G
Gandhi'sGangees
Guest
I believe these figures prove that India is, historically, a very poor cricketing nation.
India has only won 23% of their test matches played
Australia has won 46% of their test matches played.
--> Our winning percentage against England is only 41%, lower than our overall winning percentage, therefore rendering the old "you got most of your wins against a weak English team" argument completely invalid.
According to the "Law of Averages" of which Ashish "Fatfu<k" Bhatia quotes so often, since Australia has played a greater amount of test matches, shouldn't our winning percentage be lower than India's?
What is the reason behind India's lackluster performance as not only a cricketing nation, but also as a nation in general?
care to elaborate, Douglas? I can take whatever those little Indian's throw at me. I'm better then them - I'm not Indian.
Ashish - there's a 23% discrepancy between Australia and India. That's a pretty large margin...
Anyhow,
1) So you're willing to accept the notion that subcontinent nations produce substandard playing conditions and facilities?
2) You've just contradicted yourself. It's like saying that Sachin's average should be as high as Bradman's because he's played so many more test matches. I've got a document full of quotes that you've made in the past (the website is almost complete, by the way), and there are several references to this "Law of Averages" of which you quote so often.
I'm sorry, but in case the Indian education system has succeeded in developing yet another illiterate little Indian, this is a legitimate cricket related question that deserves a legitimate cricket related answer.
ROFL ASHISH - your logic makes absolutely no sense. We'll see what India's winning percentage is after 700+ test matches (if they get there without being blow up by Pakistan). I can assure you that it won't be anywhere near 46%.
India has only won 23% of their test matches played
Australia has won 46% of their test matches played.
--> Our winning percentage against England is only 41%, lower than our overall winning percentage, therefore rendering the old "you got most of your wins against a weak English team" argument completely invalid.
According to the "Law of Averages" of which Ashish "Fatfu<k" Bhatia quotes so often, since Australia has played a greater amount of test matches, shouldn't our winning percentage be lower than India's?
What is the reason behind India's lackluster performance as not only a cricketing nation, but also as a nation in general?
care to elaborate, Douglas? I can take whatever those little Indian's throw at me. I'm better then them - I'm not Indian.
Ashish - there's a 23% discrepancy between Australia and India. That's a pretty large margin...
Anyhow,
1) So you're willing to accept the notion that subcontinent nations produce substandard playing conditions and facilities?
2) You've just contradicted yourself. It's like saying that Sachin's average should be as high as Bradman's because he's played so many more test matches. I've got a document full of quotes that you've made in the past (the website is almost complete, by the way), and there are several references to this "Law of Averages" of which you quote so often.
I'm sorry, but in case the Indian education system has succeeded in developing yet another illiterate little Indian, this is a legitimate cricket related question that deserves a legitimate cricket related answer.
ROFL ASHISH - your logic makes absolutely no sense. We'll see what India's winning percentage is after 700+ test matches (if they get there without being blow up by Pakistan). I can assure you that it won't be anywhere near 46%.