bhaveshgor wrote:but it needs 4 standout performances, this games didn't really have 4 standout performances and 1 of those needs to be with the ball.
for example in 2001, india had 3 batsman contributing and 1 bowler that took 32 wickets in 3 test.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:bhaveshgor wrote:but it needs 4 standout performances, this games didn't really have 4 standout performances and 1 of those needs to be with the ball.
for example in 2001, india had 3 batsman contributing and 1 bowler that took 32 wickets in 3 test.
True. Lots of ways to win and lose.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Not sure how much cricket is a team game, apart from fielding. About four players can win you a match. The famous series between India and Australia in the early noughties was won by four Indian players. Hardly anyone else did anything.
hopeforthebest wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:bhaveshgor wrote:but it needs 4 standout performances, this games didn't really have 4 standout performances and 1 of those needs to be with the ball.
for example in 2001, india had 3 batsman contributing and 1 bowler that took 32 wickets in 3 test.
True. Lots of ways to win and lose.
This was essentially a batsman's game but the future pitches are likely to tilt the games in favour of the bowlers. So you batsmen rich teams enjoy your short-lived success.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:India v England 2106 Fantasy League is not a young man's game.


Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests