No Asians ?

[silentstriker]

Are we talking about tests or ODIs ?

Besides I iask you look into the history of most (if not all) cricket playing countries and see that their home records is almost always better than their away record.

ODI Records:

India Home: 56%
India Away: 37%
Difference: 19%

Sri Lanka Home: 72%
Sri Lanka Away: 37%
Difference: 35%

Australia Home: 65%
Australia Away: 58%
Difference: 7%

West Indies Home: 64%
West Indies Away: 54%
Difference: 10%

England Home: 58%
England Away: 41%
Difference: 18%

South Africa Home: 73%
South Africa Away: 48%
Difference: 25%

Pakistan Home: 61%
Pakistan Away: 48%
Difference: 13%

New Zealand Away: 56%
New Zealand Home: 31%
Difference: 25%

So the difference, in terms of largest difference to least:

1. 35%: Sri Lanka
2. 25%: South Africa
3. 25%: New Zealand
4. 19%: India
5. 18%: England
6. 13%: Pakistan
7. 10%: West Indies
8. 7%: Australia

So on the face of it, Australia are the most consistent home and abroad, whereas Sri Lanka are the least. However, that is a simple list based on just home-away and not subcontinental or not matches.

There is a significant difference (two out of top three), though its not as large as I expected. With that said, it is still the first time since the 1970's where none of the subcontinental teams are through to the second round! Especially amazing considering the winning % of some of the teams in the subcontinent. The one that sticks out is South Africa. I knew that they had troubles, but didn't know it was that bad (bad in terms of difference, their winning % is still higher than most teams).

[R_D]

maybe not so hard to beleive all asians teams are out..considering the pitches were far from being the usual sub-contiental pitches.
Should be interesting finally thou... i do hope WI or NZ win.

[Sanz]

So on the face of it, Australia are the most consistent home and abroad, whereas Sri Lanka are the least. However, that is a simple list based on just home-away and not subcontinental or not matches.

There is a significant difference (two out of top three), though its not as large as I expected. With that said, it is still the first time since the 1970's where none of the subcontinental teams are through to the second round! Especially amazing considering the winning % of some of the teams in the subcontinent. The one that sticks out is South Africa. I knew that they had troubles, but didn't know it was that bad (bad in terms of difference, their winning % is still higher than most teams).

SS - That's stupid statistics at best. Did you know that Neutral games are not played at home either and normally played away from home ?


Besides what is the point, are you using your own statistics to prove yourself wrong ?

[adharcric]

maybe not so hard to beleive all asians teams are out..considering the pitches were far from being the usual sub-contiental pitches.
Should be interesting finally thou... i do hope WI or NZ win.

I'll definitely root for Australia. Unless they're playing India, I'll always take an Aussie victory. One reason why: I don't want anyone but India to beat 'em.

[R_D]

I'll definitely root for Australia. Unless they're playing India, I'll always take an Aussie victory. One reason why: I don't want anyone but India to beat 'em.

there was a time when i used to root ( had to use that word ) for the aussies. Most of my mates pretty much don't care about cricket now cause they know Aus is going to win. There'll nothing better than seeing Aussies lose to NZ.... hahaha the ultimate shame for them.
No disrespect to NZ, aussies hate losing to NZ just as much as England.
I'll have a field day after they loss

[tooextracool]

ODI Records:

New Zealand Away: 56%
New Zealand Home: 31%
Difference: 15%

Didnt take subtraction too seriously in kindergarten did you?
Anyways i think its pretty obvious that SL and India are both vastly superior teams at home than they are away. Pakistan is a bit better in that regard.

[silentstriker]

Didnt take subtraction too seriously in kindergarten did you?
Anyways i think its pretty obvious that SL and India are both vastly superior teams at home than they are away. Pakistan is a bit better in that regard.

Oops!

[silentstriker]

Besides what is the point, are you using your own statistics to prove yourself wrong ?

Actually, it did prove me wrong. I posted those statistics so I can agree with you, except in case of Sri Lanka. That's what I get for admitting I'm wrong, I guess.

[Sanz]

Didnt take subtraction too seriously in kindergarten did you?
Anyways i think its pretty obvious that SL and India are both vastly superior teams at home than they are away. Pakistan is a bit better in that regard.

And the reason for that is not because their batsmen are any better/worse against any particular type of bowling but because SriLanka and SriLanka have a very poor pace attack over all to achieve decent success away from home.

Pakistan is better because they have always had great fast bowlers in last 30-35 years.

[tooextracool]

And the reason for that is not because their batsmen are any better/worse against any particular type of bowling but because SriLanka and SriLanka have a very poor pace attack over all to achieve decent success away from home.

Pakistan is better because they have always had great fast bowlers in last 30-35 years.

In indias case that maybe true, bit in SL case i think their batsmen have the tendency to struggle on foreign soil while being extremely productive at home.

[Langeveldt]

Hmmm, interesting with no subcontinental sides in the final four..

[Jono]

It's not all that surprising really, Australia and South Africa are the two sides that consistently bring their best game to the tournaments and I would think most people would have selected them to top the groups.

Tell me one person who thought SA would top the group? I thought they might, and took a punt but they were paying >$4 at one stage. Then when SL were in the group after qualification they became favourites. How can you say SA bring their best game to the tournaments when you look at the 2003 World Cup, 2004 CT and the VB Series vs Aust & SL (even considering their injuries)?

[vic_orthdox]

Tell me one person who thought SA would top the group? I thought they might, and took a punt but they were paying >$4 at one stage. Then when SL were in the group after qualification they became favourites. How can you say SA bring their best game to the tournaments when you look at the 2003 World Cup, 2004 CT and the VB Series vs Aust?

I think we can pardon them the VB series, considering whom they were missing at the time.

[Slow Love™]

Tell me one person who thought SA would top the group? I thought they might, and took a punt but they were paying >$4 at one stage. Then when SL were in the group after qualification they became favourites. How can you say SA bring their best game to the tournaments when you look at the 2003 World Cup, 2004 CT and the VB Series vs Aust & SL (even considering their injuries)?

As to topping groups, it's probably a fair comment in general though. Where Great Birtannia went wrong is probably the overall comment that they bring their best game to the big tourneys, period. 'Cause they have a tendency to look red-hot in the preliminary rounds before they blow it all in a semi or a final (or final series).

And he probably didn't mean domestics like the VB series when he said tournaments, anyway.

[Slow Love™]

Flame Bait. Sonme people continue to bait in the name of irony.

Sanz -- It probably is flame bait to a degree, but mate, people do have a laugh at that kind of thing. I'm sure similar would be happening if Australia got knocked out after the prelim rounds, were we hosting the event. This one's a little bit funnier because every single subcontinental team missed out. I don't think it's anything too serious though.