Cricket's grand slam

[SkyBlue]

Lets admit it,a major ICC event has far more prestige than any test series across various countries unless we're talking about Ashes.So for England and Australia fans,you can probably replace the #1 ranking in tests with Ashes.You have 3 ICC events mentioned above and the Ashes.Micheal Clarke was so close to achieve this feat.

Champions trophy doesnt need to be disregarded as you're competing against all the best teams in one tournament.Its better than any #1 ranking you achieve in ODI cricket.

Anyway depends in how you look at it i guess.There's just more hype,money and prestige involved in limited over formats than a test series.Its how ICC have marketed the game.

 

[SkyBlue]

World Cups are lotteries

Thats a pretty insane statement tbh.

So i guess NZ were fortunate enough to win the rugby world cup two times in a row.Or Australia winning the 'lottery' for 3 consecutive editions of the cricket WC.

Lets face it,the best always tend to win.There's always going to be exceptions in sport and thats the beauty of it.


This statement would make a bit more sense for T20 WC's(although i dont entirely agree with it) but not the 50 over version.

 

[TNT]

Lets admit it,a major ICC event has far more prestige than any test series across various countries unless we're talking about Ashes.So for England and Australia fans,you can probably replace the #1 ranking in tests with Ashes.You have 3 ICC events mentioned above and the Ashes.Micheal Clarke was so close to achieve this feat.

Champions trophy doesnt need to be disregarded as you're competing against all the best teams in one tournament.Its better than any #1 ranking you achieve in ODI cricket.

Anyway depends in how you look at it i guess.There's just more hype,money and prestige involved in limited over formats than a test series.Its how ICC have marketed the game.

I would have thought that ranking is a greater achievement considering you have to play under so many different conditions, take the last WC, would it have played out the same if it was played in the SC.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lets admit it,a major ICC event has far more prestige than any test series across various countries unless we're talking about Ashes.So for England and Australia fans,you can probably replace the #1 ranking in tests with Ashes.You have 3 ICC events mentioned above and the Ashes.Micheal Clarke was so close to achieve this feat.

Champions trophy doesnt need to be disregarded as you're competing against all the best teams in one tournament.Its better than any #1 ranking you achieve in ODI cricket.

Anyway depends in how you look at it i guess.There's just more hype,money and prestige involved in limited over formats than a test series.Its how ICC have marketed the game.

Yeah, no, winning 3 or 4 specific games in the same conditions is not a better indication of how good a team is than achieving a no. 1 ranking against all other teams over a period of time in all conditions

 

[Daemon]

Doesn't surprise me tbh

Does anything really?

 

[morgieb]

I would be amazed if any nation ever achieves this. Even if T20 was around during Australia's glory years I can't see any way they could have dominated 3 formats like they did 2 (and even then I don't think they won the CT during this time)

We won the CT back in 2006 IIRC.

 

[duffer]

edit: errrrrrrrrmmm

 

[honestbharani]

We won the CT back in 2006 IIRC.

Wasn't it the one held in India? Windies had a monstrous start and Bracken won them that game...

 

[SkyBlue]

Yeah, no, winning 3 or 4 specific games in the same conditions is not a better indication of how good a team is than achieving a no. 1 ranking against all other teams over a period of time in all conditions

You're putting too much emphasis on pitch conditions.Most one-day games are played on flat backing decks these days and with the amount of cricket that is played across all the big countries,you'd have to think pitch conditions is less of a factor especially for white ball cricket.Its only test cricket where its a more significant factor.
I would certainly value CT more over bilateral series victories against various sides home or away.

 

[Dan]

I'd value the CT over a standard bilateral series, simply because the CT generally has something approximating First XIs competing.

Winning games featuring Starc & Hazlewood opening the bowling in the CT >>>>> winning a late summer bilateral series with Richardson & Boland opening the bowling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're putting too much emphasis on pitch conditions.Most one-day games are played on flat backing decks these days and with the amount of cricket that is played across all the big countries,you'd have to think pitch conditions is less of a factor especially for white ball cricket.Its only test cricket where its a more significant factor.
I would certainly value CT more over bilateral series victories against various sides home or away.

Conditions is hardly the major factor in why a #1 ranking achieved over time is a more reliable indicator of how good a side is than a 1 off tournament win that consists of ~4 matches in the space of a week and a half.

I'm thoroughly surprised that this would need explaining at all. Some things do surprise me it seems

I'd value the CT over a standard bilateral series, simply because the CT generally has something approximating First XIs competing.

Winning games featuring Starc & Hazlewood opening the bowling in the CT >>>>> winning a late summer bilateral series with Richardson & Boland opening the bowling.

Definitely correct, not what people were discussing however