Get off Ricky's back!

[Spark]

If you exclude all the matches that Australia won, then they are clearly the worst side in the world.

We would struggle to get half the runs that Bangladesh do, after all, they have a 100% win record in matches that they won.

[Ruckus]

That's why they aren't 5th.

I didn't say they were...According to SteveNZ they are 5th.

FTR, I don't think the ICC rankings are accurate either. If that were the case, then Australia would be a dominant no.1, which they most certaintly aren't. Just like in tests, I think there a few teams competing for the top spot, neither one making a particularly strong case.

[SteveNZ]

How is percentage of wins in a year bull**** in ranking teams? Okay it's not bulletproof, given the sides all played different oppositions in different countries, but it's a reasonable marker.

Perhaps a better thing to say would be to say I see Australia as around 5th favourite for the World Cup, being on the sub-continent. India/SL/SA/ certainly, perhaps England just ahead. Again, my opinion.

[SteveNZ]

If you exclude all the matches that Australia won, then they are clearly the worst side in the world.

I'd hate to think that was your best effort at humour.

I'll keep reiterating - it's an opinion. I'll bite in my slice of humble pie come the end of the WC if I'm proven wrong.

[Ruckus]

How is percentage of wins in a year bull**** in ranking teams? Okay it's not bulletproof, given the sides all played different oppositions in different countries, but it's a reasonable marker.

Perhaps a better thing to say would be to say I see Australia as around 5th favourite for the World Cup, being on the sub-continent. India/SL/SA/ certainly, perhaps England just ahead. Again, my opinion.

That, which is a huge variable, compounded by the small sample size.

5th favourite is too harsh for me.

[SteveNZ]

Betfair has us at equal 2nd with SA, England and Sri, with India the favourite

Doesn't that vaguely validate 4th/5th favourite, as I say?

Incidentally I completely agree that 2010 results were far too variable. Was just the best example I could use.

[Ruckus]

Doesn't that vaguely validate 4th/5th favourite, as I say?

Not really, because you said "India/SL/SA/ certainly, perhaps England just ahead". I think India would have to be the clear favourite in this tournament, because of their good team and the massive home advantage, but the other top contenders are all pretty equally in the mix.

[SteveNZ]

Fair play.

But ignoring what I said, based on those odds you could make a case for Australia being 5th favourite. India clearly 1st, I would put SL 2nd in sub-continent, I like SA at third with their run-scoring ability + one of the best ODI slow bowlers in Botha, then just England over Aus, again given slow bowling merit, batting order etc.

[Howe_zat]

Putting Australia at 5th seems harsh but none more so than putting any other top-5 side there.

If you imagine all the top 5 (India, SL, England, SA and Aus) to be reasonably close as I do, and someone has to be ranked 5th, then you can only do this on recent form.

Australia have lost their last ODI series against SA, England, India and Sri Lanka. So putting them 5th seems harsh but fair.

[GingerFurball]

Putting Australia at 5th seems harsh but none more so than putting any other top-5 side there.

If you imagine all the top 5 (India, SL, England, SA and Aus) to be reasonably close as I do, and someone has to be ranked 5th, then you can only do this on recent form.

Australia have lost their last ODI series against SA, England, India and Sri Lanka. So putting them 5th seems harsh but fair.

Harsh to include India in that, seeing as they only got 1 match of the 3 played.

In the last 15 months Australia have also played 7 match series in England and India and won 6-1 and 4-2 respectively.

[Juanjo99]

.

Juanjo, live in the now. The past is exactly that. Only relevant now in a sentence such as 'Ricky is past it'.

Presumably then you must also consider Michael Clarke "is past it" as well? If so, Australia needs to put the cricketing kit away and hide in the dunny for the next four years!

[SteveNZ]

Presumably then you must also consider Michael Clarke "is past it" as well? If so, Australia needs to put the cricketing kit away and hide in the dunny for the next four years!

I miss your logic. One is 29, one is 36.

Sorry if we are being meanies though, saying bad things about big grown men.

[Juanjo99]

I miss your logic. One is 29, one is 36.

Sorry if we are being meanies though, saying bad things about big grown men.

I was following your logic,( i.e. first-class bat going through a bad spell and being a losing captain or vice-captain). On your criteria, Clarke is just as bad as Ponting.

As regards captain's age, check out the age at which many great Aussie captains in the past were still winning Tests. (e.g. Bradman 44, Benaud 33, the Chappells 33 and 34, Alan Border 38 etc).

[BTW it is not "saying bad things about big grown men" that I object to, it's the snide bitching in Aussie media about a good player going through a bad time .]

[morgieb]

The reason why Australia have been pretty meh at ODI's is because we haven't been at full-strength for the past 3 series.

[Spark]

Part of the reason, yes.

I'd certainly not read much into the India match where it was Clarke captaining a greenhorn attack.

Not having our best attack hurts but so has our batting at times tbf.