Ex-Number One England

[wizzy]

India - numeric #1 as 2 years. Atleast, showed "Spiritual Baba Ramdev Swami Nithyananda #1" credentials in retaining that ranking atleast 2-3 times against a Strong South African team. And away from home at that, once. Atleast, they fought for their ranking for about a year. Your boys?
Winston Churchill, John Major, Maggie Thatcher, Prince Charles, Faramasivan, Frabhu Ram, do you hear me Frabhu Ram? Your boys took one hell of a beating

...imagine India dropping a full series like Eng did in UAE and still continued to be no.1 numerically..all hell would have broken loose and we would have been guilt tripped by Eng pundits/supporter(s) and many of us would have shunned the rankings

[P_R]

Points you conveniently chose to not answer or answer wishy wasihily.

Reading through I see what you mean when you accuse people of evading questions
adhai paththi innoru naaL pEsuvOm..

Whats your point? India dont even beat Banglandesh or4 Zimbabwe 4-0. Series whitewashlAm nAnga kanavula kooda yosikka mAttOm

The point is exactly that. World beaters rub the nose of the opposition on the ground, dominate every session etc.

England have the ability to cash in in when the opponent caves in like India and Australia did. adhai oru perumiayA mathavan paNNuvANAnu kEttA?

Yeah, the opposition caved in by themselves, no credit to England.

OTOH if any team beats England - Pak or SA, it has nothing even remotely to do with England playing badly. No,no - that can't even be one of the reasons. The ONLY reason acceptable to you is, England was playing as good as they ever played but were still beaten by a better side.

You needed the opposition to cave in and not try - in those circumstances you can sure win 3-1. What is so great about that? Why is that a differentiating factor?

The last Ashes in England was an event contest won by England. They competed quite hard. Heck, to the extent that you said 'Aus dominated it'
So they have won contests allegedly dominated by the opposition - there you won't give vengaLa kiNNam
In contests where they murder the opposition - there too no vengaLa kiNNam, because now these teams are seththapaambus with a proclivity for hara-kiri
Contests where Eng hung by their teeth to level the series (SA tour) - sign of their not being number one
And when they Eng beaten - see, they were never any good.

enna oru impartial analyses

What differentiating, integrating factor are you talking about

[P_R]

What were the wow moments about England? any ball of the century? Any outstanding eye-pleasing knocks?

Broad,Swann effecting innings defeat on SA - the match that made people sit-up and take notice of Swann (seththa paambu South Africa can't play spin and were tired on the last day, that's why talentless Broad got wickets)Swann's wickets were beautiful classical offspinner wickets.Broad was swinging at will extremely gracefully.
They did the same in the last Ashes test in England (recovering from an innings defeat effected on them by a team, that in this match happened to become a seththa paambu)

idhaippOla paRpala. No point giving you examples of Trott's Ashes knocks, Prior's fighting contextual beauties.
Anyway, there is no point expending energies on this. Your point is 'Philander, Morkel' can match Broad, Anderson every inch in aesthetic achievement. Kallis is just as interesting to watch as Trott etc. vachchukkunga. avvaLO dhaanE.

Yov nIngalum adhe Off stump line Pottu dhAnyA mEla vandhInga!
ennamO SA mattum eye pleasingA oNNum paNNAmalE #1ku vandhA mAdhiri maindain paNdrIngaLE adhukku sonNEn. No REply

Are you reading what I am saying??
I said I was looking forward to this series as a fastbowling delight and it was disappointing.
Where the hell did I say Philander was never eye-pleasing, or Steyn is uninteresting. I was quite excited watching Philander's debut series.
All I am saying is, Philander-Morkel didn't match up to what I expected and Anderson-Broad were downright disappointing.

In your anxiety to say Anderson-Broad were never any good, you are also implying Philander-Morkel were never any better than what they were this series!

[P_R]

ovvoNNA solREn..moththamA sonnnA badhil sollalai 'nRuveer

Why these excuses now?

enna kaiyya pudichhu izhuthiyA?

That England lost only because Anderson and Broad underperformed?

idhu excuse-A? adhAvadhu Broad-Anderson bowled as well as they ever have-A?

Who made them underperform?

Hai! idhu nallA irukkE. If only you could extend the same courtesy to the teams England beats. In those case they become 'seththa paambus' who cave-in and thus beating them means nothing.

WHy did they underperform? Because the opposition wasnt India or a 21st century australia who have forgotten their battling roots.

Yeah world number 1 team, seththa paambu India was a pushover. Australia, who 'dominated' the previous series and managed to defeat England in one of the tests in that series was also a pushover.

Anyway, granted..SA was the toughest challenge England faced and they ended up losing to them. idhai edhukku suththi suththu solreenga. NaanE sonnEnE! That is why we were looking forward to this series in the first place.

[P_R]

Why cant you comprehensively accept that England were never the dope that they were claimed to be?

Because they were. Nothing you say can make it 'all media hype'.

Even after comprehensive defeat. Why try to act as if a year ago they would have beaten this SA.

Act illai saar belief. One confirmed century in the top three. Confirmed fifty by someone in the middle order. Then Prior batting with the tail. Anderson, Broad attacking relentlessly and opening up the tenders to Swann. idhai ellAm dhaan edhir pArththEn. Bulb vaanginEn.

idhellAm summA manasa thEthikka soliiKARadhu

Namba mudiyAdha oru vishayam kaNNu munnAla nadandhiruchchu - Eng waeld nember one. namburadhukku kastamA dhaan irukkum. adhukkAga edhuvumE nadakkalainnu sollidaradhA.
Holocaust denier range-ku pOyiruveenga pOla irukku

Why this if athaikku meesai muLAichA arguments? So, I'll claim 2010 wallah India would have beaten England iN englandnu. So? idhue llAm oru ArgumentA?

naan argument edhuvumE paNNalaiyE. NeengaLE paNNittu, neengaLE thittikkiReenga

[P_R]

7. If India succumb to pressure under accurate bowling, adh bowlers graetness. If England does, England gave away ilavasa vEtti to South Africa?

karththarE, eppadi puriya vaippEn
For a moment, can you get it out of you head that I am denying urimaiyAna credir, bonus to Philander and co.
All I said was: they weren't bowling as well as I have seen them bowl. Heck, Morkel bowled better to India.
Still England managed to lose. How?
Explanation:
a) they batted badly this series - makes you see red
b) they have always batted badly and got exposed when they faced good bowling for the first time in their lives - may be more palatable to you

I go for 'a' because they are traditionally better batsmen in home conditions against this bowling. So I believe they were below par in all department.
You believe this is their par performance. Sake-hands.

Infact Vaughan's team that beat SA over a 5 test series and won the Ashes againast a TRUE ATG team in 2005 are better than this #1 team.

I think I responded precisely to this. That I have no fondness for this particularly unit. I don't believe the world started with Flower. This success owes to Usainbhai. I have fonder memories with their successes (SL, Pak etc). Just that these guys were more consistent. Hey, I already told you all this man.

The Indian batsmen of 2000s were better than this batting unit although our bowling was never great - still we won many against Aus with that bowling.

sari, ippo adhukku enna?

This England team has fallen to the first reasonably good team that they have faced. Not to forget losing to Pak and SL as well.
Dont kid yourself that you were true #1 for more than a year.

I think I gave you the calendar math. From the last Ashes to England till Dubai - managing to remain still without being knocked off in SA.

[P_R]

But given the circumstances, given that Pak were formidable contestants and outstanding in bowling, how do you explain 169 for Stuart Broad? Surely he is not that talented with the bat?

Awesome performances are rare. Why doesn't he do it once a month-nu kEttA enna solRadhu?
Lord's and Trent-Bridge versus India ellAm enna panju muttAyA? Oh, I am sorry, the world number one India were seththa-paambus, so that should be discounted.

What about the counterattacking innings in Dubai batting with the tail (ivanE tail dhaan ) ? Possibly that session alone was fixed.

Even Kapil had a outlier 175 but that was against Zimbabwe.

A Zimbawe that had skittled out the top five wickets for next to nothing. So I wouldn't discount that. Hey, but that's just me.

You can stick with your standards of dismissing Kapil's innings because that may put you in the unenviable circumstance of having to give Broad his due.

After that, the first quality attack Cook and co faced is current series

Remember Siddle effecting a defeat? Perhaps that's an outlier too.

In the Ashes series you watched, quite possibly all the bowlers bowled nonsense and consistently gave width and length true to the character of being 'seththa paambus'. Is there any other conceivable explanation why no-talents like Cook, Trott and Strauss can pile on runs. None whatsoever.

[P_R]

Flower calls for an IPL Window
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-...ry/578708.html

It would be better if there was a very clear window prior to our international season starting.

I posted so a few weeks backs, anticipating this. That IPL can happen in Feb-Mar, when you can't play cricket anywhere else. But it's not the most lucrative time to play, so the organizers won't change the schedule. This panjAyathu will not be over soon

[P_R]

Flower-vaakkiyam

I would rather not speculate [on whether Pietersen may have played his last game for England]. But he was speculating on it during the Test series, so there is a chance I suppose.

[wizzy]

I go for 'a' because they are traditionally better batsmen in home conditions against this bowling. So I believe they were below par in all department.
You believe this is their par performance. Sake-hands.

guess Indian/OZ bowlers have clouded your judgement wrt Eng batting in home conditions.. having watched Eng batters all summer let me break their batting lineup for you

even against SL/WI top order wickets fell quickly and then the tail had to wag to post a good score..other than Trott/KP none of the Eng batters have had extended spell of purple patch regardless of opp attack/tracks they played on..Cook survives purely on flat tracks/harmless attacks to get that one big score in a series to save his back and then go AWOL..Strauss has been a non issue for a good part of 2 yrs..struggled even against a clumsy Indian attack sans Zak..Bell just doesn't have it in him to do a VVS when rest of the bats fail and musical chairs @ no.6 have only compounded the problems.

Trott being neutralized by Steyn completely wrecked this lineup and Thayir mopping the tail meant no spoils from lower order either+KP being sidelined on/off the field for non-cricketing reasons meant Eng batting in soup..how many times did Eng cross 300 in this series with the pitches being flat for the most part.

some stats to munch on..all together they were 7 100s in this series..5 by Saffers+1 by former Saffer+a token Cook 100 on a flat track so
Eng batting lineup were ATG only when bowlers(OZ/Ind) allow them to be..even competent/boring attacks(SA/Pak/SL/WI read in the order of effectiveness) have got the job done so where is the question of this Eng batting lineup being traditionally good in home conditions for long Eng bowlers saved their batters blushes @ home but when they couldn't get the job done(dropped catches+not in rhythm ) like in this series the batting got ruthlessly exposed.