Aussies maybe not as far ahead as everyone thinks

[ijaz]

I am true blue aussie supporter, the success we have had over the years has been great. Its good to see that NZ are giving to us, i mean they won the first ODI match really well and probably should have won the 2nd one too but luck seemed to go the aussies way. I hope in the 3rd match it comes down the wire again.

Its good to watch some competitive cricket with the aussies...

 

[Camel56]

Ijaz - id probably agree with you there actually. I think the one day game is a lot more competitive than the test match form of it. Australia clearly dominates test cricket but i believe the hard, fast and somewhat unpredictable nature of one day cricket brings the Aussies back to the field and allows lesser nations to be competitive. As the Kiwi's have shown, on any given day if the opposition play to their optimum they are more than competitive against Australia.

 

[Pratters]

I am true blue aussie supporter, the success we have had over the years has been great. Its good to see that NZ are giving to us, i mean they won the first ODI match really well and probably should have won the 2nd one too but luck seemed to go the aussies way. I hope in the 3rd match it comes down the wire again.

Its good to watch some competitive cricket with the aussies...

In tests, New Zealand had a chance to be called number two. But they lost the test series vs Pakistan (although it was due to one Shoaib Akhtar spell), lost to England and now lost to Australia in Australia. If the results had been otherwise in these three series, I am sure they could claim legitimate world number two and very close to the aussies if not better.

The Indians were going good till Pakistan but have fallen off drastically since then.

The English now have a chance to be called the legitimate number two if they beat South Africa.. and can THINK of competing against the Aussies for number one.

Till then Australia have NO competition.

ODIs are far more unpredictable and its difficult to call any side one or two but Australia has been 1 in it as well since 1999 and England are bucking up but it will be difficult to pin point when a side over takes Australia in ODIs as a team can drop in ODIs pretty rapidly..

 

[marc71178]

The English now have a chance to be called the legitimate number two if they beat South Africa.

Why the "if"?

If they don't win then who do you say is 2nd best, because SA's recent form doesn't suggest it's them.

 

[cric_manic]

Why the "if"?

If they don't win then who do you say is 2nd best, because SA's recent form doesn't suggest it's them.

india?

 

[Pratters]

Why the "if"?

If they don't win then who do you say is 2nd best, because SA's recent form doesn't suggest it's them.

Then there would be No real number two. The South Africans dropped out in the first place cos of inconsistency. Same with the kiwis. India had the chance to get into the race after drawing in Australia and winning in Pakistan but they also fell off due to being inconsistent.

England have been very consistent but a series win vs the English in South Africa could see a South African resurgence. Their batsmen do have the talent (Rudoplh, Amla - though he has not shown it an the international level yet). All they need is a potent fast/strike bowler which they are missing and is the backbone of any side. Its not easy to find one but who is to say Ntini doesnt show some real class in this series or Nel comes off age (though I seriously doubt Nel for this series to come off age due to bowling 1-2 lose balls an over) or finds a new bowler..

If England lose there will be doubts as to who number two is.

 

[Richard Rash]

Agreed
2-7 are all competitive and can win against each other on their day.

 

[Pratters]

[All they need is a potent fast/strike bowler which they are missing and is the backbone of any side. Its not easy to find one but who is to say Ntini doesnt show some real class in this series or Nel comes off age (though I seriously doubt Nel for this series to come off age due to bowling 1-2 lose balls an over) or finds a new bowler..

[/QUOTE]

South Africa has indeed selected a 'fast' bowler as ver cricinfo profile who is twenty years old and is pretty promising. South Africa has a history of producing good fast bowlers and there is every likelihood of a South African resurgence sooner than people think (hint : vs England in the 5 test series)

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/PLAYERS/RSA/S/STEYN_DW_03047154/

 

[Son Of Coco]

I am true blue aussie supporter, the success we have had over the years has been great. Its good to see that NZ are giving to us, i mean they won the first ODI match really well and probably should have won the 2nd one too but luck seemed to go the aussies way. I hope in the 3rd match it comes down the wire again.

Its good to watch some competitive cricket with the aussies...

yeah, One-Day games are always a bit more unpredictable than tests and it's definately a lot closer. I think there's a pretty big gap between Australia and second in tests but then that's just going on recent results and I guess playing Pakistan and England will be interesting.

 

[Jono]

Why the "if"?

If they don't win then who do you say is 2nd best, because SA's recent form doesn't suggest it's them.

If England lose 4-0 or 5-0, I'd hardly call them 2nd best in the world. They're right now the only hope of beating the Aussies, but if they get mauled by SA there is no 2nd best.

 

[Slow Love™]

Why the "if"?

If they don't win then who do you say is 2nd best, because SA's recent form doesn't suggest it's them.

That's exactly why if England get beaten by South Africa - particularly if it's in any way convincing - it's hard to consider them a clear second (and if they lose bad enough, their ICC ranking could fall to fifth or sixth).

They'll just be lumped in with the rest of the group, with daylight in between them and the Australians.

 

[Camel56]

There already is daylight between England and Australia

 

[dinu23]

the first 2 ODI's of the series between aus and NZ have shown how the australian bowling attack depends on Mcgrath and Gillespie. Once these two retire I don't think they will be able to hold on to the #1 spot in the ODI rankings.

 

[cric_manic]

australia not far ahead of nz in odi as has been proven in the recent series

 

[Camel56]

pfff two matches doesnt prove a thing. Thats like tossing a coint twice and having heads come up each time and saying that heads always comes up. Its not statistically significant.

 

[cric_manic]

true

 

[Richard Rash]

Camel56- Although you use a great comparison there I am going to have to disagree with you. You are off the money ( beautiful pun ) with your view here i believe. 200 overs of cricket where NZ have held their own and given a bit back to the aussies i think shows that NZ are a pretty useful one day unit and the fact that they can get into winning situations against them shows that the gap between the two sides is not that large.

 

[Crazy Sam]

the only reason the aussies are not as far ahead is because we suffer batting collapses regularly and have done so since the beginning of the aus-nz-sa series a few years ago. Our openers are in great touch and Ponting is in pretty good nick as well but it seems that if they stay in for a while the others come in facing a spinner first off and struggle. Or, the top order collapses and leave Symonds/Lehmann/Clarke to salvage the innings. Our bowling is pretty good I reckon.

 

[Eclipse]

I dont want to sound like an arrogant twit.. but I think it's blatantly obviouse to anyone who watches Australia alot that those first two ODI's where played well well below our best..

Our middle order will not collapse in that fasion on a regular basis..

 

[cric_manic]

no nz didnt allow u to play ur best