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

[Magrat Garlick]

If you're going to talk about taking those first-innings leads, shame on you for not mentioning the fact that that victory over NZ in 1987\88 should for all intents and purposes have been a draw.

Er. How? Boon dropped on 0? Can't quite see how a match won midway through the fourth day by nine wickets "should have been a draw"...

The Third Test "should maybe" have been a New Zealand win, but McDermott and Whitney batted through the required 4.5 overs, and who's to say they wouldn't have made 21 for the final wicket.

 

[Richard]

It should have been 1-1, yes, not 0-0?

Somehow Australia escaped what had looked certain defeat in the Third Test of that series.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

It should have been 1-1, yes, not 0-0?

Somehow Australia escaped what had looked certain defeat in the Third Test of that series.

Eye of the beholder, and so forth...with 80 minutes to go and four wickets to spare they needed 41 to win...

In any case, how should New Zealand be rated "far and away" better than Australia after a summer with 0-1 (or even 1-1 for the sake of argument) and 0-0 with England?

 

[Richard]

When those 4 are Whitney, McDermott, Dodemaide and Dyer, I'd make the bowling side favourite.

Particularly if you're going to talk about the matter of first-innings leads.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

When those 4 are Whitney, McDermott, Dodemaide and Dyer, I'd make the bowling side favourite.

Particularly if you're going to talk about the matter of first-innings leads.

Such poor Test batsmen. Two of them averaged above 20, and well above 20 in FC. (+ Veletta and Sleep, who were batting at the time. It was actually five wickets in hand before two fell in succession)

The point was: they won a series, for the first time since 1983, against a team you claimed to be lightyears ahead of them at the time. Is that not turning around?

 

[Richard]

No, because it should have been a draw in my book.

In any case, it was then superseded by the defeats in Pakistan and at home to West Indies.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

No, because it should have been a draw in my book.

In any case, it was then superseded by the defeats in Pakistan and at home to West Indies.

Yeah, because no one lost to Pakistan in Pakistan or to West Indies in those days.

 

[Richard]

As a matter of fact West Indies did not beat anyone other than Australia, England and India at home in that period, they were not so far ahead of the field as to be untouchable.

Australia even went into The Ashes 1989 as outsiders, and England turned-out to be far worse. That says it all IMO. The corner was turned in 1989, and things immidiately looked-up from then on - their only serious defeats between then and The Ashes 2005 - bar one in WI in 1991 - were in the subcontinent.

 

[marc71178]

No, because it should have been a draw in my book.

And your book means the square root of bugger all.

 

[thierry henry]

Total performances in the 80s, listed in order of win percentage (I just decided to post this fairly useless info, as I remembered I had the 1989/90 NZ cricket almanack where it was listed)



West Indies- W 44 L 8 D 31- 53.01% wins
New Zealand- W 17 L 15 D 27- 28.81%wins
Pakistan- W 23 L 13 D 44- 28.75% wins
Australia- W 27 L 32 D 38 1 tie- 27.55% wins
England- W 20 L 39 D 45- 19.23% wins
India- W 11 L 21 D 48 1 tie- 13.58% wins
Sri Lanka- W 2 L 16 D 11- 6.89% wins

I think from that you can gather that WI mere miles ahead, Pakistan were next best but had a lot of draws, NZ were better than Australia but pitches in NZ (and even more so Australia!) were more conducive to results, England were hopeless, India were very poor and had a ridiculous number of draws, and Sri Lanka were minnows.

I think Australia and NZ were fairly close, and England and India were a fair way behind them- of course this takes into account 1980-1990 which is not quite the era being discussed.

 

[Richard]

And your book means the square root of bugger all.

If so, then so does Hakon's book of what he was saying.

Personally, I think neither.

 

[Richard]

Total performances in the 80s, listed in order of win percentage (I just decided to post this fairly useless info, as I remembered I had the 1989/90 NZ cricket almanack where it was listed)



West Indies- W 44 L 8 D 31- 53.01% wins
New Zealand- W 17 L 15 D 27- 28.81%wins
Pakistan- W 23 L 13 D 44- 28.75% wins
Australia- W 27 L 32 D 38 1 tie- 27.55% wins
England- W 20 L 39 D 45- 19.23% wins
India- W 11 L 21 D 48 1 tie- 13.58% wins
Sri Lanka- W 2 L 16 D 11- 6.89% wins

I think from that you can gather that WI mere miles ahead, Pakistan were next best but had a lot of draws, NZ were better than Australia but pitches in NZ (and even more so Australia!) were more conducive to results, England were hopeless, India were very poor and had a ridiculous number of draws, and Sri Lanka were minnows.

I think Australia and NZ were fairly close, and England and India were a fair way behind them- of course this takes into account 1980-1990 which is not quite the era being discussed.

Yeah, it was more the 1986-1992 sort of era. Trouble was, a hell of a lot changed between May and September 1986.