A statistical anomaly

[chasingthedon]

That's what an England victory would respresent. Australia currently top the ICC Rankings with 128 points, while England have 101. Here is a list of series played throughout history between similarly-rated teams in series of at least five Tests (W-D-L):-

1921 3-2-0 Aus (122) v Eng (101)
1935-6 4-1-0 Aus (127) v SA (98)
1936-7 3-0-2 Aus (125) v Eng (98)
1946-7 3-2-0 Aus (129) v Eng (105)
1956 2-2-1 Eng (124) v Aus (105)
1957-8 3-2-0 Aus (120) v SA (98)
1960-1 2-2-1 Aus (129) v WI (103)
1962-3 1-3-1 Aus (126) v Eng (100)
1966 3-1-1 WI (128) v Eng (103)
1970-1 2-4-0 Eng (124) v Eng (105)
1975-6 5-0-1 Aus (126) v WI (101)
1977-8 3-1-1 WI (122) v Aus (103)
1983-4 3-2-0 WI (122) v Aus (101)
1984-5 3-1-1 WI (126) v Aus (102)
2001 4-0-1 Aus (124) v Eng (101)

Only one underdog managed a draw, England in 1962-3. Three times the underdog managed to get within one Test, but on the majority of occasions they were thumped, the favourite winning on average three Tests.

Come on England!

[Burgey]

I like them numbers!

[Howsie]

How long have the rankings been around for?

[chasingthedon]

Originally Posted by Darryn

How long have the rankings been around for?

Since 2003, but I worked them out historically.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Artic...kings_rev2.pdf

[oitoitoi]

Now that's a committed fan.

[Goughy]

Interesting stuff. Certainly appears to validate the formula. Not good news for England, though I doubt anyone expected them to have a realistic change.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Interesting stuff. Certainly appears to validate the formula. Not good news for England, though I doubt anyone expected them to have a realistic chance.

I do. I don't think they'll win it, but i'd be more surprised if they got completely stuffed than i would be if they did win.

This England team is absolutely miiiiles better than the one that lost to South Africa last summer, and that series was certainly competitive. South Africa are somewhere around Oz's level so I don't see why a much-improved England side can't compete again.

[Pup Clarke]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

This England team is absolutely miiiiles better than the one that lost to South Africa last summer,

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Pup Clarke

Certainly.

Cook=Cook
Strauss is in far, far better form
Bopara is better than Vaughan was
KP is KP
Collingwood isn't in the worst form of his life this year
Prior>>>Flintoff at 6. Keeping is an issue.
Flintoff>>>Ambrose at 7
Broad>>>the Broad of last year
Anderson is Anderson
Sidebottom is fitness dependent, but he couldn't do much worse than he did against Saffa
Swanny>>>>>>>>>>Monty. And gives the tail far more strength too.

Only area that's gone backwards is keeping. They've seriously improved. Doubt it'll be enough to win the Ashes, but there's no doubt they're at least better than the crap that played last year.

[Pup Clarke]

Aye, when maybe when you look at it that way. Seeing as they still lost v WI barely 4 months ago including Swann and (admittidly) a much-improved Broad. Their results since that SA series last summer, have been typical England - very inconsistent.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Pup Clarke

Aye, when maybe when you look at it that way. Seeing as they still lost v WI barely 4 months ago including Swann and (admittidly) a much-improved Broad. Their results since that SA series last summer, have been typical England - very inconsistent.

You're quite right of course. The recent results aren't there to back me up.

I don't think the reasons they lost the series in the West Indies will apply here anyway. Failing to adjust to foreign conditions quickly enough in the first game of a tour, inability to force results against a team playing for the draw on ridiculously flat pitches, struggling with searing heat and playing Steve Harmison all don't seem relevant to the Ashes.

I just think they have a lot of good players. Australia are an excellent side, and they may not have enough to beat them, but the pessimism is completely out of proportion to their actual quality IMO.

[Uppercut]

Adding to that theme, who were the last team to come to England and win comfortably? Australia. 8 years ago. Australia aren't the best team to tour in that time, and the current England team are far from the worst.

[oitoitoi]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Adding to that theme, who were the last team to come to England and win comfortably? Australia. 8 years ago. Australia aren't the best team to tour in that time, and the current England team are far from the worst.

I reckon SA last year was pretty comfortable all things considered, winning a dead rubber doesn't really detract from the manner in which SA won. While the series was live England didn't really look like winning a test tbh, very impotent at lords, and SA controlled the game pretty well at Headingley despite the sky comms trying to turn it into some sort of epic contest reminiscent of Donald vs Atherton. If India had pushed for the win and enforced the follow on at the oval that could have been a fairly emphatic win, they got lucky(ish) at Lords but the distance between the sides became increasingly evident as the series went on, if they'd played a 4th test I reckon India would have had the better of it regardless of conditions. The same could possibly be said of Sri Lanka in 06, they hammered England in that last test. Basically England usually start well when top opposition teams haven't adjusted to conditions yet (SA 1st 2 days at Lords), but then when they do they usually take control. If Pakistan had turned up with their proper bowling attack in 06 that series could have had a very different complexion (not saying Pak would have won), would have loved to have seen Asif in English conditions, Yousuf and Younis were simply awesome in that series, the English bowlers had nothing on them IIRC.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Certainly.

Cook=Cook
Strauss is in far, far better form
Bopara is better than Vaughan was
KP is KP
Collingwood isn't in the worst form of his life this year
Prior>>>Flintoff at 6. Keeping is an issue.
Flintoff>>>Ambrose at 7
Broad>>>the Broad of last year
Anderson is Anderson
Sidebottom is fitness dependent, but he couldn't do much worse than he did against Saffa
Swanny>>>>>>>>>>Monty. And gives the tail far more strength too.

Only area that's gone backwards is keeping. They've seriously improved. Doubt it'll be enough to win the Ashes, but there's no doubt they're at least better than the crap that played last year.

Hard to disagree with a word of that. thne Ashes are comign home, mint

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I do. I don't think they'll win it, but i'd be more surprised if they got completely stuffed than i would be if they did win.

This England team is absolutely miiiiles better than the one that lost to South Africa last summer, and that series was certainly competitive. South Africa are somewhere around Oz's level so I don't see why a much-improved England side can't compete again.

I agree with you on England being much better now than they were last year or even during the winter, for many of the reasons you mention. Not to mention that some of the selections for that SA series were piss poor and that certainly affected the series result.

However, I dont think you can compare this Australian side to the SA side that toured last year. This Australian bowling attack is probably going to test us far more than the SA one who were rank poor. Id argue that the England attack bowled better than the SA on a consistent basis in that series. However, that SA batting lineup was in all likelyhood in another league to the one that we can expect from the Aussies this summer. Bowlers like Anderson and Flintoff could bowl a lot worse than they did last summer and still end up with better returns during this series IMO.