South Africa reject tri-series proposal

holcs wrote:One day gents one day I will crack one of these nuts!!!

you need to learn to back up your rhetoric with facts first

we played a squillion tests last week while those indians played 3 in the last century. its true i tell ya

Nasty tick infestation you have there, holcs.

The One wrote:are you saying playing in stanford is making england give up a test match in india? whouda thunk it?

england refused to stay for a 3rd test. almost every other nation has or will have played the same number of tests this year and a whole lot more odis. cant see england going back from australia for a christmas break

besides eng played 3 tests each against nz home and away. total of 12 tests in the year. other countries

aus - 15 (18 if pak tour took place)
eng - 12
ind - 15
nz - 10
pak - 0 (3 if aus tour took place)
sa - 15
sl - 5
wi - 9

so eng play less tests than india? ergo the ecb must care less for tests than the bcci

Oh yes TO, that was my whole point, due to the stanford they didn't want to play.

Now if i'm not mistaken, England requested time and again to have a 3 TEST series as that is what is important.

The BCCI couldn't see past there wallets and refused, and instead we have a pointless 7 ODI series. If the ECB wanted a tour schedule that was a certain perios of time, then thats the schedule. It is therefore the BCCI who could have had a 3 test series, and an ODI series who refused that route.

England wouldn't go back from Australia for a Xmas break because it is a 5 tests match series, and our tour their is the whole winter.

The tour to india is nothing more than a jokefest.

2 test and 7 ODI's = joke tour.

TO you have to face up to the fact that actually the BCCI are in no way interested in Test cricket as it brings in little money for their coffers.

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:One day gents one day I will crack one of these nuts!!!

you need to learn to back up your rhetoric with facts first

we played a squillion tests last week while those indians played 3 in the last century. its true i tell ya

Oh deary me TO, little chip there developing????

ECB requested 3 tests.

BCCI refused and wanted 7 pointless 50 over a side games.

These are facts.

skully wrote:Nasty tick infestation you have there, holcs.

Same applies to 'the one' !!
Injuns ... savages .... blimey, self derogation with a vengeance there!

Christmas is a religious holiday. Why would England want to spend Christmas in a country where only 2% would be celebrating it? Exactly.

Merlin wrote:

skully wrote:Nasty tick infestation you have there, holcs.

Same applies to 'the one' !!
Injuns ... savages .... blimey, self derogation with a vengeance there!

Erm, I was referring to his avatar.

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:One day gents one day I will crack one of these nuts!!!

you need to learn to back up your rhetoric with facts first

we played a squillion tests last week while those indians played 3 in the last century. its true i tell ya

Oh deary me TO, little chip there developing????

ECB requested 3 tests.

BCCI refused and wanted 7 pointless 50 over a side games.

These are facts.

FFS Charlie, haven't you worked it out yet>

It is all to do with ground rotation.

1 test = 1 ground = 3 ODI's = 3 grounds.

This ensures that the BCCI buys the votes it needs to stay in power.

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:One day gents one day I will crack one of these nuts!!!

you need to learn to back up your rhetoric with facts first

we played a squillion tests last week while those indians played 3 in the last century. its true i tell ya

Oh deary me TO, little chip there developing????

ECB requested 3 tests.

BCCI refused and wanted 7 pointless 50 over a side games.

These are facts.

FFS Charlie, haven't you worked it out yet>

It is all to do with ground rotation.

1 test = 1 ground = 3 ODI's = 3 grounds.

This ensures that the BCCI buys the votes it needs to stay in power.

We have a winner.

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:are you saying playing in stanford is making england give up a test match in india? whouda thunk it?

england refused to stay for a 3rd test. almost every other nation has or will have played the same number of tests this year and a whole lot more odis. cant see england going back from australia for a christmas break

besides eng played 3 tests each against nz home and away. total of 12 tests in the year. other countries

aus - 15 (18 if pak tour took place)
eng - 12
ind - 15
nz - 10
pak - 0 (3 if aus tour took place)
sa - 15
sl - 5
wi - 9

so eng play less tests than india? ergo the ecb must care less for tests than the bcci

Oh yes TO, that was my whole point, due to the stanford they didn't want to play.

Now if i'm not mistaken, England requested time and again to have a 3 TEST series as that is what is important.

The BCCI couldn't see past there wallets and refused, and instead we have a pointless 7 ODI series. If the ECB wanted a tour schedule that was a certain perios of time, then thats the schedule. It is therefore the BCCI who could have had a 3 test series, and an ODI series who refused that route.

England wouldn't go back from Australia for a Xmas break because it is a 5 tests match series, and our tour their is the whole winter.

The tour to india is nothing more than a jokefest.

2 test and 7 ODI's = joke tour.

TO you have to face up to the fact that actually the BCCI are in no way interested in Test cricket as it brings in little money for their coffers.

india presented a tour schedule to england which had 3 tests and 7 odis, exactly the same number as on the england tour. eng refused to honour that so the requisite number of matches are not there. unless you are ridiculously biased its quite clear its the ecb at fault. every other country seems to tour for the same number of matches as they host, its only england that doesnt seem to want to play fair

india plays as much test cricket as any other country. this year and next even more than england. so you can cut the crap about india not caring about tests unless you have some real proof for it, besides the voices in your head

Game, set and match, TO.

All this sooking about India not playing enough tests (and is only interested in playing ODIs) has become quite tiresome.

holcs wrote:If the ECB wanted a tour schedule that was a certain perios of time, then thats the schedule.

i'm sorry i missed this. thats hilarious

what do you think this is? 1850? that probably sums up your thinking process best

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:

The One wrote:are you saying playing in stanford is making england give up a test match in india? whouda thunk it?

england refused to stay for a 3rd test. almost every other nation has or will have played the same number of tests this year and a whole lot more odis. cant see england going back from australia for a christmas break

besides eng played 3 tests each against nz home and away. total of 12 tests in the year. other countries

aus - 15 (18 if pak tour took place)
eng - 12
ind - 15
nz - 10
pak - 0 (3 if aus tour took place)
sa - 15
sl - 5
wi - 9

so eng play less tests than india? ergo the ecb must care less for tests than the bcci

Oh yes TO, that was my whole point, due to the stanford they didn't want to play.

Now if i'm not mistaken, England requested time and again to have a 3 TEST series as that is what is important.

The BCCI couldn't see past there wallets and refused, and instead we have a pointless 7 ODI series. If the ECB wanted a tour schedule that was a certain perios of time, then thats the schedule. It is therefore the BCCI who could have had a 3 test series, and an ODI series who refused that route.

England wouldn't go back from Australia for a Xmas break because it is a 5 tests match series, and our tour their is the whole winter.

The tour to india is nothing more than a jokefest.

2 test and 7 ODI's = joke tour.

TO you have to face up to the fact that actually the BCCI are in no way interested in Test cricket as it brings in little money for their coffers.

india presented a tour schedule to england which had 3 tests and 7 odis, exactly the same number as on the england tour. eng refused to honour that so the requisite number of matches are not there. unless you are ridiculously biased its quite clear its the ecb at fault. every other country seems to tour for the same number of matches as they host, its only england that doesnt seem to want to play fair

india plays as much test cricket as any other country. this year and next even more than england. so you can cut the crap about india not caring about tests unless you have some real proof for it, besides the voices in your head

Gold TO, absolute GOLD.

England said the itinery did not work due to scheduling, Xmas whatever else, but they were adamant they wanted the 3 Tests.

Now the BCCI easily could have said 3 tests and an ODI series - they refused purely on the basis of cash.

Now I'm pretty sure all the way through TO, Eng;land have always wanted to play 3 tests. So whose the board reducing the tests being played???

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:If the ECB wanted a tour schedule that was a certain perios of time, then thats the schedule.

i'm sorry i missed this. thats hilarious

what do you think this is? 1850? that probably sums up your thinking process best

Chippy chippy chippy TO.

If the intinery was not workable for the ECB, then its not workable in the same way that the tour to NZ that your guys bailed on before a world cup was not workable for you.

Every board has the right to say an itinery or schedule is not workable.

SG wrote:All this sooking about India not playing enough tests (and is only interested in playing ODIs) has become quite tiresome.

And very true.

holcs wrote:eng refused to honour that so the requisite number of matches are not there. unless you are ridiculously biased its quite clear its the ecb at fault.

BCCI's main grouse is with the ICC Champions Trophy that is slated for September, without which the board would not have had to trim the itinerary for England's visit.

How is that ECB's fault? The original 'FTP'is quoted that England were supposed to return home before Christmas. They still are. Only India changed the dates of the matches.... therefore it's either BCCI's fault or the ICC's fault.

Um, wasn't the England tour pushed back a few days, because the Aus tour was pushed back a few deys because of IPL?

Brass Monkey wrote:

holcs wrote:eng refused to honour that so the requisite number of matches are not there. unless you are ridiculously biased its quite clear its the ecb at fault.

BCCI's main grouse is with the ICC Champions Trophy that is slated for September, without which the board would not have had to trim the itinerary for England's visit.

How is that ECB's fault? The original 'FTP'is quoted that England were supposed to return home before Christmas. They still are. Only India changed the dates of the matches.... therefore it's either BCCI's fault or the ICC's fault.

"But the BCCI had no influence over the FTP" Chandan, circa 2 days ago.

holcs wrote:Gold TO, absolute GOLD.

England said the itinery did not work due to scheduling, Xmas whatever else, but they were adamant they wanted the 3 Tests.

Now the BCCI easily could have said 3 tests and an ODI series - they refused purely on the basis of cash.

Now I'm pretty sure all the way through TO, Eng;land have always wanted to play 3 tests. So whose the board reducing the tests being played???

england

what do i win?

yes, you play 3 tests and 7 odis in our country *nudge nudge* and we play only tests matches when we tour as we really need to get back to the wife and kids *wink wink*. hows that old chap?

holcs wrote:

SG wrote:All this sooking about India not playing enough tests (and is only interested in playing ODIs) has become quite tiresome.

And very true.

But not based on facts.

Here are the no. of tests that are being played by major 4 test playing nations during last 5 years, including this year

Eng: 63 tests,

Ind & SA: 57 tests,

Aus: 55 tests.

Australia must be caring least for the test cricket then.

The One wrote:
england

what do i win?

yes, you play 3 tests and 7 odis in our country *nudge nudge* and we play only tests matches when we tour as we really need to get back to the wife and kids *wink wink*. hows that old chap?

So, you're going to ignore me to spout some twat rhetoric? Class.

The One wrote:

holcs wrote:Gold TO, absolute GOLD.

England said the itinery did not work due to scheduling, Xmas whatever else, but they were adamant they wanted the 3 Tests.

Now the BCCI easily could have said 3 tests and an ODI series - they refused purely on the basis of cash.

Now I'm pretty sure all the way through TO, Eng;land have always wanted to play 3 tests. So whose the board reducing the tests being played???

england

what do i win?

yes, you play 3 tests and 7 odis in our country *nudge nudge* and we play only tests matches when we tour as we really need to get back to the wife and kids *wink wink*. hows that old chap?

As you can see above, it was your board who crammed the scheduling, which adds further back up to the fact that the BCCI could have, and were requested to make it a 3 test series, with a ODI series on the back of it.

I'm also not sure, and some of the others may be able to back me up, but I think the 7 ODI's here were at the BCCI's request as opposed to another test.

SG wrote:

holcs wrote:

SG wrote:All this sooking about India not playing enough tests (and is only interested in playing ODIs) has become quite tiresome.

And very true.

But not based on facts.

Here are the no. of tests that are being played by major 4 test playing nations during last 5 years, including this year

Eng: 63 tests,

Ind & SA: 57 tests,

Aus: 55 tests.

Australia must be caring least for the test cricket then.

Actually had there been no security issues I think you'll find Aus would have played 58 at this point in time.

skully wrote:

Merlin wrote:

skully wrote:Nasty tick infestation you have there, holcs.

Same applies to 'the one' !!
Injuns ... savages .... blimey, self derogation with a vengeance there!

Erm, I was referring to his avatar.

I think he is more ticked off than anything else