What?. You have lost me here, what does India series vs WI in the 1980s have anything to do with what i said?????.
Really i am struggling to follow you arguments now. Where did i question whether the average age of the 2011 ENG team is more or less than the 2005 Ashes winning side???.
My counter-point to your odd assertion that
"England will go into rebuilding if they lose to India is ludicrous. Their is no ageing players in the England team currently @ the flag end of their careers. But however quite clearly other than Strauss,, they are many players in the late 20s who are potentially peaking. So quite obviously win or lose vs India this side will be together for another 4 years once the same injury cures that struck the 2005 Ashes side does not return.
I feel like i just stated the bloody obvious their.
Anderson & Tremlett of 2007 are not on the same level of Anderson & Tremlett of 2011 sir. Any ardent follower of English cricket would tell you that.
Anderson would not have even played in that 2007 tour if Flintoff & Hoggard & Harmison were fit. Anderson was still trying to establish himself as a bowler in the England set-up in 2007. Anderson recent Ashes performance is what fully convinced the world that he more than just a bowler that needs seaming conditions to do well.
Tremlett also was just a young bowler in 2007. He didnt disgrace himself in 2007. But quite obviously Tremlett currently based on his Ashes performance & demolition of the Sri Lanka batsmen in the just concluded 1st test is peaking as a test bowler.
So quite obviously the Anderson & Tremlett that India faced in 2007, are much more developed bowlers in 2011. If this is not obvious to you my friend, then you clearly haven't been following English cricket very well in recent years.
Broad does not need swinging conditions to be effective. He has other strenghts. Plus England have alof quality quick bowling depth in Finn, Onions, Shazad, Bresnan. Something they didn't have in 2007.
Plus no. The 2008 England side that toured India is not on the same level as the current England set-up. What have you been smoking???. That England team lost 1-0 in the west indies in 2009.
The current legacy of this England team whether it goes onto greatness or not starts from their 2010/11 Ashes win.
So Warne didn't have any impact in the 2004 series win in India at all you are telling me???.
Gillespie was playing half fit when IND toured AUS in 03/04. That was quite obvious. When he was fully fit for the return tour to IND he owend IND batsmen.
Given the flatness of the pitches in the 03/04 series. I am quite confident IND would not have drawn that 03/04 series if both McGrath/Warne were fully-fit.
Once Warne had a fully fit Mcgrath/Gillespie to support him as was the case in the 2004 tour to IND, he would have done a similar job in the 2003/04 home series.
Where did i suggest that the 2005 ENG Ashes winning side was great side???.
I have already written above again on why you claiming a lack-of-McGrath would have prevented England from winning is a faulty theory. So you can quit trying to play down England 05 Ashes achievement, so you just embarrassing yourself.
Haha i love the certainty & arrogance of your argument. Its is utterly ridiculous to suggest in IND way that IND would not have won that series even if they had managed to win the chennai test.
None of us know what could have happened. But if one wishes to venture into the hypothetical, if one used trends of what happened in that series, you can only give edge to Australia again:
- NONE of the India batsmen except Sehwag averaged anything respectable in that 2004 series. The great AUS 4-man attack absolutely OWNED ALL OF THEM!!:
Cricket Records | Records | Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2004/05 - India | Batting and bowling averages | ESPN Cricinfo
Look at the averages. Except for Sehwag all of the top 7 batsmen averaged below 30. How in god's name then could you be argue with certainty that on a wearing 5th day wicket with the AUS bowler owning the batsmen all series, that Ind would have won. Evidence of circumstances of that series clearly gives hypothetical edge to AUS great attack defending that target.
Plus you haven't checked up on what i said about Australia's dead rubber record during the 95-2007 glory years. Evidence again clearly suggest that AUS always gave away test dead rubber test after they won series consistently for over 12 years as world champions.
Oh dear. I am not comparing the abilities of Trott to Dravid. So their is no need to question whether Trott has faced similar quality bowling attacks to Dravid. Learn to read & comprehend sir.
I am comparing their batting
STYLES. Which is very defensive & one paced. Both being the players in which their respective teams depend on to achor their test innings
Now that England have just managed to win this current test match on the final day. I hope you will now see that your crazy tirade against Trott slow scoring has been nothing more than noise. Even with alot of time was lost due to rain.
So at the moment, Trott can clearly continue to score @ his pace, since ENG have the bowling attack to penetrate any international batting line-up, once they have enough time to do so.
