the Englishers have started talking about their achievements like we did whe we won a world cup or a stray series against Bangladesh or Scotland. that is sure to put them on down hill path.
Off late, a big hue and cry is made of the World 1 team status.There is a tendency to look at the Points table and decide who is no.1. My question is "is this a fair yardstick to measure the supremecy". Today India is touring England as no. 1, have got beaten and will surrender the No. 1 to England. Tomorrow if Englad tours say Sri lanka, get beaten on foreign conditions, will they be no.1 ? Actually speaking, to be called no.1, any team should be able to dominate both at home and abroad. Indians, for this reason cannot be no.1 with the present line-up. And England again have not been tested outside England and have to prove by winning series outside England. To my mind, there was West Indies who were clearly no.1 in the 70s & 80s followed by Australia till recently. It is too premature to judge England or India. Let either teams start winning consistently outside their countries. The media is unneccsarily creating the hype on the No.1 status without really evaluating the team on a long term basis.The points system has created heroes out of nothing which was not there before.
Re: Neither India nor England are World no. 1 really...
by Sunil Vaidya on Aug 04, 2011 02:43 PM
which aus team you are calling no. 1? Steve waugh's team was NEVER no. 1...steve waugh's aussie team lost to ganguly's indian team 1-2 and later only barely drew the same indian team in australia 1-1. thanks to a parthiv patel and an fighting inings from steve waugh aus barely managed to draw that series...
they could not even defeat a team like india either in india or in australia. the icc rankings were just a big joke. aus were NEVER no. 1 a side which cannot beat india at home and before that lost to that team in india after being in a position to take a 2-0 lead lost after giving follow-on. that team was really a JOKE...
Re: Re: Neither India nor England are World no. 1 really...
by Abhijit Nair on Aug 04, 2011 02:59 PM
did you know that Aus beat India 2-1 after taking a 2-0 lead in a 4 match series in india in 2004 winning matches 1 and 3 by huge margins under Gilly .India had all their key players then
Re: Re: Re: Neither India nor England are World no. 1 really...
by Sunil Vaidya on Aug 04, 2011 03:09 PM
and u remember thge match they lost in mumbai. ponting was captain and they lost in 2 days and 2 days. even after taking a lead of 100 runs in first innings they still lost a team which cannot last 2 and a half days is team no. 1????
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither India nor England are World no. 1 really.
by Abhijit Nair on Aug 04, 2011 03:30 PM
terrible pitch in mumbai with even M Clarke getting 6 for 9. Fact is they beat India in India. By the way does a No.1 ranked team lose so pathetically as India have lost to Eng by 200 runs and 320 runs after taking a lead in first inn in 2nd test It is also a joke
The English team and their previous players like Vauhan, Hussain. I think they are talking too much. Great teams like Australia and West India never did the talking
First of all good the Indian Team are at the receiving end , they should wake up now but, 1. the indian team only played with 2 bowlers in 1 st test with zaheer injured, and bhajji bowling as a part time bowler & no help for spinner in that pitch, he should not have been picked in the side,
2. Again played with only 3 bowlers , carrying burden of harbhajan also shuffling in batting order due to injuries to gauti, shewag didnt help
3. because of the ga ga about tendulkars 100th ton , he was going for it , but the more u run for recordds the more the record will run away from u. the same thing happned when he was chasing that gavaskars 34 ton , he took so many matches to complete that ton, he should rather play aggresively and get to that ton now, instead of reaching out for it
& to be no.1 this english has to beat S.A, Pakis < aus again to remain no.1 who has bunch of talented fast bowlers not like india playing with only 2 or 3 bowlers
