Originally Posted by Uppercut
Well you can't judge how it might have performed, obviously. But if you want to know how a team with Porterfield, O'Brien, Morgan and Rankin in it is going to perform in a match played tomorrow, matches in which none of them played aren't going to be much value as a source of evidence.
It's the same with Australia. If you want to know how good Australia are- and i take that to mean at full-strength or close to it- you don't use as evidence matches in which only three or four of their first-choice players were on the pitch.
In terms of evidence, the only hard evidence is to judge a team on how they performed on the pitch. How a team is going to perform is more a matter of conjecture in that any eventuality is possible. I'd prefer evidence over conjecture in terms of 'rating' a team.
Australia put the best team they could out v SA and got beat. I would rate them accordingly.