2nd best ODI side?

[TNT]

Yes. I did this because the ranking system that puts Aussie at No. 1 includes a number of historical factors that I don't consider relevant, such as the impact of Clarke, Johnson, Watson and Haddin winning games for them. The player rankings tell you more about how good the players in the team right now are. And my verdict is that they are unproven.

So in your mind SA have to be the undisputed number one team.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

So in your mind SA have to be the undisputed number one team.

I wouldn't say undisputed, as they are currently getting thumped by England. But the player rankings tell me they're a good side.

At the end of the 2019 CWC though, SA will go through what Aussie just went through in cricket and NZ in rugby, i.e. half of the top team will retire. After that who knows what they'll be like.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Clarke barely played ODIs in the last few years of his career. Watson hasn't retired last I'd checked, Johnson was rested half the time, and Haddin didn't that play that much either. This idea that they were integral to our success in the last two years above Starc, Smith, Faulkner etc is silly.

Wait more than a day before starting with the revisionism k

Steve Smith averages 40 in ODIs. If he is integral to Aussie success then Aussie can't be that good.

Also, Clarke won you the Cricket World Cup. In 4 of the last 5 ODI matches Aussie has played against NZ the Aussie top order has disintegrated. The 5th match was the CWC final and it was because of Michael Clarke playing a great, if typical, innings. The guy averaged 45 in ODIs, losing him is massive.

About revisionism. A 159 run win is an annihilation, a 55 run win is a comfortable win, and a 4 wicket loss that required the opposition No. 8 to get a career high score is a narrow to comfortable loss. That averages out to a comfortable series win.

 

[marc71178]

They could also have lost the series 3-0, in fact it took a career-high innings from a No. 8 batsman to prevent this.

You do realise that that sort of thing is why they're far and away the best side around don't you? When the chips are down they have more players who can step up and win the game for them.

 

[Spark]

Steve Smith averages 40 in ODIs. If he is integral to Aussie success then Aussie can't be that good.

He won us a series in UAE, he was vital to the 4-1 win over SA, he was by some distance our best batsman in the WC and critical to both the QF and semi-final wins.

If you actually paid any attention, you'd know that Smith has a large proportion of his matches well in the past, where he was a much lesser player and batting 6-7 as an allrounder. Since coming back in the side at the end of 2014 he has been by a distance our best batsman in ODIs.

Also, Clarke won you the Cricket World Cup. In 4 of the last 5 ODI matches Aussie has played against NZ the Aussie top order has disintegrated. The 5th match was the CWC final and it was because of Michael Clarke playing a great, if typical, innings.

We had to make 186 and Smith scored a 50 anyway.

The guy averaged 45 in ODIs, losing him is massive.

He barely played in the last two years ffs. How are you not getting this?

About revisionism. A 159 run win is an annihilation, a 55 run win is a comfortable win, and a 4 wicket loss that required the opposition No. 8 to get a career high score is a narrow to comfortable loss. That averages out to a comfortable series win.

I doubt anyone else watching yesterday's game described that match as "comfortable". The end was fast, but it was a tight game throughout.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think people are arguing at cross-purposes a bit. There are two different questions being answered.

Some people are attempting to answer "Which team deserves to be ranked #1 based on recent results?" while others are attempting to answer "Which team is the strongest right now?", the latter of which is only based on recent results to the extent of the team consisting of the same players and those players not improving or declining in quality.

The answer to the first question is definitely Australia, but the answer to the second question isn't so clear (I still think it's Australia ftr, but it's more debatable).

I'd for once like to see KV take a particular philosophical stance that saw him rate New Zealand less than most other people though. I've got plenty of time for discussing the basic theory behind rating teams/players and challenging the status quo among CW or cricket fans in general, and KV does this a bit, but eventually it's going to come off contrived and WW-esque if it always conveniently justifies him rating New Zealand or Kane Williamson or New Zealand players higher. I am beginning to wonder whether he'd take the philosophical stance he has in this thread if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak, and that's making me not want to bother engaging him on it.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

When the chips are down they have more players who can step up and win the game for them.

Do you know Australia just lost a series?

 

[Spark]

I think people are arguing at cross-purposes a bit. There are two different questions being answered.

Some people are attempting to answer "Which team deserves to be ranked #1 based on recent results?" while others are attempting to answer "Which team is the strongest right now?", the latter of which is only based on recent results to the extent of the team consisting of the same players and those players not improving or declining in quality.

The answer to the first question is definitely Australia, but the answer to the second question isn't so clear (I still think it's Australia ftr, but it's more debatable).

I'd for once like to see KV take a particular philosophical stance that saw him rate New Zealand less than most other people though. I've got plenty of time for discussing the basic theory behind rating teams/players and challenging the status quo among CW or cricket fans in general, and KV does this a bit, but eventually it's going to come off contrived and WW-esque if it always conveniently justifies him rating New Zealand or Kane Williamson or New Zealand players higher. I am beginning to wonder whether he'd take the philosophical stance he has in this thread if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak, and that's making me not want to bother engaging him on it.

The Aus team is still basically the same though.

4th ODI: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne, Nov 21, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo This is the side that won the ODI series vs SA. Warner, Finch, Watson (read MMarsh), Smith, Maxwell, Bailey, Wade.
5th ODI: England v Australia at Manchester, Sep 13, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo The recent England series. Warner, Burns (Finch was injured IIRC), Smith, Bailey, Maxwell, MMarsh, Wade.
3rd ODI: Australia v Pakistan at Abu Dhabi, Oct 12, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo In the UAE. Finch, Warner, Smith, Bailey, Maxwell, Hughes, Haddin
Final: Australia v England at Perth, Feb 1, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo The tri-series. Finch, Warner, Smith, Bailey, Maxwell, MMarsh, Haddin

You get the point. The Aus top six has actually been extremely stable over the past two years.

 

[marc71178]

Do you know Australia just lost a series?

A JAMODI series yes.

 

[OverratedSanity]

@ kiwiviktor

 

[Furball]

For the record, this is what an Aussie side looks like when it's clearly No. 1:

9 February 2005: 3 of the top 7 ranked ODI batsmen (Gilchrist, Ponting and Clarke) and 3 of the top 6 ranked bowlers (McGrath, Gillespie and Lee).

THAT is a No. 1 side. Not 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20.

This is a stupid argument.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I am beginning to wonder whether he'd take the philosophical stance he has in this thread if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak, and that's making me not want to bother engaging him on it.

I only took the stance that Aussie might not be No. 1 because they lost a series. It wasn't a position I had held until the series had finished.

As for the shoe being on the other foot, I've said twice already in this thread that if the All Blacks lose the Bledisloe by the same margin Aussie just lost the Chappell-Hadlee, I wouldn't consider them the No. 1 side in the world. So I think that answers the question. I can't really get any fairer than that, because the two examples have a lot in common.

There seems to be some serious difficulty among posters here accepting that NZ actually has a good team at the moment. Probably because New Zealanders themselves are so accustomed to being mediocre (on account of 20 years of mediocrity) that even we haven't properly accepted it yet. For example, I thought we had a pretty good chance of defending 246 and even put money on it.

The facts are, however you slice it, that the World Champions just came here and we beat them. We've beaten them in 3 of the least 5 matches. So that tells me that we have a claim to being better. If you want to use stats and rankings to argue against that claim, you have to do so in the knowledge that the strongest argument possible for which side is better is who actually wins the games.

As far rating New Zealand less, just ask me about basically any point in the last 20 years that isn't now. I have repeatedly stated, for example, that I think Astle and Fleming were mediocre to good batsmen only. This is to rate them far lower than most Kiwi posters do.

As for Kane Williamson, a methodology that suggests the only batsman in the world to be ranked in the top 10 in all formats might actually be the world's best batsman across all formats is hardly a contrivance. I think it's a very fair and reasonable point, and my bringing up is in no way suggestive of a bias (not that I necessarily deny having a bias). I don't do mindless fanboyism. I take care to back up my points with at least something reasonable.

Part of the trouble is that many subtleties are lost here for some reason. "Bevan had a poor strike rate for an ODI finisher" becomes "Bevan was a spud". Saying "Tim Southee was ranked above James Anderson as a Test bowler for much of the last 4 years and has an argument for being roughly as good" becomes "Southee is almost as good as Dale Steyn". Saying "A team that loses a series might not be as good as the team that beat them" becomes "The Black Caps are comfortably the No. 1 side in the world". Most of the things I get **** for are things I've never even said.

I note also that many of my predictions turn out to be true. I started a thread a few years ago where I put the case that KW was already better than Ross Taylor. Most people disagreed at the time. They wouldn't now. So just because I say something that is unpopular now (like NZ has an argument for being the No. 1 team) doesn't mean I am biased. I could be right.

 

[Dan]

Seriously, listen to this guy. The weed has opened up the other 90% of the brain that the rest of us can't access!

 

[kiwiviktor81]

A JAMODI series yes.

There's no such thing as a JAMODI series. Do you think the players, before the match, are saying "Don't worry boys, this is just a meaningless game, so keep energy in the tank for the world cup in 2019"?

The players put 100% into each game so I treat each game like any other.

Did Steve Smith sound indifferent to the Mitchell Marsh decision to you? I thought he was on the verge of weeping with rage and frustration.

 

[vcs]

kiwivictor, most people actually like NZ (like me) and many have them as their second team. Why are you hell-bent on trying to change that?

 

[Prince EWS]

I note also that many of my predictions turn out to be true. I started a thread a few years ago where I put the case that KW was already better than Ross Taylor. Most people disagreed at the time. They wouldn't now.

Haha this is a ridiculous point. If I say my two year old nephew is taller than me then I'm flat out wrong, even if ends up being taller than me one day. If I say I think he'll end up being taller than me one day then I might be right but much fewer people will disagree with me. I can't remember the thread in question but from the sounds of things it wasn't actually a prediction at all.

So just because I say something that is unpopular now (like NZ has an argument for being the No. 1 team) doesn't mean I am biased. I could be right.

Yeah, I know. But this becomes less and less likely if every time you have an unpopular theory it seems to justify you rating New Zealand or Kane Williamson higher than most other people. I enjoy unorthodox views, particularly when they're backed up by an overall challenge to the status quo methodology and are argued well, and a lot of yours have been like that. But it just not seemingly like a coincidence anymore that they so many of them justify you rating your favourite team or your favourite player higher; they seem to be developed almost deliberately to conform to your agenda. If this is a coincidence then you won't have anything to worry about for very long because eventually as things change it'll be NZ who think most of CW is over-rating, but until then it's just too much to be a coincidence for me so I'm out.

In terms of the actual debate I don't really disagree with you much, as you may have gleaned from my post. I think Australia are the best team overall but I'd agree that New Zealand are better in New Zealand. But I just cbf engaging you on yet another unorthodox theory that just so happens to justify you rating New Zealand and/or New Zealand players higher. I'm suspecting that it's intellectually dishonest. Not in isolation, obviously, but in the context of all your other posts.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Like I've said three times now, if you knew what I think about rugby and the All Blacks you'd know I'm not biased towards New Zealand teams, or teams that I support in general. I maintain that the Black Caps and its players are better than most people give them credit for, if the majority disagrees I couldn't give a ****. We'll see who was right sooner or later.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

But I just cbf engaging you on yet another unorthodox theory that just so happens to justify you rating New Zealand and/or New Zealand players higher. I'm suspecting that it's intellectually dishonest.

I didn't enjoy reading this bit.

Some people treat this forum like it's a science lab or computer lab where objective truths can actually be rigorously determined by some consensus method of peer review. For me it's more like a courtroom, where posters play prosecutor or defendant depending on whether their team is doing good or bad.

I'm not apologising for putting forward a case that New Zealand players are underrated. I defend all my assertions with facts. Like I said,l we'll see who was right sooner or later.

However, if the BCs end up ranked No. 1 in either Tests or ODIs at some point in the next few years I will be expecting an apology from some people.

 

[Prince EWS]

Some people treat this forum like it's a science lab or computer lab where objective truths can actually be rigorously determined by some consensus method of peer review.

I agree with you that this is what happens and I agree that that it's irritating, but..

For me it's more like a courtroom, where posters play prosecutor or defendant depending on whether their team is doing good or bad.

.. I don't really understand this at all. It almost seems like a pseudo-intellectual justification for everyone posting like WindieWeathers. You're not required to assume a certain role in the discussion based on how the team you happen to support is playing. If I'm going to discuss something with you I don't want you taking on a role as a BlackCaps foot solider in the great Supporters War. If that's how you view posting here then I'm definitely out, but I suspect I may be misinterpreting because you seemed offended by the suggestion that you were doing precisely what you appear to be suggesting you should do here.

However, if the BCs end up ranked No. 1 in either Tests or ODIs at some point in the next few years I will be expecting an apology from some people.

This doesn't really make any sense to me.

If they end up the best in the future, that doesn't necessarily mean they're the best now. I refer you again to this:

Haha this is a ridiculous point. If I say my two year old nephew is taller than me then I'm flat out wrong, even if ends up being taller than me one day. If I say I think he'll end up being taller than me one day then I might be right but much fewer people will disagree with me. I can't remember the thread in question but from the sounds of things it wasn't actually a prediction at all.

You're not actually making a prediction here. You're expressing an opinion about the present.

Furthermore, even if you are actually right, that doesn't change what I've said. I've just sensed too much of a pattern and it's put me off bothering to engage you. Realistically the only way you'll be getting an apology is I come to believe I was wrong about this pattern, and that would probably only happen if the pattern stopped emerging. This is true regardless of whether NZ play well or not.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

You're either having a laugh or you're trolling if you're comparing my posting to WindieWeathers.

For one thing, I'm amenable to decent arguments. I became convinced that Tim Southee wasn't as good as I thought he was.

I maintain that a lot of the bias I am being accused of here is me noticing a pattern before most other people do.

The most unorthodox thing I have said on this thread is to suggest that a team that just comfortably lost an ODI series might not be as good as the team that beat them. If that's wrong then there's really no point in talking about anything.

I'm not expecting an apology out of you. Personally I think there is a lot of communication that is lost over the Internet because you are unable to read my body language or tone of voice. I suspect that if you and I were having this conversation over a beer face to face you'd have a much more accurate idea of how I thought.