Did England deserve the title of second best in the world.

[Shane Warne]

Before the series and now I hear this term being banded about as if it's so clear cut but what about India?

They are the only team who have competed well against Australia home and also away over the last few years, whilst England have been beating the likes of Bangladesh, a poor NZ team at home, West Indies at home.

England were lucky not to come away from Sri Lanka with a 3-0 series loss and narrowly beat S.A.

India are a bit hit and miss, but at their best they are better. I think India would beat England at home more convincingly than England would beat India at home.

 

[Top_Cat]

England, definitely the best side. India in Australia was only close because Australia were missing two pretty major cogs in the machine (Warne and McGrath). And in India, the fact that Australia won at all means the series wasn't as close as 2-1 suggests.

England have beaten all before this series. I definitely think they deserve their number 2 status.

 

[King_Ponting]

England are definantely the second best test team in the world. There are many instances in this game were england was in a winning position only to throw it away. That is what separates second from first

 

[Arjun]

The big gap between the Australians and the next best team shows how irrelevant the second-best position is.

 

[aussie]

based on performaces last year they definately deserved to be, India did well in Australia last year because they were missing their 2 legenadary bowlers, while even though the score was 2-1 Australia totally outclassed them their.

 

[Swervy]

England ARE 2nd best in the world..no doubt in my mind..despite the fact England could lose this game pretty heavily, it has been a tight contest, with the Aussies doing the right things at just the right times

 

[Pratters]

At a point of time a few teams - England, India, New Zealand, South Africa could be termed battling for no 2 position. Since the test series victory in Pakistan, the Indian team has dipped performance wise in tests. While some may argue India did not play that badly after that, the results have been mediocre.

South Africa really dipped but looks like have some sort of resurrection(hopefully)

New Zealand due to poor performances have disappointed a lot. Destroyed in a session to lose a series in home to Pakistan, injury ridden and poorly performing in England and could not compete for no 2.

England has been only team of the lot who have kept on winning.

They are indeed the no 2 right now.

Regarding losing to Australia - a lot of people do not realise how strong the current Australian team is. For me they are stronger than the Australian team under Steve Waugh and the strongest test team I have seen. England will fight in the series and still is unlikely to win even a test.

Pakistan in Australia some time back gave the Aussies a fight in 2 sessions of the 3 each day. Yet lost the series 3-0.

 

[Langeveldt]

England are definitely second best in the world.. But that means absolutely diddly squat when you play against Australia.. Remember what happened to South Africa in the 1990's?

 

[aussie]

has my man Mark Nicholas said ``England may be second best in the world, but the gap between them and Australia is so huge it makes you sit & admire how great those aussies are``.

 

[Shane Warne]

I rate Mark Nicholas highly as a journalist/ pundit etc.

He has the most knowledge.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yep, England clear number 2 for mine. South Africa and India fight it out for third and fourth, then Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe. In that order.

 

[twctopcat]

Catches win matches. If we'd have caught them, we most probably would have won.

 

[Adamc]

Catches win matches. If we'd have caught them, we most probably would have won.

It could've been a lot closer, but 'most probably would have won' seems a bit optimistic given the 239-run margin...

 

[PY]

You can lop 70 straight off that from Pietersen's little blooper. I know it doesn't work like that but 6 straight forward drops in 3 days of cricket is going to have a massive effect on morale as well as the scoreboard.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You can lop 70 straight off that from Pietersen's little blooper. I know it doesn't work like that but 6 straight forward drops in 3 days of cricket is going to have a massive effect on morale as well as the scoreboard.

It's worth remembering that three of those drops came after the game was already gone, and Pietersen's first two weren't that costly, as Ponting got out soon after and the other was a tail-ender who didn't make many. I don't think the drops were definitive, even though they would have been morale-sapping.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It could've been a lot closer, but 'most probably would have won' seems a bit optimistic given the 239-run margin...

I'm inclined to agree, certainly didn't help our cause too much tho. Our fielding has been on the up too, which I guess could be said to show the effect of pressure on players. KP may've batted pretty well, but his catching was sub-schoolgirl & he's one of our very best fielders. Even Fred shelled one in the slips so you know the occasion must have had an effect.

 

[Adamc]

You can lop 70 straight off that from Pietersen's little blooper. I know it doesn't work like that but 6 straight forward drops in 3 days of cricket is going to have a massive effect on morale as well as the scoreboard.

If you go purely by the runs Australia added as a result of the dropped catches, I imagine it would be around 150, if not less. Granted they would have damaged England's morale, but even if you were able to put a scorebook figure on that, I really doubt it is sufficient to be able to claim that England would 'most probably' win.

 

[PY]

sub-schoolgirl

The ***ism is oozing from that comment.

 

[King_Ponting]

England still would have lost even if those catches werent grassed, but instead of a 200+ thumping the margin would have been closer to a 100. Still a thrashing tho

 

[BoyBrumby]

The ***ism is oozing from that comment.

Girls can't catch: it's a scientific fact.