Can anyone stop a India v England T20 World Cup final?

[KP From India]

They are a mid level T20 team.
They would thrash all lower half teams badly.
Would win vs Wi/Sl/Sa 90% times.
Would lose to End/Pak/Nz more often than not( these teams would start about 2/3 rd favourites while Ind has about 35% chance on average and most things have to go right) since these teams bring something different to the table in T20 which Ind doesn't.
Eng- Top and middle with SR 150+.
Pak- Opening bowler like Shaheen and couple of lower order hitters.
Nz- Boult and Sodhi/Santner.
Its not a huge but clear difference and for Ind, everthing needs to fall in place to beat these teams.

 

[shamaan]

Why and how?

They lost to both New Zealand and Pakistan and battered the minnows how are they deserving to go to the semi final ?

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Can anyone stop a India v England T20 World Cup final?

Yes, the good ol' Afghanis did it for India. And in that good cause, they kicked themselves out of the tournament as well.

 

[Mobashir]

Why and how?

They are a poor team who were humiliated by both Pakistan and NZ.

 

[reversehook]

Can anybody stop them from boarding that plane?

 

[Inswing]

Yes, captain Kohli can.

Yow were right.

 

[pillionrider]

Captain Kohli can, with inspired selections like Pant playing only because Shreyas gets injured

Thanks Kohli.

 

[Robert]

NZ just did.

 

[Slim]

I guess India stopped themselves.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Looking at the level of cricket these 2 teams are playing at the moment, can anyone stop these 2 T20 powerhouses from featuring in the T20 World Cup final later this year?

England managed to win 2 matches in India and have shown that they have some wonderful talent at their disposal in this format. Most teams will struggle to compete with them even in Asia.

India experimented during the series against England and still won 3-2. They have so many options in nearly all positions, it's going to be difficult for their selectors to pick a final squad.

Can anyone stop a India v England T20 World Cup final?

You bet!

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

NZ threw both India and England out of World Cup. [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION]

 

[DHONI183]

New Zealand just did, mind you, on both ends. Or was it a jinx thread by Saj bhai?

No, actually, this supposed great English Limited-Overs cricket team only has a World Cup trophy to its name due to an incredibly stupid rule, some once-in-a-lifetime luck, poor fielding by the opposition, and nothing else, really. They`re some great prayers, but choking in extreme pressure seems to be an issue with them as well, and we saw that today, in the aforementioned World Cup Final, and the World T20 Final 2016 as well. That's three times, fellows, from a team which is supposed to be great at the shorter formats of the game and is actually yet to win a final in the literal sense. I never rated them much going into this tournament and perfectly predicted their both defeats over here. I foresee a similar fate in any upcoming ICC tournament as well. Trust me on this.

Actually, there was an interesting conversation between me and my brother about half an hour before the toss. At being asked what my prediction is, in case England bat first. I answered that they'll get 170 and, if they win, New Zealand win be restricted to 155, and if New Zealand win, they'll win it in the last over. I was so close, wow! I also predicted New Zealand to win in the predictions competition that is being held over here on the forum.

 

[street cricketer]

New Zealand just did, mind you, on both ends. Or was it a jinx thread by Saj bhai?

No, actually, this supposed great English Limited-Overs cricket team only has a World Cup trophy to its name due to an incredibly stupid rule, some once-in-a-lifetime luck, poor fielding by the opposition, and nothing else, really. They`re some great prayers, but choking in extreme pressure seems to be an issue with them as well, and we saw that today, in the aforementioned World Cup Final, and the World T20 Final 2016 as well. That's three times, fellows, from a team which is supposed to be great at the shorter formats of the game and is actually yet to win a final in the literal sense. I never rated them much going into this tournament and perfectly predicted their both defeats over here. I foresee a similar fate in any upcoming ICC tournament as well. Trust me on this.

Actually, there was an interesting conversation between me and my brother about half an hour before the toss. At being asked what my prediction is, in case England bat first. I answered that they'll get 170 and, if they win, New Zealand win be restricted to 155, and if New Zealand win, they'll win it in the last over. I was so close, wow! I also predicted New Zealand to win in the predictions competition that is being held over here on the forum.

The T20 world cup is a random tournament, it's not always the best side wins. England are certainly the best limited overs side of this generation. This game doesn't make New Zealand suddenly a better LOI side than England. This English cricket team has revolutionised LOI batting like the Lankans did in the 90s. Sometimes desi cricket fans can give too much importance to tournament cricket where it's a lot about luck and chance as well.

 

[sweep_shot]

Can anyone stop an India vs England final?

Answer: New Zealand (eliminated both India and England).

 

[JaDed]

Unfortunately a jinx thread but credit to Kiwis hopefully they go all the way!

 

[Aman]

NZ threw both India and England out of World Cup. [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION]

Surprised we made it out of the group tbh lol.

Proud of the team regardless of what happens in the Final. Although 2 world titles in one year would be pretty awesome.

 

[Syed1]

Stopped


Honestly both teams are over hyped to the moon. India were borderline minnow level in the tournament, and England lost 2/3 matches that they played against good teams (NZ, SA). The only good team they beat was Australia. Heck even SL almost trapped them.

 

[Babeikh]

To be honest I think there was a bit of arrogance from England, the English pundits, media, fans, players etc. Throughout the tournament they just kind of assumed they were going to be in the final. They didn't really consider that there are other teams in this tournament as well.

I remember India came into the 2009 T20 World Cup with the same aura and attitude. That they just had to turn up and they'll be marched into the final on the red carpet with salutes all round.

 

[Mahee]

To be honest I think there was a bit of arrogance from England, the English pundits, media, fans, players etc. Throughout the tournament they just kind of assumed they were going to be in the final. They didn't really consider that there are other teams in this tournament as well.

I remember India came into the 2009 T20 World Cup with the same aura and attitude. That they just had to turn up and they'll be marched into the final on the red carpet with salutes all round.

stop this nonsense arrogance thing man...you expect every human to be humble ? if every human being is humble, the world won't be like this.

and also, being confident or sometimes over- confident, is not arrogance....when some team gives ruthless performances one after another, at least some fans and that country's some so-called pundits would go overboard and that happens with every team/country....not a big thing.

 

[Babeikh]

stop this nonsense arrogance thing man...you expect every human to be humble ? if every human being is humble, the world won't be like this.

and also, being confident or sometimes over- confident, is not arrogance....when some team gives ruthless performances one after another, at least some fans and that country's some so-called pundits would go overboard and that happens with every team/country....not a big thing.

There's clearly a fine line between confidence and arrogance but as I said, it appears to me the English crossed it in this tournament. It is counterproductive because however confident you are in your ability you need to remain grounded, otherwise you can't see the wood from the trees.

 

[JaDed]

To be honest I think there was a bit of arrogance from England, the English pundits, media, fans, players etc. Throughout the tournament they just kind of assumed they were going to be in the final. They didn't really consider that there are other teams in this tournament as well.

I remember India came into the 2009 T20 World Cup with the same aura and attitude. That they just had to turn up and they'll be marched into the final on the red carpet with salutes all round.

Australia used to come with that arrogance every time to the WC.

 

[Inswinging Yorker]

yes Pakistan and New Zealand stopped that from happening.

 

[Saj]

Unfortunately a jinx thread but credit to Kiwis hopefully they go all the way!

Honestly, not a jinx thread.

I, probably along with many thought it would be an England v India final.

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

Yes, captain Kohli can.

You nailed it months before it even started man XD.

 

[JaDed]

Honestly, not a jinx thread.

I, probably along with many thought it would be an England v India final.

I don’t think any WC has ever worked liked that.

 

[street cricketer]

Yes, captain Kohli can.

Pakistan obviously.

Captain Fantastic can

We all predicted correctly

 

[globalcitizen]

We have the answer. New Zealand were team who stopped both the teams india and england!!

 

[MP2011]

yes Pakistan and New Zealand stopped that from happening.

Credit goes to only NZ. They stopped us from reaching semis not once but twice. First time when they beat us and then they beat Afghanistan.

So they are the ones who could be credited to eject both us and England out of this WC.

 

[Kianig89]

Yes yes yes it's the black caps who have stopped them

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

We all predicted correctly

Once again you are right

 

[DHONI183]

The T20 world cup is a random tournament, it's not always the best side wins. England are certainly the best limited overs side of this generation. This game doesn't make New Zealand suddenly a better LOI side than England. This English cricket team has revolutionised LOI batting like the Lankans did in the 90s. Sometimes desi cricket fans can give too much importance to tournament cricket where it's a lot about luck and chance as well.

It´s interesting that you mentioned desi cricket fans because any cricket website that I open, any cricket expert or even fan that I hear, regardless of which country or cricket culture that he belongs to, is only discussing the ongoing tournament. Teams and players are being judged and evaluated right now based on what´s going on in the UAE. It´s a global event after all, regardless of how much we try to downplay it based on our taste. My post wasn´t about who´s better than England or who isn´t, if you read carefully. I was only commenting on England. I don´t know where the bit about New Zealand being better came from because I, in all honesty, don´t consider them any great force either. I would love to be proven wrong, and I´ve always been their supporter, but they tend to be merely a piece of cake for other teams in big matches, unless of course they´re up against India. However, if your logic here is that the shorter the format the more luck and chance comes into play, then New Zealand won the Test Championship, and that would seal the discussion. Terming it as luck and chance would be a huge insult to Brathwaite´s unbelievable effort to have hit four sixes to win the last World T20 in extreme pressure situation, and Stokes not being able to forget even years thereafter also tells you what these global events mean to the players.

Yesterday, they showed the summary of the Final and the bottom of the screen read, "Match tied (England declared winner on the boundary count." It´s interesting that you mentioned luck and chance, whereas my whole post revolved around this very point. I wonder how you missed that. If England had WON (yes, the key word, won) that Final, I would´ve never said all that. Again, if they had won that, neither would anyone have to defend them to prove that they´re the best thing since sliced bread. I also wonder how many people would´ve bought the theory on them being so great had they not been declared winner on the boundary count..... Cricket itself is indeed all luck and chance, it seems. I lose, in the end. I lose.

All that aside, it was a well fought game. England just ended up on the wrong side of it.

 

[street cricketer]

It´s interesting that you mentioned desi cricket fans because any cricket website that I open, any cricket expert or even fan that I hear, regardless of which country or cricket culture that he belongs to, is only discussing the ongoing tournament. Teams and players are being judged and evaluated right now based on what´s going on in the UAE. It´s a global event after all, regardless of how much we try to downplay it based on our taste. My post wasn´t about who´s better than England or who isn´t, if you read carefully. I was only commenting on England. I don´t know where the bit about New Zealand being better came from because I, in all honesty, don´t consider them any great force either. I would love to be proven wrong, and I´ve always been their supporter, but they tend to be merely a piece of cake for other teams in big matches, unless of course they´re up against India. However, if your logic here is that the shorter the format the more luck and chance comes into play, then New Zealand won the Test Championship, and that would seal the discussion. Terming it as luck and chance would be a huge insult to Brathwaite´s unbelievable effort to have hit four sixes to win the last World T20 in extreme pressure situation, and Stokes not being able to forget even years thereafter also tells you what these global events mean to the players.

Yesterday, they showed the summary of the Final and the bottom of the screen read, "Match tied (England declared winner on the boundary count." It´s interesting that you mentioned luck and chance, whereas my whole post revolved around this very point. I wonder how you missed that. If England had WON (yes, the key word, won) that Final, I would´ve never said all that. Again, if they had won that, neither would anyone have to defend them to prove that they´re the best thing since sliced bread. I also wonder how many people would´ve bought the theory on them being so great had they not been declared winner on the boundary count..... Cricket itself is indeed all luck and chance, it seems. I lose, in the end. I lose.

All that aside, it was a well fought game. England just ended up on the wrong side of it.

The reason I mentioned desi cricket fans is because they tend to be fickle and rate or diss teams based on 1 or 2 matches alone. Cricket fandom can be broadly divided into two fanbases - the desi cricket fanbase and the Anglo cricket fanbase. Of course everyone enjoys all cricket and follows them eagerly, but the attention of the desi fanbase is very much centred around limited overs cricket, particularly ICC tournaments and they place a huge value on these knockout matches, whereas the Anglo fanbase (Aus, Eng, NZ) are passionate about Test cricket and value Test success above everything else. Sure Australian and English fans wouldn't mind success in tournaments like the WT20, but they don't care about LOI cricket as seriously as they do about Test cricket. Yes, NZ won the WTC but that doesn't make them the best Test team in the world. Yes, this might sound weird after they won the final, but rating a team as the best test team in the world based on one game is exactly the product of the Limited overs mentality which often ignores the big picture.

I'm not referring to you but a lot of fans are calling this English team overrated because they lost today, but they are still the best LOI team of this generation. The way I see it, they revolutionised batting in this generation. Test cricket generally is immune to time related evolution and is largely a stable format, but limited overs cricket constantly evolves with every generation, almost like new version of iPhones. ODI cricket was not much different to the longer form of the game when it started out. The Lankans in '96 then revolutionised cricket by having attacking openers when Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana started attacking while opening for the first time. Then the game underwent a transformation again when the likes of Dhoni, Yuvraj, Kohli & co redefined the concept of chasing, making every chase a meticulously calculated journey towards the target with a final boost towards the end.

This English team redefined the batting once again which made the Indian method of laying a strong platform by the top order allowing the finishers to take advantage, an outdated approach to the game. The English team approached every ODI as slightly lengthened versions of T20s and everyone started attacking from the openers till the finishers. Yes, this high octane approach is fraught with risks and they nearly stumbled in the World cup final, but credit to them, they've never wavered from their approach. The only reason I quoted your post is because you posted in a satirical way on England as the "supposedly great English team" and that you never rated them highly. Of course you have a right to your opinion but I think it's bit unfair to call this England team overrated based on a single game, particularly in a format that's as volatile as T20 cricket is. In fact, I think toss is a huge factor in this tournament so much so that if England had won the toss, I think England would've progressed to the final.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

The T20 world cup is a random tournament, it's not always the best side wins. England are certainly the best limited overs side of this generation. This game doesn't make New Zealand suddenly a better LOI side than England. This English cricket team has revolutionised LOI batting like the Lankans did in the 90s. Sometimes desi cricket fans can give too much importance to tournament cricket where it's a lot about luck and chance as well.

Lol what? How is this world cup about luck and chance? Are you confusing it with a knockout tournament where every team goes out after losing just one match? Every team got 5 league matches before entering into semis. You are sounding like a sore loser here.

 

[DHONI183]

.... The only reason I quoted your post is because you posted in a satirical way on England as the "supposedly great English team" and that you never rated them highly. Of course you have a right to your opinion but I think it's bit unfair to call this England team overrated based on a single game, particularly in a format that's as volatile as T20 cricket is....

My whole post revolves around one particular point, and I re-quote my own second post below.......

Yesterday, they showed the summary of the Final and the bottom of the screen read, "Match tied (England declared winner on the boundary count." It´s interesting that you mentioned luck and chance, whereas my whole post revolved around this very point. I wonder how you missed that. If England had WON (yes, the key word, won) that Final, I would´ve never said all that. Again, if they had won that, neither would anyone have to defend them to prove that they´re the best thing since sliced bread. I also wonder how many people would´ve bought the theory on them being so great had they not been declared winner on the boundary count..... Cricket itself is indeed all luck and chance, it seems. I lose, in the end. I lose.

This remains my point. Minus that, I wouldn´t mind hosting this England team for a dinner. Hell, I was supporting them five years ago and was frustrated when Brathwaite conducted a robbery under floodlights. That shall remain the issue until they prove otherwise. As a side note, I may add that South Africa weren´t given the "chokers" tag by desi fans but by experts from other countries that you´ve referred to, and they didn´t get the tag because of failures in Test cricket. In fact, theirs was one of the greatest Test team of the history up until mid 2010s I think, yet experts would look at them with a sense of dissatisfaction. In fact, some of the England experts have been bashing India now based on their failure in a T20 World Cup and not Test cricket. These global tournaments are the carnivals where we all gather and watch teams play. Failures here go a long way.

 

[street cricketer]

Lol what? How is this world cup about luck and chance? Are you confusing it with a knockout tournament where every team goes out after losing just one match? Every team got 5 league matches before entering into semis. You are sounding like a sore loser here.

Any tournament where the toss has a huge factor in deciding the winner, certainly has the luck factor going for it. Obviously winning the toss does not guarantee a win, but it does goes a long way in ensuring you get an advantage first up. England had they won the toss yesterday would've most certainly emerged as the winners. That's not being a "sore loser", that's just recognising the factors that's outside the control of the teams.

 

[arif_2021]

indians are just hapless because they are scarred from a 10 wicket drubbing in a tournament where they were supposed to win.

i mean this was the best chance for india to win this world cup. just played ipl here and a very strong team. they had oversupply of players who can be slotted in the team..

enter shaheen shah afridi...

a 21 year old destroyed and shook the whole nation and restored some balance.

its all sour grapes.

the last 3 icc matches - CT 2017 -india was also humiliated. WC 2019 - rohit got lucky because of a missed run out, and two inside edges from hassan ali that didnt hit the wickets. during chase, babar got the only ball that kuldeep bowled well in that whole tournament. otherwise, we would have won that game too - we were 120-1 at one time, chasing.

And lets not even talk about October 24

 

[arif_2021]

Any tournament where the toss has a huge factor in deciding the winner, certainly has the luck factor going for it. Obviously winning the toss does not guarantee a win, but it does goes a long way in ensuring you get an advantage first up. England had they won the toss yesterday would've most certainly emerged as the winners. That's not being a "sore loser", that's just recognising the factors that's outside the control of the teams.

england also underscored - they should have scored 180 plus.

 

[street cricketer]

My whole post revolves around one particular point, and I re-quote my own second post below.......



This remains my point. Minus that, I wouldn´t mind hosting this England team for a dinner. Hell, I was supporting them five years ago and was frustrated when Brathwaite conducted a robbery under floodlights. That shall remain the issue until they prove otherwise. As a side note, I may add that South Africa weren´t given the "chokers" tag by desi fans but by experts from other countries that you´ve referred to, and they didn´t get the tag because of failures in Test cricket. In fact, theirs was one of the greatest Test team of the history up until mid 2010s I think, yet experts would look at them with a sense of dissatisfaction. In fact, some of the England experts have been bashing India now based on their failure in a T20 World Cup and not Test cricket. These global tournaments are the carnivals where we all gather and watch teams play. Failures here go a long way.

The South Africans were branded as "chokers" because they failed repeatedly in the ODI world cups, which I think has a significant standing in the game, on par with Test cricket. I don't think the T20 world cup has that stature yet personally.

The West Indies have twice won the WT20, how many pundits talk the West Indies of being a great team. Whenever people talk about a "great West Indian team", people think about the team of Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall & co and not Chris Gayle, Sunil Narine, Dwayne Bravo & co, as good a players the latter group are. So yes, while every tournament has its importance, the legacy of teams and players are mostly defined mostly by Test cricket, and also a bit by the ODI World cup.

 

[sweep_shot]

Any tournament where the toss has a huge factor in deciding the winner, certainly has the luck factor going for it. Obviously winning the toss does not guarantee a win, but it does goes a long way in ensuring you get an advantage first up. England had they won the toss yesterday would've most certainly emerged as the winners. That's not being a "sore loser", that's just recognising the factors that's outside the control of the teams.

I don't think toss had any major impact on NZ-England game.

New Zealand were down and out. They needed 58 runs from 4 overs. Jordan messed it up and Neesham played a blinder.

There was no dew problem as far as I have seen (I have watched the game live).

 

[street cricketer]

I don't think toss had any major impact on NZ-England game.

New Zealand were down and out. They needed 58 runs from 4 overs. Jordan messed it up and Neesham played a blinder.

There was no dew problem as far as I have seen (I have watched the game live).

It doesn't matter what individual events happened in any match. Almost everyone can predict that the teams who win the toss in the semifinal today and the final will opt to field first. When you can predict what the team will call at the toss with near 100% certainty, it means there's an advantage for doing so (fielding first in this case).

 

[Kohli The King of Chase]

New Zealand stopped both the teams lol

 

[iniqbal223]

We pakistanis, need to get over from this mentality of conspiracy theories ; looks like we live in different world

I also believed that ICC is trying to orchestrate England vs India or India vs Australia or India vs Pakistan finals

All these fantasies were in our media ; I cant believe even I fell for these..

 

[JaDed]

We pakistanis, need to get over from this mentality of conspiracy theories ; looks like we live in different world

I also believed that ICC is trying to orchestrate England vs India or India vs Australia or India vs Pakistan finals

All these fantasies were in our media ; I cant believe even I fell for these..

You don’t believe this now coz of how Aus and Warner(not reviewing) played?
Coz I swear we will have multiple threads if that happened against India.

PCT fans only think there is no conspiracy when they win.

 

[Usergame]

The T20 world cup is a random tournament, it's not always the best side wins. England are certainly the best limited overs side of this generation. This game doesn't make New Zealand suddenly a better LOI side than England. This English cricket team has revolutionised LOI batting like the Lankans did in the 90s. Sometimes desi cricket fans can give too much importance to tournament cricket where it's a lot about luck and chance as well.

The 2 world cup Tournaments are the only thing that matters about LOI's. England didn't really pull out their revolutionary batting in either the 50 over or t20 world cup. You cant really call it revolutionary when you have to fall back to a traditional style in knockout crunch games.

 

[street cricketer]

The 2 world cup Tournaments are the only thing that matters about LOI's. England didn't really pull out their revolutionary batting in either the 50 over or t20 world cup. You cant really call it revolutionary when you have to fall back to a traditional style in knockout crunch games.

Cruyff's great Dutch side never won a world cup. Does it make any less in stature? People still remember it for how it created a philosophy of "total football".

Nevermind England has actually won a world cup.

 

[DHONI183]

The South Africans were branded as "chokers" because they failed repeatedly in the ODI world cups, which I think has a significant standing in the game, on par with Test cricket. I don't think the T20 world cup has that stature yet personally.

The West Indies have twice won the WT20, how many pundits talk the West Indies of being a great team. Whenever people talk about a "great West Indian team", people think about the team of Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall & co and not Chris Gayle, Sunil Narine, Dwayne Bravo & co, as good a players the latter group are. So yes, while every tournament has its importance, the legacy of teams and players are mostly defined mostly by Test cricket, and also a bit by the ODI World cup.

Brother, I think that the key word being missed here is context and the meaning of things. Sammy and his fellows aren´t mentioned in the same class Clive Lloyd and his team primarily because of these guys having never won an ODI World Cup. You say that teams and players are defined by Test cricket and "Also a bit by the ODI World Cup." That´s where I firmly disagree! That is the ultimate prize in cricket. T20 World Cup victories haven´t yet reached that level of recognition, true, but you can´t be dismissing a global event just as "luck" and "chance". You provided a comparison, let me also provide comparison. Do you really think that a meaningless Test century scored by an Indian batsman against England holds the same value as the 12-ball fifty by Yuvraj? No cricket pundit from even England would agree! Do you think that any innings from this year´s Sri Lanka-West Indies series will ever be viewed same as Samuels´ unbelievable innings from the World T20 Final 2012? No! And we both know it. Going forward, see that Kohli has won a Test series even in Antarctica I think, but does anyone cricket pundit from any country talk him up as much as Dhoni was as a captain? Why? The lack of ICC trophies! I don´t think that Sri Lanka under Ranatunga were any world-beating force in Test cricket, but he still has made himself a name in cricket history, and no cricket pundit would, in his sane mind, rate Kohli higher than him. Graeme Smith´s Test team doesn´t get the same mention either, as do many ODI World Cup winning teams. Had it been the case, their name would´ve been "World-beaters" or something, instead of "chokers". Also, for example, all experts and fans around the globe mention the memorable match where South Africa chased down 434, but nobody actually mentions that Australia whitewashed them 3-0 in the Test series that followed. From amongst players for example, Michael Bevan has more of a name in cricket history than, let´s say, Jonathan Trott. Now, in return, you too would give me examples, like you did of Sammy and his fellows, and we would never stop going round in circles, whereas context is the key word. Remember also that cricket is evolving as a game, what´s most meaningful right now may lose much value 50 years down the line. So, my point is that there´s no white or black line to follow on this to settle this issue. After watching such a high-voltage sSmi-Final between Pakistan and Australia, an absolutely draining experience, the last thing would be a cricket fan telling me two weeks from hereon that he´s finally watching "Real cricket" now, that being a Test match between Sri Lanka and New Zealand or whatever. Again, "context" is the key word.

Now, as for England, I would simply refer to my earlier post from this thread itself to explain once again as to why they´re separate from other teams......

.... Yesterday, they showed the summary of the Final and the bottom of the screen read, "Match tied (England declared winner on the boundary count." It´s interesting that you mentioned luck and chance, whereas my whole post revolved around this very point. I wonder how you missed that. If England had WON (yes, the key word, won) that Final, I would´ve never said all that. Again, if they had won that, neither would anyone have to defend them to prove that they´re the best thing since sliced bread. I also wonder how many people would´ve bought the theory on them being so great had they not been declared winner on the boundary count..... Cricket itself is indeed all luck and chance, it seems. I lose, in the end. I lose.....

I rest my case.

 

[street cricketer]

Brother, I think that the key word being missed here is context and the meaning of things. Sammy and his fellows aren´t mentioned in the same class Clive Lloyd and his team primarily because of these guys having never won an ODI World Cup. You say that teams and players are defined by Test cricket and "Also a bit by the ODI World Cup." That´s where I firmly disagree! That is the ultimate prize in cricket. T20 World Cup victories haven´t yet reached that level of recognition, true, but you can´t be dismissing a global event just as "luck" and "chance". You provided a comparison, let me also provide comparison. Do you really think that a meaningless Test century scored by an Indian batsman against England holds the same value as the 12-ball fifty by Yuvraj? No cricket pundit from even England would agree! Do you think that any innings from this year´s Sri Lanka-West Indies series will ever be viewed same as Samuels´ unbelievable innings from the World T20 Final 2012? No! And we both know it. Going forward, see that Kohli has won a Test series even in Antarctica I think, but does anyone cricket pundit from any country talk him up as much as Dhoni was as a captain? Why? The lack of ICC trophies! I don´t think that Sri Lanka under Ranatunga were any world-beating force in Test cricket, but he still has made himself a name in cricket history, and no cricket pundit would, in his sane mind, rate Kohli higher than him. Graeme Smith´s Test team doesn´t get the same mention either, as do many ODI World Cup winning teams. Had it been the case, their name would´ve been "World-beaters" or something, instead of "chokers". Also, for example, all experts and fans around the globe mention the memorable match where South Africa chased down 434, but nobody actually mentions that Australia whitewashed them 3-0 in the Test series that followed. From amongst players for example, Michael Bevan has more of a name in cricket history than, let´s say, Jonathan Trott. Now, in return, you too would give me examples, like you did of Sammy and his fellows, and we would never stop going round in circles, whereas context is the key word. Remember also that cricket is evolving as a game, what´s most meaningful right now may lose much value 50 years down the line. So, my point is that there´s no white or black line to follow on this to settle this issue. After watching such a high-voltage sSmi-Final between Pakistan and Australia, an absolutely draining experience, the last thing would be a cricket fan telling me two weeks from hereon that he´s finally watching "Real cricket" now, that being a Test match between Sri Lanka and New Zealand or whatever. Again, "context" is the key word.

Now, as for England, I would simply refer to my earlier post from this thread itself to explain once again as to why they´re separate from other teams......




I rest my case.

Think we need to recognise the massive difference and diversity of opinions in the global cricket fanbase. Like I said earlier - there are two broad categories: Desi fanbase and Anglo fanbase. The Desi fanbase values LOI tournaments above everything, particularly the world cups in ODI and T20 formats. Anglo cricket fans are Test purists first and foremost and I've seen a lot of English fans rating the Ashes even above the ODI world cup, while the Australians probably rate them on par, with some rating the Ashes higher. I'm not making this up because I've been a part of English and Australian cricket forums and have first hand knowledge of how the die hard cricket fans of their countries rate different formats. Just for example, the Aussies were pleasantly surprised that they made the final of this world cup and a lot of them felt they "wouldn't mind" a WT20 as it would be nice to have in the cabinet, but their prime interest is only in the upcoming Ashes. Contrast this to the desi fans who are invested so much even for the WT20 nevermind the ODI WC.

The catch here is that because there are so many people in the subcontinent, the population of cricket fans is disproportionately skewed towards the desi fanbase and therefore you tend to hear more of the opinions favouring LOI formats. Not sure why you call a Test hundred meaningless and yes, absolutely I rate Bumrah's spell on the boxing day test in 2018 above Yuvraj's fifty because the former helped us win our first ever test series in Australia, a historic moment which I never imagined I'll see in my life growing up. And it's the same for the English and Australians too. Heck, I saw a lot of Aussies rating Wade's knock in the semifinal against Pak as his second best ever batting performance, below his century at Edgbaston in the last Ashes.

You give the example of Trott. Let me give an another example. You have one of the best opening batsmen in world cricket in Jason Roy and compare him to Alastair Cook, who was mediocre in LOIs. Who do you think will have a greater legacy after Roy retires too. Or Anderson vs Jofra or any of their LOI pacers. Bracken was a great ODI bowler, but people rarely talk about him to the same extent they talk about Gillespie. At the end of the day, it boils down to the difference of opinions. We can keep arguing till the cows come home, but it's like arguing if classical music or pop music is better. Desi fans will continue to rate LOI tournaments while Anglo fans will predominantly continue to be Test purists. But because the cricket loving population is skewed greatly towards the subcontinent, the predominant narrative will be towards LOI tournaments.