Who are the most overrated/underrated cricket teams in the world currently?

[Uppercut]

Know the feeling - Associates in particular haemorrhage their top players either to England (like there aren't enough Englishmen who could make a team) or to other jobs where they can earn better money. Doesn't mean that the team should be judged by anything else than how they perform on the pitch.

Nah i don't agree with that. If you want to know how Ireland are going to do in a world cup match, you'd be best advised to completely ignore their performances in the middle of the county cricket season with an unrecognisable XI. It's almost like using Australia 'A' results in warm-up matches to judge how good Australia are. If you want to judge their merit and achievement as a cricket team you can use whatever you like. But if you're judging how good Australia actually are you simply can't ignore the fact that they're running at less than half strength this series.

[Precambrian]

Only cos they pay more attention to cricket in their timezone and India's record makes them kings at home and hobos away.

Better than England's since Ashes 2005. In fact, both home as well as away.

[Uppercut]

Better than England's since Ashes 2005. In fact, both home as well as away.

Besides the point really, i don't think anyone outside of GIMH would rate England as better than India in any way, shape or form.

[Athlai]

Sidebottom > India > England TBH

[Chemosit]

I wouldn't judge an Irish team on their performances v county sides, but would certainly do so on performances in Internationals (I.C cup and ODIs). No point in judging a team by what ifs and maybes:

If Kenya had Mishra and Shah and Aga all available, we would be a much stronger side. Fact is we don't so we should be judged accordingly.

Same with Australia v SA. The absent players might have strengthened the team, but they weren't there so the team should be judged on how it performed, not on how it might have performed.

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't judge an Irish team on their performances v county sides, but would certainly do so on performances in Internationals (I.C cup and ODIs). No point in judging a team by what ifs and maybes:

If Kenya had Mishra and Shah and Aga all available, we would be a much stronger side. Fact is we don't so we should be judged accordingly.

Same with Australia v SA. The absent players might have strengthened the team, but they weren't there so the team should be judged on how it performed, not on how it might have performed.

Well you can't judge how it might have performed, obviously. But if you want to know how a team with Porterfield, O'Brien, Morgan and Rankin in it is going to perform in a match played tomorrow, matches in which none of them played aren't going to be much value as a source of evidence.

It's the same with Australia. If you want to know how good Australia are- and i take that to mean at full-strength or close to it- you don't use as evidence matches in which only three or four of their first-choice players were on the pitch.

[Precambrian]

Besides the point really, i don't think anyone outside of GIMH would rate England as better than India in any way, shape or form.

It was soooo obvious trying to get even. But your decency made me fail.

[Uppercut]

I'm quite hard to get back at, not having a major cricket team to support. For future reference, something like, "Ojha>Mishra" will do the trick

[Chemosit]

Well you can't judge how it might have performed, obviously. But if you want to know how a team with Porterfield, O'Brien, Morgan and Rankin in it is going to perform in a match played tomorrow, matches in which none of them played aren't going to be much value as a source of evidence.

It's the same with Australia. If you want to know how good Australia are- and i take that to mean at full-strength or close to it- you don't use as evidence matches in which only three or four of their first-choice players were on the pitch.

In terms of evidence, the only hard evidence is to judge a team on how they performed on the pitch. How a team is going to perform is more a matter of conjecture in that any eventuality is possible. I'd prefer evidence over conjecture in terms of 'rating' a team.

Australia put the best team they could out v SA and got beat. I would rate them accordingly.

[Athlai]

In terms of evidence, the only hard evidence is to judge a team on how they performed on the pitch. How a team is going to perform is more a matter of conjecture in that any eventuality is possible. I'd prefer evidence over conjecture in terms of 'rating' a team.

Australia put the best team they could out v SA and got beat. I would rate them accordingly.

On that day but that rating falls over when a week later the Australian team is stronger.

[Matt79]

In terms of evidence, the only hard evidence is to judge a team on how they performed on the pitch. How a team is going to perform is more a matter of conjecture in that any eventuality is possible. I'd prefer evidence over conjecture in terms of 'rating' a team.

Australia put the best team they could out v SA and got beat. I would rate them accordingly.

Overall, that's a fair enough rationale, but when you're talking about a conjunction of mostly short-term injuries damaging a team for a two-three week window, it becomes a bit artificial to ignore the fact that the team in question has two or three World XI standard players to come back into the team, plus another few regular first XI-ers.

Sticking too rigidly to any method will lead to distortions...

[Uppercut]

On that day but that rating falls over when a week later the Australian team is stronger.

Exactly. When someone asks me how good i think Australia are, i think, "how good are this team:

Watto
Marsh
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Clark
Bracken"

I don't think "how good is this team:

Warner
Marsh
Ponting
M Hussey
D Hussey
Haddin
Hopes
Johnson
Harris
Hilfenhaus
Tait"

Those teams are two massively different sides. Why would i use the performances of one to judge the other?

[Migara]

People probably chose Sri Lanka to balance out a thread that you seem to have created as not much more than an excuse to push a pro-Sri Lanka / anti-Australia viewpoint.

That's why polls are rubbish.

[tooextracool]

Overrated - Australia and Bangladesh

Underrated - England and Sri Lanka

I dont think Australia is an overrated team anymore. They were VERY VERY overrated before the series against India, the fact that people thought they actually had a 1 in million chance of winning proves that IMO. I would venture to suggest that they were still overrated before the series against SA where people thought they were still numero uno, but now most people including Ponting have now come to the realization that they are merely a middling team amongst an average bunch.

[tooextracool]

Same in Tests really, SA, Aus & India rightfully acknowledged as the top teams (in no particular order btw), England & Sri Lanka next down, New Zealand and West Indies just below (Pakistan not played lately so hard to say).

Australia is hardly on the same pedestal as India and SA. If it werent for all the politics and the lack of a coach I would venture to suggest that Australia isnt a patch on England either, however I think the recent developments have brought those 2 teams on an even keel.