The Ashes 2006-07: The Build-up

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by gibbs_fan

I maintained that Englands no2 ranking was flattering. You see that in the year before the ashes, England played most of the test teams in England. The only tough tour they had was against SA. Beating the West Indies in West Indies is a formality nowadays. Just like I said before, when England do tour the sub continent and Australia, they will be found wanting. I was of course correct. Of course English fans will complain about their injuries. Just like the soccer team, there always has to be someone or something to blame when they lose. My point is that England will lose the ashes and they will susequently fall down the ranking to 4th or 5th.

Where do I start??? England had beaten Pakistan and Sri Lanka away, they also drew in India last winter.

Even if England lose the Ashes they will soon play South Africa again and rise up, again.

Gibbs Fan - Are you EVER wrong??

[gibbs_fan]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Where do I start??? England had beaten Pakistan and Sri Lanka away, they also drew in India last winter.

Even if England lose the Ashes they will soon play South Africa again and rise up, again.

Gibbs Fan - Are you EVER wrong??

I dont know what you are on about. Perhaps we are watching on different planets. It is a well known fact that England had not won a series after the ashes until they beat Pakistan. In fact had Pakistan won the last test match, Pakistan would have climbed above England in the rankings. Where do you start. I do not know on what Planet England beat both Sri Lanka and Pakistan away after the ashes, but it certainly was not on earth. England were down in India but fought back well to level the series. England did not even beat Sri Lanka at home.

Please, I am tired of replying to posts where people just post without even thinking. Please before you claim to have won a series please make sure that you did. You are embarrassing yourself. I can be proven wrong with FACTS!!!!!!!

And who cares if England beat SA. I never once said that SA are better than England. All I was trying to say is that England had an easy run up to the ashes and that is why they flew up the ranking. When they had to tour the subcontinent, the matches were not as one sided as the matches against West Indies and New Zealand in England. India and Pakistan are IMO better test sides than England.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by gibbs_fan

India and Pakistan are IMO better test sides than England.

If so explain how, we drew with India (away) over the winter and then beat Pakistan at home 2-0 this summer (I am not counting the Oval debacle)?

[gangstacocacola]

but you did not beat pakistan in pakistan or sri lanka in sri lanka. Therefore, england have not won a test series in the subcontinent. How can you say "england are better then pakistan or india in test cricket" when you have only beaten pakistan in your own backyard but not in theirs?????

[Ernest]

It really is a silly argument this - England did not beat Pakistan away in 2005, it could be argued they should have won at Multan.

Then under Flintoff they got a credible draw in India - and the England v Pakistan series told us nothing.

The drawn series against Sri Lanka was due to sloppy fielding - 9 catches dropped at Lords.

It will be a different England side that takes the parks in Australia, players will have made remarkable recoveries.
England had a fantastic run up to the 2005 Ashes beating West Indies (home and away) beating new Zealand 3-0, but seemed stale after the Ashes - no one knows at this moment who is #1 in the world, there have been so many odd results in the last two years.

[John]

Originally Posted by Ernest

no one knows at this moment who is #1 in the world, there have been so many odd results in the last two years.

I think this is right. For me it is England or Australia.
Pakistan performance in England confirmed they are not immeadite contenders. Both sides had players missing but I thought Pakistan's lack of application was glaring.
India are not contenders they have to get a fast bowler. They have the batsmen and the spinners add a top quality pacemen and they maybe more than contenders.

[greg]

Originally Posted by gibbs_fan

Greg before you talk about rocket science, go and look up the allocation for points. It has nothing to do with what happend in the previous meeting between the 2 teams. That was the old( donkey) system. If Australia win, they WILL pick up points. What you are saying is that because Australia won last time, they cant gain any points. For every test match a team wins, that team picks up points. The number of points depend on the opposition among other things. It does not depend on the result the last time round.

Now that is rocket science

Oops i made a mistake.I thought the rankings went back to July 2002 but they go to 2003 so the last ashes tour is not included.Well spank my ass and call me Charlie.

[Mr Hutt]

Hear Ye Hear Ye

the latest Gaffe from the great one himself... Mcgrath

Speaking at the Adelaide Oval, he also said, “This is where we’re going to win back the Ashes”. Someone gently informed him that Adelaide is the venue for the second Test, so that’s not actually possible. “Aw well, it will be 2-0,” McGrath replied, “and that’s as near as dammit.”


lol... i think we should have a seperate thread called Ashes Gaffes someone make one.. lots of funny stuff is gonna happen!!!

[Quagmire]

If you want to know who is number one in the world the ICC website would show you

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

If you want to know who is number one in the world the ICC website would show you

So when did the ICC get anything right .