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

Shane Warne · 24-07-2005, 06:23 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 06:27 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 06:29 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 06:45 AM

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

aussie · 24-07-2005, 06:48 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 06:59 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 06:59 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 10:00 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 10:10 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 10:54 AM

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

He has the most knowledge.

FaaipDeOiad · 24-07-2005, 10:58 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 11:03 AM

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

Adamc · 24-07-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twctopcat

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 · 24-07-2005, 11:13 AM

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 · 24-07-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

24-07-2005, 06:23 AM	#1 (permalink)
Shane Warne Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Upper Ferntree Gully, Victoria Posts: 1,073	Did England deserve the title of second best in the world. 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.

24-07-2005, 06:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
Top_Cat Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 21,199	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. __________________ Check out my bands! The Colourphonics http://www.youtube.com/user/TheColourphonics http://twitter.com/colourphonics Candice and The Arcade Villains http://triplejunearthed.com.au/Candi...ArcadeVillains

24-07-2005, 06:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
Arjun Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 7,837	The big gap between the Australians and the next best team shows how irrelevant the second-best position is. __________________ "Talent is nothing without opportunity" "You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it" Twenty20 used to be boring. Sponsored...by...nothing!!!

24-07-2005, 06:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
Swervy International Captain Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks Posts: 7,360	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 __________________ rave down, hit the ground MSN: djjacksono@hotmail.com

24-07-2005, 10:58 AM	#11 (permalink)
FaaipDeOiad Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 18,682	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. __________________ I know a place where a royal flush Can never beat a pair

24-07-2005, 06:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
King_Ponting International Regular Join Date: May 2005 Location: Western Australia Posts: 3,043	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

24-07-2005, 06:48 AM	#5 (permalink)
aussie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Cricket Posts: 16,845	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.

24-07-2005, 06:59 AM	#7 (permalink)
Pratters Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Kolkata, India Posts: 20,794	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.

24-07-2005, 10:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
aussie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Cricket Posts: 16,845	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``.

24-07-2005, 10:54 AM	#10 (permalink)
Shane Warne Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Upper Ferntree Gully, Victoria Posts: 1,073	I rate Mark Nicholas highly as a journalist/ pundit etc. He has the most knowledge.

24-07-2005, 11:03 AM	#12 (permalink)
twctopcat International Regular Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: winchester, england Posts: 3,477	Catches win matches. If we'd have caught them, we most probably would have won. __________________ R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi (Cricket Player) 'Last one on drugs is a queer,' yells portillo.. Hope is a good thing, maybe even the best of things. And no good thing ever dies...... Self appointed president of the KPPAS

24-07-2005, 11:13 AM	#14 (permalink)
PY International Coach Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 10,736	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. __________________ A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06 "People today have too big a devil and too small a God" - Stephen Currie "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
World Cricket League	bluespottyzebra	World Club Cricket	38	21-05-2006 06:50 AM
Canada declares interest in co-hosting 2007 World Cup	Legglancer	Cricket Chat	1	04-04-2003 03:29 PM
Your World Cup Highlight.	Eclipse	World Cup 2003	43	28-03-2003 03:15 PM
ICC Umpire and Referee appointments for World Cup Semi Finals	Eyes_Only	World Cup 2003	17	16-03-2003 04:20 PM
Somerset Players in the World Cup	jf2001	Cricket Chat	6	11-03-2003 11:43 AM