England Are 2nd Best In Test Cricket

[Shawn Badyk]

England are definately 2nd best in Test cricket. I am not talking about TEST CRICKET ONLY, so don't reply stating about what has happened in ODI, because I am talking about England's strength in TEST Cricket only. I am not talking about ODI so replying stating how good England is in ODI will be invalid as it won't have any relevance to the point I am making.

Here is why England is 2nd best in Test cricket.

-England has won a Test match in Australia everytime England has toured Australia in 1994, 1998 and 2003 and England are the only team who has won 3 Test matches in Australia in the last 10 years, in fact no other team has won a Test match in Australia since 1996 when the West Indies won a Test match. Australia are the best in Test cricket and have been for many years, therefore the fact England are the only team who can win a Test match in Australia makes England the next best team in Test cricket.

-England has won a Test series in Pakistan in 2000, the only other teams to do this are Australia and South Africa.

-England has won a Test series in Sri Lanka in 2001, and this is something not many Test playing nations have done if any at all.

-England drew a Test series in New Zealand in 2002 against the very same New Zealand team who drew a Test series in Australia a few months earlier, which shows just how strong this England team is.

-England won a Test series in 1999 at home against South Africa against the best team South Africa has fielded since their re-entry into world cricket. England host South Africa in a Test series this month and England has already shown dominance in the ODI Natwest Series and ODI is not England's strong suit and England is fielding a young ODI team and if South Africa's Test team resembles their ODI team and therefore England shall be far too strong for South Africa at home. England will win the Test series against South Africa this year.

-England won a Test series in 2000 at home against West Indies.

-England won a Test series at home in 2003 against Zimbabwe and comprehensively won each Test via an innings.

-England managed to win a Test match in South Africa last time they toured the African continent in 1999 which is something only Australia and New Zealand have achieved and New Zealand lost more matches than England did in the 1999 tour of Africa.

-England won a Test series at home against Sri Lanka in 2002.

Therefore it is quite understandable to see that England are 2nd best in Test cricket.

Now let's compare England to other nations.

India have not won a Test series outside of India in over 17 years, and were comprehensively destroyed in New Zealand, and Australia in a fashion that was nothing short of embarassing.

Pakistan have been destroyed by Australia on numerous occasions, and were destroyed in South Africa prior to the world cup.

Sri Lanka has never been a force in Test cricket, their results prove this.

 

[age_master]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats one of the funniest things i have ever heard


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Shawn Badyk]

to age_master

It is obvious you know nothing about cricket and how the game is played technically so you should just shut up before you make a fool out of yourself.

 

[Tim]

Admittedly he's right about the test series wins in Pakistan & Sri Lanka..at that point of time those 2 wins were very good.

However with Pakistan & Sri Lanka in their current shape i'd suggest that they'd be more vunerable at home at the moment.

 

[age_master]

dont take it personally, but have you heard of a country called south africa???

 

[luckyeddie]

England certainly have potential with both bat and ball (and the fielding now is exceptional) but I cannot place England above South Africa - whatever the outcome of this summer's series.

For one thing, spin is a major problem (both playing quality spin and the fact that they have no decent spinner anyway). The seam attack COULD be as good as anyone in a couple of years, but without a real quality spinner they are never quite going to be the major force.

 

[age_master]

England i beleve also do not have the batting depth of the south africans, they rely on Vaughan alot whereas south africa have got 3 or 4 players to build their batting around

 

[Shawn Badyk]

batting

Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughn, Andrew Flintoff are all just as good as each other in batting, they have all been scoring runs against South Africa and are better than South Africa's batsman. Young Ricky Clarke is 21 and produced 33 off just 29 balls and was batting against Ntini and Pollock today the majority of the time and he has TALENT, he was able to move his feet and drive balls through cover point to the boundary that were a good line and length, he did this consistently and he even was able to pull these balls through mid wicket a number of times and this man is VERY talented and he is only 21 and will only get better. It is obvious you people never watch England cricket. I watch all England cricket games and I watch all Australian cricket games. I know that England has a good batting line up because I watch them perform. Chris Read went to the accademy and has become awesome as well, he has the ability to bat at the top of the order like Adam Gilchrist, many players including Jaques Kallis, Allan Donald, Steve Waugh and Mathew Hayden have publicly stated so. Anthony McGrath is a fine batsman and so is Vikram Solanki. England have an awesome batting line up that South Africa doesn't have. South Africa are reliant on Jacques Kallis and Herschelle Gibbs. In the Natwest Series Jacques Kallis has scored a century and 80's in every innings except one and in the innings he didn't score big South AFrica were reduced to 104/7. Therefore South Africa do not have stronger batsman than England.

 

[Cloete]

I agree with every Shawn says...... he's from Brisbane, how can i not? :P

hey m8. hope u enjpy these forums.

 

[luckyeddie]

I agree with every Shawn says...... he's from Brisbane, how can i not? :P

hey m8. hope u enjpy these forums.

and watch out for the duck

 

[age_master]

South African batting is stronger than you give it credit for

Gibbs, Kallis, Smith, Roudolph are all quality,


ok, get over chris read, do not compare him to gilchrist, they just are not in the same league, remember though, Mark Boucher can bat very very effectivley at the end of the innings

 

[Kiwi]

-England drew a Test series in New Zealand in 2002 against the very same New Zealand team who drew a Test series in Australia a few months earlier, which shows just how strong this England team is.

I may be wrong but I believe Bond was injured inbetween these tours and didn't play against England.

 

[age_master]

and i would say that bond is kinda a good bowler - definatley a match winner

 

[masterblaster]

South Africa are the better team:

They have beaten India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka away, whereas England lost to India in India.

Their bowling attack is fiersome, and they possess the best all rounder in the world in Kallis.

 

[Shawn Badyk]

South Africa

Yes South Africa are mot consisten than England, but does that make them "better"? The fact is Australia is the best and South Africa got utterly thrashed in Australia and put up no resistance. England won sesions and played good cricket at times in the Ashes series and England did have a lot of injuries that South Africa didn't and England did win a Test match, South Africa hasn't won a Test match in Australia since 1993 and New Zealand hasn't won a Test match in Australia since 1980's. Sure South Africa has beaten everyone else, but everyone else is ****, and India is **** as they haven't won a Test series outside of India in over 17 years and a victory over India is about as impressive as a victory over Zimbabwe. It is how a team performs against Australia in Australia that is important, and England are the only team at the moment who can even win a Test match in Australia, and New Zealand were damn lucky when they were in Australia, the weather saved their arses so much. England had half a dozen injuries easy for 4 of the Test matches during the Ashes and as a result I think they put up a good performance which such a young and inexperienced side. If New Zealand fielded such a young side with 6 injuries they wouldn't have been able to force the match into 3 days. New Zealand were full strength when they played in Australia, so were South Africa. England are the better team than South Africa, I don't care if South Africa won in India because India are hopeless and haven't been a force ever, and they were lucky to beat Australia, come one they won cause Laxman and Dravid basically had a "miracle" and batted the innings of their lives and Laxman's innings isn't a true reflextion of his ability, it was all luck and at that stage India were down and out, mental toughness lost the series for Australia in India, not talent but mental toughness. What you must remember is South Africans are very arrogant people, they expect to beat everyone and with this attitudue they tend to play to their ability, but the English lack confidence, that is why England choke and lose to Australia when they should have won in the past. On ability England are the best team behind Australia.

 

[masterblaster]

I dont believe that Laxman's innings was 'luck'. It was an absolutely chance less innings with the Australian bowlers utterly resigned and helpless to stop the rampage.

Okay, India hasnt won a test match outside the subcontinent in a long time. But i see a different team, a different lineup from what he had before. In 17 years, the same players dont play. The team changes, and its only time before this drought is broken.

And Dravid has proved time and time again he is one of the best bats in the business. An average of 53 doesnt say that you are a mediocre player.

India are hopeless?

A team that gets to the World Cup final, brimming with such talent aren't hopeless. They may not be as strong as Australia, but even the most devout English supporter will tell you, they are a better outfit than England at the moment.

 

[Shawn Badyk]

India

India are very good in ODI, I never said they weren't. But India are HOPELESS in Test cricket. And an Indian who had half a brain would say that England are a billion times better than India in Test cricket, if you want proof compare the results of the two teams over the past 2 decades. England are improving in ODI as well, England are fielding a very young team who has beaten South Africa twice in 3 matches, beat Pakistan twice in 3 matches all in the one summer and comprehensively thrashed South Africa in 2 of those matches and South Africa don't get thrashed in ODI very often, not even by Australia. England are really improving in ODI big time and will be better than India soon. If England win the final on Saturday they are ranked 3rd in ODI. Beating Pakistan and South Africa is something to be proud of they are the only 2 teams who have won an ODI series in Australia within the last 3 years. Laxman is hopeless, he got a pair in New Zealand, he hasn't produced anything since his magical innings against Australia. Dravid is a fine batsman, and he has no one to play with him. The day India put up a fight against Australia in Australia is the day I wake up with a clitoris and a Bartholens' Gland.

 

[Deja moo]

Shawnboy: Sure South Africa has beaten everyone else, but everyone else is ****, and India is **** as they haven't won a Test series outside of India in over 17 years and a victory over India is about as impressive as a victory over Zimbabwe.

A LOAD OF CRAP.

You mean to say that defeating India in India is as good as beating Zimbabwe?

Is that why India has lost just 1 series at home( and a 2 test series at that) in the last 17 years?

Going by that logic Zimbawe must be the most feared team in world cricket now!:rolleyes:

 

[Deja moo]

And what did you mean by saying that Laxman's innings was 'luck'?
Stop parroting that england defeated aus in a test last time in aus.....that match was riddled with innumerable dropped catches by the tired australians.......Laxman's and dravid's innings' were almost chanceless in comparison.

 

[masterblaster]

Re: India

The day India put up a fight against Australia in Australia is the day I wake up with a clitoris and a Bartholens' Gland.

I'll remember this remark.