Australia/England/India Tri Series Jan/Feb 2015

[GarlicJam]

Looks to me that Shanky and Arthur are going head-to-head in an underdogathon.

In what promises to be a gruelling and rugged match, Shanky has the early running due to using on facts, whereas Arthur is relying on good old fashioned conjecture.


May the least enthusiastic fan win!

[shankycricket]

Dunno. England won at Perth and Brisbane. The extreme end of conditions. And not convincing today. The dead rubber in UK didn't mean much. I'd be a happier India fan right now.

All sides that have won a WC have had a bowling attack that could at least compete, if not great. I don't much about UAE but our bowling is worse than most minnows and our batting is dependent on 2 men. How on earth are they better?

[shankycricket]

I was the only one who had predicted England would beat India in the tri series even before a ball had been bowled. This Indian side is fundamentally flawed to do well in these conditions and I've been saying this for over a year now. England have their issues but at least there are the ingredients.

[rich1uk]

I was the only one who had predicted England would beat India in the tri series even before a ball had been bowled. This Indian side is fundamentally flawed to do well in these conditions and I've been saying this for over a year now. England have their issues but at least there are the ingredients.

you predict whichever team you are supporting will lose every game they play shanks

you are the anti-McGrath

[Gingerfinch]

I was the only one who had predicted England would beat India in the tri series even before a ball had been bowled. This Indian side is fundamentally flawed to do well in these conditions and I've been saying this for over a year now. England have their issues but at least there are the ingredients.

Erm, I did as well.

[shankycricket]

I was the only one who had predicted England would beat India in the tri series even before a ball had been bowled. This Indian side is fundamentally flawed to do well in these conditions and I've been saying this for over a year now. England have their issues but at least there are the ingredients.

you predict whichever team you are supporting will lose every game they play shanks

you are the anti-McGrath

No, if this WC was in Asia, we would be overwhelming favourites, even more so than last time around. This side is just ill-equipped in.these conditions.

[shankycricket]

I was the only one who had predicted England would beat India in the tri series even before a ball had been bowled. This Indian side is fundamentally flawed to do well in these conditions and I've been saying this for over a year now. England have their issues but at least there are the ingredients.

Erm, I did as well.

I think.you did that after Brisbane. I predicted it well before..

[Gingerfinch]

I was the only one who had predicted England would beat India in the tri series even before a ball had been bowled. This Indian side is fundamentally flawed to do well in these conditions and I've been saying this for over a year now. England have their issues but at least there are the ingredients.

Erm, I did as well.

I think.you did that after Brisbane. I predicted it well before..

I was quietly confident we would progress before the series started. Not sure I predicted out loud, mind.

[rich1uk]

I was quietly confident we would reach the final as well

mind you that was based on every game being rained out and us winning the rock, paper, scissors to decide who played the final

[sussexpob]

The format of the World Cup tournament means that, to a certain extent, the average performance of your team is pretty irrelevant. When India come to the business games in the knockouts, they are as equipped as any team to step up and play to a level that few others can, while other teams maybe more consistent in these conditions, consistency over one off brilliance very rarely wins knockout tournaments, unless like some teams that win it, you are consistently brilliant (which I don't think can be said of any teams at the moment, and certainly the most open world cup I can remember).

An example can be seen in England's ICC Cup loss to India in the final. England had a game plan to limit the quality they played against, which was fairly consistent in the run up to that match, but they didn't have the quality.

All it takes is for one or two players in this India team to hit peak form and they become unstoppable.

[Aidan11]

Bring on the World Cup.

[Durhamfootman]

I'm quite surprised that England won that. I was preparing myself to launch into a 'can't defend 300, can't chase 200' diatribe, but I can't now.

Clearly this is the new exciting, attacking England, who are progressing so well.

Beat Aus convincingly in the final, and then I'll maybe give them a bit of credit, and start to listen to some of the rubbish being spouted by the England management.

Just remember that they haven't got Colly to win the final for them, singlehandedly, this time.

[Gingerfinch]

The format of the World Cup tournament means that, to a certain extent, the average performance of your team is pretty irrelevant. When India come to the business games in the knockouts, they are as equipped as any team to step up and play to a level that few others can, while other teams maybe more consistent in these conditions, consistency over one off brilliance very rarely wins knockout tournaments, unless like some teams that win it, you are consistently brilliant (which I don't think can be said of any teams at the moment, and certainly the most open world cup I can remember).

An example can be seen in England's ICC Cup loss to India in the final. England had a game plan to limit the quality they played against, which was fairly consistent in the run up to that match, but they didn't have the quality.

All it takes is for one or two players in this India team to hit peak form and they become unstoppable.

Can they win three games on the trot though? In a one off game, of course they can beat anyone, but can they for argument sake beat the kiwi's one day then Australia the next?

[shankycricket]

The format of the World Cup tournament means that, to a certain extent, the average performance of your team is pretty irrelevant. When India come to the business games in the knockouts, they are as equipped as any team to step up and play to a level that few others can, while other teams maybe more consistent in these conditions, consistency over one off brilliance very rarely wins knockout tournaments, unless like some teams that win it, you are consistently brilliant (which I don't think can be said of any teams at the moment, and certainly the most open world cup I can remember).

An example can be seen in England's ICC Cup loss to India in the final. England had a game plan to limit the quality they played against, which was fairly consistent in the run up to that match, but they didn't have the quality.

All it takes is for one or two players in this India team to hit peak form and they become unstoppable.

Can they win three games on the trot though? In a one off game, of course they can beat anyone, but can they for argument sake beat the kiwi's one day then Australia the next?

Exactly. Kohli can single handedly win you one knockout match, doubt he can two or three in a row on his own. Dhawan is a joke, Rohit is as soft as a tissue paper under pressure, Rahane is steady but not someone who'll win you matches on his own, Raina averages something like 20 in Australia and Dhoni bats too low. Dhoni performed well in each and every game in NZ last year and Kohli fired in 3 out of the 5 yet we couldn't win a single game. ODI cricket requires consistency, it is not T20 where one player can win you a game. Even in the World T20 last year, Virat despite being consistently brilliant couldn't eventually make up for the ineptitude of his teammates in the final (even though he did well in that match too) and that was in the subcontinent in a much shorter format. There is only so long one man can carry a team. Ask Sachin in the 1996 WC (again in conditions far more suited to India than the ones Down Under). The 2011 WC (which had the same knockout format as this one) was won by a total team effort, not individual brilliance. Each of the 7 batsmen chipped in at some point and the bowlers stepped up too (in conditions more suited to not only our batsmen but also our bowlers). I don't see that quality in this team, in these conditions. This is basically "Team Virat and Dhoni" and both of our match winners are batting one spot too low in the order. Its gonna be messy.

[sussexpob]

Exactly. Kohli can single handedly win you one knockout match, doubt he can two or three in a row on his own. Dhawan is a joke, Rohit is as soft as a tissue paper under pressure, Rahane is steady but not someone who'll win you matches on his own, Raina averages something like 20 in Australia and Dhoni bats too low. Dhoni performed well in each and every game in NZ last year and Kohli fired in 3 out of the 5 yet we couldn't win a single game.

Grass is always greener, isn't it?

Guptil cant hold a bat at the moment, Taylor is coming out of a bad series, Latham hasn't proved he is a ODI cricketer, Grant Elliott is frankly only in the team because Anderson and Ronchi's banging takes away from his terrible strike rate ODI, and didn't McCullum get 3 ducks against India in their last series?

Its hardly like New Zealand are this unbeatable side and India are terrible.