If the ranking system was invented in the 90s...

[marc71178]

Keep dreaming that Richard - this is bound to be another of those that if people give up trying to reason with you, you'll claim that it proves you to be right.

 

[Richard]

There is no reason for me not to believe what I believe.

You have never managed to show how the series could not have been 5-0 to South Africa.

 

[southafrica]

There is no reason for me not to believe what I believe.

You have never managed to show how the series could not have been 5-0 to South Africa.

Richard is right. That was a great series which England could easily have lost or drawn. Hoggard was briliant at the Wanderers to get those 7 wickets in a session, but Kallis and Langerveld were just as impressive in Cape Town, Ntini was on fire at Centurioun (at one stage England had scored 24 runs off 24 overs)...

Harmison came to SA ranked number one, and left SA ranked number 8... if it wasn't for Hoggard, (and Strauss), England could very well have lost that series... we'll wait for the next series to see what happens

 

[Beleg]

Pakistan, Australia and South Africa were the three best teams during the nineties, with WI not far behind.

 

[marc71178]

No, he's been told several times why 2-1 wasn't a true reflection, but has chosen to ignore them as he knows better.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Richard is right. That was a great series which England could easily have lost or drawn. Hoggard was briliant at the Wanderers to get those 7 wickets in a session, but Kallis and Langerveld were just as impressive in Cape Town, Ntini was on fire at Centurioun (at one stage England had scored 24 runs off 24 overs)...

Harmison came to SA ranked number one, and left SA ranked number 8... if it wasn't for Hoggard, (and Strauss), England could very well have lost that series... we'll wait for the next series to see what happens

The score isn't devised on individual performances. England were clearly the better side, and 2-1 was a vaguely fair reflection on the performaces.

 

[open365]

Undoubtedly we're the number-two Test side. But just because India and Pakistan managed to win a Test somewhere doesn't consign said side to uselessness. Pakistan might very well have managed to win a Test over here too but for *certain events*.

So if we're the numebr two test side undoubtedly why the hell do you bother getting pedantic when i point out last time we played in SA we won??????????????????????????

 

[Swervy]

It didn't, it flattered the visitors.

It could conceivably have been anything from 5-0 to 1-4.

England were damned unlucky not to win 3-1.

You cant just discount comebacks etc.

 

[Swervy]

some may find this site interesting

http://www.geocities.com/gwozok/profera.html

 

[southafrica]

some may find this site interesting

http://www.geocities.com/gwozok/profera.html

That is amazing!! WI by far the superior team than the Aussies according to that! wow!

 

[Swervy]

That is amazing!! WI by far the superior team than the Aussies according to that! wow!

well for half of the 90s, its just really though it took the ratings a bit to decline from the lofty heights the West Indies were in. Really I think Australia and WIs were pretty even for say 1993 to 1996, and then Australia went ahead (as WIs slumped)

 

[Richard]

So if we're the numebr two test side undoubtedly why the hell do you bother getting pedantic when i point out last time we played in SA we won??????????????????????????

Because we weren't overwhelmingly better than SA in that series.

 

[Richard]

England were damned unlucky not to win 3-1.

You cant just discount comebacks etc.

Erm, why am I discounting them? The fact is, England were behind at many points in those 2 games and could just as easily have won as lost them.

It could also be said that South Africa were damned unlucky not to win 3-1 - or 5-0, for that matter.

 

[Richard]

No, he's been told several times why 2-1 wasn't a true reflection, but has chosen to ignore them as he knows better.

I do, otherwise I wouldn't bother saying what I've said and continue to say.

 

[Richard]

well for half of the 90s, its just really though it took the ratings a bit to decline from the lofty heights the West Indies were in. Really I think Australia and WIs were pretty even for say 1993 to 1996, and then Australia went ahead (as WIs slumped)

And TBH, Pakistan and New Zealand were pretty well level with them in the 2nd half of the 1980s once Roberts, Lloyd, Holding and Garner were gone and Dujon was on the decline.

WI were only invincible between 1976 and 1986 (provided, of course, they had their full side, which they didn't for 1-and-a-half series during the Packer Schism).

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Erm, why am I discounting them? The fact is, England were behind at many points in those 2 games and could just as easily have won as lost them.

It could also be said that South Africa were damned unlucky not to win 3-1 - or 5-0, for that matter.

But they won them. Just because they were in tough situations throughout the series, that doesn't mean that they didn't deserve to win.

South Africa weren't unlucky, they weren't good enough to win 3-1 or 5-0. That's why they lost.

 

[Swervy]

Erm, why am I discounting them? The fact is, England were behind at many points in those 2 games and could just as easily have won as lost them.

It could also be said that South Africa were damned unlucky not to win 3-1 - or 5-0, for that matter.

but as the result was 2-1 it doesnt really matter. Most people who watched the series (one must question whether you did) stated at the time England played the better cricket and looked the better side.

2-1 seems like a fair reflection

 

[Swervy]

And TBH, Pakistan and New Zealand were pretty well level with them in the 2nd half of the 1980s once Roberts, Lloyd, Holding and Garner were gone and Dujon was on the decline.

WI were only invincible between 1976 and 1986 (provided, of course, they had their full side, which they didn't for 1-and-a-half series during the Packer Schism).

Only pakistan had the right to claim that they were on a level with WIs in the late 80s. NZ, not close.

I know WI werent invincible after 1986, but then again they werent 'invincible' between 1976 and 1986, just a great team who were very very hard to beat

 

[Langeveldt]

Thats insane, even as a SA fan I'd say we were rubbish and deserved to be beaten 3-1 actually.. Glad we hammered England in the One Dayers. but there is no way we should have won the test matches..

 

[Richard]

Only pakistan had the right to claim that they were on a level with WIs in the late 80s. NZ, not close.

Erm, New Zealand were close enough to draw the one series they played, and deservedly draw too.

I know WI werent invincible after 1986, but then again they werent 'invincible' between 1976 and 1986, just a great team who were very very hard to beat

No team has ever been invincible in the purest sense of the word but you know what I mean - West Indies in that 8-year period (2 years were knocked out by Packer) lost just 4 Tests, 1 of which was a completely dead one (Bob Holland's game). That is an awesome record.