'We can be one of the greatest England teams ever' - Anderson

[wobblydoggy]

Discuss This should upset a few, but I think it is likely

[akshayxyz]

There is nothing much to discuss. I think most would agree that going forward its almost impossible for any team to stay at top for more than 2-3 years - forget about dominating.

[Trichromatic]

Define the word dominate here?

[wobblydoggy]

Define the word dominate here?

As in win the largest % of their games maintain an overall No1 standing unless losing it briefly till we play again. Get a good one day side. Win Test Championships

[VRV Singh]

Ten years? Incidentally your definition of domination would differ from most others. It is still hugely optimistic though. It's not like other teams can't improve and the England team regress.

[Clarke]

Hey, its Indian fans who are supposed to be arrogant as per the neutral fans from our neighborhood. Ten years is too long a time to predict even if ECB signed a deal with Cricket South Africa.

[ganeshran]

You simply cannot predict a team's performance 10 years down the line. Your players change, the coach changes, the level of other teams change. Too many variables to make a prediction.

[kabira]

If you can beat SL or even Draw the series there, then you have my respect...

[Bumper]

Come on wobbly, I can understand the euphoria after dominating our hyped up #1 team. But to achieve domination, England has to do two things: 1) Beat SAF both at home & away - which you have not done 2) Beat SL & India in the subcontinent - which you have not done. Your fast bowlers are good, not great. Your batsmen are all good, not great. I see England as a very good team that will be hard to beat. It is no where close to a dominant team (unless other teams regress so much making England look dominant).

[Number]

depends upon how good their bowlers can do in batting - friendly conditions. Also domination is considered if you are raked good in ODIs as well and constantly performing well in ODI tournaments. They will have to improve their performance in that. apart from that they have advantage of being a young side with good fitness level so at least 5 years they can dominate test cricket if they maintain the same form and dominate SA and SL in away tests.

[kabira]

Come on wobbly, I can understand the euphoria after dominating our hyped up #1 team. But to achieve domination, England has to do two things: 1) Beat SAF both at home & away - which you have not done 2) Beat SL & India in the subcontinent - which you have not done. Your fast bowlers are good, not great. Your batsmen are all good, not great. I see England as a very good team that will be hard to beat. It is no where close to a dominant team (unless other teams regress so much making England look dominant).

How come our hyped up team stayed for Number 1 for almost 20 months?? Luck??

[Stuge]

It even hard to predict teams performance for a year ,and you are predicting ,they will dominate for 10 years .Doing numerology of some kind ?

[Trichromatic]

Age of current players after 5 years Strauss : 39 Cook : 31 KP : 36 Bell : 34 Prior : 34 Bresnan : 31 Trott : 35 Swann : 40 Anderson : 34 Broad : 30 How can ICFers discuss 10 year domination? What would be basis of such discussion?

[Cricket Tragic]

Age of current players after 5 years Strauss : 39 Cook : 31 KP : 36 Bell : 34 Prior : 34 Bresnan : 31 Trott : 35 Swann : 40 Anderson : 34 Broad : 30 How ICFers can discuss 10 year domination? What would be basis of such discussion?

You can't.

[Karan114]

Haven't been no.1 for five minutes and already talking about a decade long domination - roflol.

[Moman211]

How come our hyped up team stayed for Number 1 for almost 20 months?? Luck??

exactly if India stayed there for 20 months imagine England and also i dont understand this myth that Indian fans have that England are not Number 1 unless they win in the subcontinent thats like saying Indias 20 month reign was not legitimate cause they never won in aus or SA

[Trichromatic]

exactly if India stayed there for 20 months imagine England and also i dont understand this myth that Indian fans have that England are not Number 1 unless they win in the subcontinent thats like saying Indias 20 month reign was not legitimate cause they never won in aus or SA

It's not a myth among Indian fans. You're generalizing opinions of few to all Indian fans. It's a reply to English fans who said that India can't be true no 1 without winning in SA and Eng. Most of the Indian fans at that argued that no 1 just means better performance than others. This thread is about dominance which is not same as just being no 1 (at least most of the fans would think same).

[saneindian]

With the world's leading spinner having figures of 4 wickets @75 in 3 tests, if I was an English fan, I would be worried about the impending tours of the sub continent. A series loss against teams ranked 5th and 6th could mean England hurtling down to number 3 or 4 very soon. With a 34 year old captain who averages 31 in last 18 months, I would be worried about the next 6 months. Who fills that huge vaccuum likely to be left after his impending departure. If Ravi Bopara is the leading reserve batsman of a team, I would be worried saving my number 1 rank rather than talk of domination.

[wobblydoggy]

I'll explain my logic tomorrow, a bit busy tonight cheers Wobbly

[DomainK]

I don't know about dominating, but England will remain a strong team for some years to come. They have the players, the temperament and the momentum. This victory against India is quite a statement after the wonderful Ashes win.