanks to a last hurrah from our batting greats that India managed to pull off a draw (though India should have won that series 2-1). Forget the warm-up matches, the shear incompetence of preparation from BCCI, coaches, physios, and players was pathetic. There were no back-up plans to replace out-of-form/unfit batsmen or bowlers. It was amazing to watch the England and Australia series without a singled unforced change to the batting or bowling line-up. Changes only came about due to injuries. And to take the risk of playing an injured Tendulkar, unfit Sehwag, unfit Zaheer, unfit Seesanth, and the biggest joke of all, RP Singh, just bordered on amateur planning and selection. And England rode to number playing on familiar grounds, conditions in Australia and South Africa are alot closer to England, a similar analogy can be applied to India wining in Pakistan, SL, and West Indies (which are overlooked). This England team is the most ruthlessly prepared Test team through history, but to claim that this ruthlessness makes them a "great" Test Team (i.e. Peter Dobbel at crapinfo:hehe:) is stretching it. To loose 4 Tests in a row after being crowned number 1, makes their clamor to No.1 rather hallow. Regardless England's rise to number 1 was rather fortunately coincided with Australian team in absolute shambles and Indian batting line-up past it's sell-by-date. I thought their next true challenge since facing South Africa would be South Africa in July in England. But to be whitewashed by number 6 certainly fooled me. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me":hysterical: