Australia vs South Africa vs India

[Evermind]

There've been arguments going around lately about "the best team in the world". It's pretty incontrovertible that these are the three best teams in the world - but in what order?

Let's do a man-by-man analysis. Top rank gets 1 point, then 2, then 3, points added up become team points, so lower points is better.

Sehwag = Smith > Katich
I've taken the most experienced of the openers to compare. It's hard to separate Smith and Sehwag, but Katich to me seems the least talented of the three.
Gambhir = Hughes = Prince
I think Hughes will end up about as successful as Gambhir (even though I can't watching the former play) and SA have no other proven opener at the moment. However, Prince, slotting back into opening, might end up equally successful. In terms of ability, it's hard to separate the three.
Ponting > Dravid > Amla
Two giants of the modern game, and newcomer. Going with experience over potential here: Dravid and Ponting have scored against everyone and everywhere, and return of form for both might be one game away.
Tendulkar = Kallis > Hussey
Hussey might average the highest, but I'd rather have the former two in my lineup, any day. Tendulkar over Kallis because of consistency of scoring centuries and strike rate, but Kallis has his bowling.
DeVilliers > Clarke > Laxman
On current form as well as potential. Laxman has the worst technique, and is the least consistent of the three, I feel. But it's pretty close.
Duminy > North > Yuvraj
Yuvraj is awful in tests! Duminy looks tremendous, and North pretty good.
Dhoni = Haddin > Boucher
Sorry, Boucher looks spent as a batsman. Hasn't scored in ages, average has dropped below 30.
Harbhajan > Harris > McDonald/McGain/Krezja/Hauritz
Cleanest and clearest of the comparisons.
Steyn = Johnson > Zaheer
Very little separating the first two - Zaheer is a distant third here.
Ishant = Siddle > Ntini
Hard one. Mostly based on potential. Ntini isn't the force he used to be, while I think Siddle will end up with better stats. Ishant might end up doing pretty well too, and bowls the unplayable delivery more often.
M Morkel > Munaf > Hilfenhaus
Based on potential. I think Morkel could end up being as good as Johnson if he put his mind to it. And I have no doubt he will come back into the squad.

Adding up points:
SA: 18
India: 19
Aus: 21

Hmm...is that an accurate assessment?

 

[four_or_six]

I think one potential problem is that you haven't factored in Kallis's bowling.

 

[Evermind]

Good observation. Edited to change Tendulkar = Kallis when bowling is factored in. Also, Johnson = Steyn with batting factored in.

 

[Uppercut]

It's an interesting assessment. The problem with player-by-player is that it can depend on issues as simple as which way round you put the openers. I'd prefer to compare area-by-area, i.e. compare the openers then compare the middle order and so on. So it's:

Openers
Katich-Hughes vs Prince-Smith vs Sehwag-Gambhir

I'd probably go India, South Africa, Australia on this one.


Middle Order
Ponting-Hussey-Clarke-North vs Amla-Kallis-De Villiers- Duminy vs Dravid-Tendulkar-Laxman-Yuvraj

Would probably marginally give this one to South Africa, largely because i don't think Dravid's much use these days and they have the most convincing number 6 IMHO. I'll have India second in light of Huss and Ponting's reduced batting performances of late. Could really have them in any order here though.

Lower Order/Tail
Haddin-McDonald-Johnson vs Boucher-Albie-Harris vs Dhoni-Harbhajan-Zaheer

Australia easily the best here, probably followed by South Africa if they choose to continue to weaken their bowling attack by playing Albie at 8.

Seam attack
I'll do this under the assumption that Lee and Clark aren't fit.

Johnson-Siddle-Hilfenhaus-McDonald vs Steyn-Ntini-Albie-Kallis vs Ishant-Zaheer- Munaf if a third is required

Giving this one to Australia because they have more after the top two than India. India's is certainly better than South Africa's on paper at least, despite lacking a bit of depth. South Africa are unlucky to be bottom here but with Ntini aging Albie Morkel's just too weak a link IMO.

Spin attack
North-Katich-one of several pretty bad spinners vs Harris-Duminy vs Harbhajan-Sehwag-Yuvraj-Mishra if a second spinner is required

Non-contest here, India on top then SA then Australia.

India- 11
Australia- 9
South Africa- 10

Crude analysis, but there you go.

 

[King Pietersen]

I think it'd be a fairer assesment to form an XI from the 3 countries. Mine would be:

Smith *
Sehwag
Ponting
Tendulkar
Kallis
De Villiers
Dhoni +
Johnson
Harbhajan/Siddle or Ishant
Zaheer
Steyn

Works out at:
South Africa: 4
Australia: 2
India: 5

I think that's a fair side, Harbhajan in purely because he's a spinner. He's not got a great record away from India, but he's certainly a far better option than Harris or any of the Aussie pie-chuckers. It's certainly interesting though, as I don't personally rate India as highly as Australia or South Africa, but they're clearly the stronger team on paper, as I don't think you could argue against any of the selections, bar Harbhajan. Tendulkar's a class act, Sehwag's developing into a top opening batsman, Dhoni's a fantastic keeper and decent bat, Zaheer's one of the most improved bowlers in world cricket, has fantastic control of conventional and reverse swing and is very rarely dominated, then you've got comfortably the best spinner from the 3 sides in Harbhajan.

 

[Maximus0723]

Where is Mishy?

Mishy>Munaf.

Ishant is overrated.

I would go Australia>India=SA.


off topic
...imagine Aussie's w.o Ponting, India w.o Sachin and SA w.o Kallis.

 

[Goughy]

Middle Order

Would probably marginally give this one to South Africa.

Interesting. Speaking as a bowler, that is the unit Id rather bowl at rather than Australia or India.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Interesting times. I'd have Australia slightly ahead of SA currently with India a notch behind. India have probably the strongest batting line up (only really Yuvraj is a potential weak link), but their seam attack and in particular the back up to Zaheer & Ishant is the weakest of the three sides. Against that one can safely say they have the best spin options, but away from the subcontinent this in itself may not be enough to win many tests.

 

[Uppercut]

Interesting. Speaking as a bowler, that is the unit Id rather bowl at rather than Australia or India.

I'd prefer not to bowl at Dravid, Yuvraj or Tendulkar (one would be frustrating, one potentially humiliating and the other simply impossible). But i try not to think about that, because who scores or will score more runs is the important question. In a match tomorrow, would you back Dravid+Tendulkar+Laxman+Yuvraj to outscore Amla+Kallis+AB+Duminy? I guess you would, which is fair enough. Close call I reckon.

 

[oitoitoi]

Good thread.

I'd take Steyn over Johnson who IMO still hasn't proven himself on good batting/flat tracks (while Steyn has). He'l be consistently threatening with his pace on flat decks but he lacks the penetration Steyn has on a flat deck. Also I don't think he'll be able to get that inswinger going consistently with his action, certainly not in Australia. In fact on a flat non seaming track (e.g. India, Sri Lanka, some English grounds in August) I think I'd take Ishant as a bowler ahead of him.

All that said Johnson's batting certainly earns him some extra brownie points. I've read so many articles mentioning that this guy has some extraordinary talent but really I don't see it, what I see is an extraordinary athlete (phenomenally strong and fit) who makes the absolute best of what talent he has.

Right now as a foil bowler I'd take Zaheer over any of the others. Siddle looks very good but I like to see quick bowlers move the ball through the air (it lets them take the pitch out of the equation) and Siddle doesn't seem to do that too much, again a fabulous athlete who's stamina can make up for some of his shortcomings; the quintissential Aussie quick. Ntini IMO can never be counted out, people keep saying he's past it but I look at his bowling now and 3 years ago and I don't see a huge difference.

I reckon DeVilliers is better than the other 2, but on a tough wicket or against top class bowling I'd take Laxman over Clarke. Laxman's record vs Australia speaks volumes of his ability, but comparititvely his career average says a lot about his batting when the pressure's off.

Not so sure it's fair to say that Hughes is the equal of Gambhir and Prince as batsmen just yet, he needs to prove himself in more different conditions, kind of like people used to say about stu clark and having to play outside Australia and South Africa.

 

[silentstriker]

I did this before, but let's look at their records vs. each other. A direct comparison, home and away:

Australia: Won vs. India, lost vs. India, Won vs. SA, lost vs. SA, 2-2-0
SA: Won vs. India, Drew vs. India, Won vs. Australia, Lost vs. Australia, 2-1-1
India: Won vs. Australia, Lost vs. Australia, Drew vs SA, Lost vs. SA, 1-2-1

By that, it'd be SA > Australia > India. Of course, I'd argue that India would probably beat SA at home if they played again, and would be more competitive in SA and in Australia. But SA is better than when India last played them in SA too, so that may not be true.

In the end, you have to go on achievements, so on that, it'd be SA > Australia > India.

However, Australia still have the better overall record if you look at their performance against every country, so I've no problem with ranking them first. I know a few people disagree with me, but India are pretty clear number three.

I think the true indication of how close they are is that no matter who plays who, the home country would probably start as the favorites. And it would not be a shock if any of them win against any of the others.

 

[Evermind]

In the end, you have to go on achievements, so on that, it'd be SA > Australia > India.

However, Australia still have the better overall record if you look at their performance against every country, so I've no problem with ranking them first. I know a few people disagree with me, but India are pretty clear number three.

Yep, looks about right. I have a feeling that if Lee and Clark are back and firing, and Hussey and Ponting regain top form, Australia will be an easy #1. SA seem to be playing to their potential, while Australia look like they still have a lot of gas in the tank batting-wise, and the two teams still come out level, so I'd put Aus on top as well.

 

[Uppercut]

Yep, looks about right. I have a feeling that if Lee and Clark are back and firing, and Hussey and Ponting regain top form, Australia will be an easy #1. SA seem to be playing to their potential, while Australia look like they still have a lot of gas in the tank batting-wise, and the two teams still come out level, so I'd put Aus on top as well.

Hmm. Kallis and Amla have both been below their best and they've only just shed an out-of-sorts Neil McKenzie. Wouldn't say they've been running at full capacity by any means. No team ever is in fact.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Good thread.

It feels like you've sold Michael Clarke a little short - the guy currently averages 49 in test cricket, and is on the rise.

Maybe you've emphasized the last 3 tests a little heavily?

I mean, I'm a big fan of Hughes, I think he may well end up being the best opener of the 3 teams, but he's only played 3 tests. However, you could just swap his name with Katich (ie - Hughes not as good as Sehwag or Smith, with Katich = to Gambhir and Prince) and that'd probably work anyway.

Good take overall on the players you assessed - but I wonder if they are the best ones to be ranking? For example, Lee/ Clark for Australia in place of Hilfenhaus/ McDonald - and suddenly the ranking is a lot more difficult.

 

[Sanz]

There've been arguments going around lately about "the best team in the world". It's pretty incontrovertible that these are the three best teams in the world - but in what order?

Let's do a man-by-man analysis. Top rank gets 1 point, then 2, then 3, points added up become team points, so lower points is better.

Sehwag = Smith > Katich
I've taken the most experienced of the openers to compare. It's hard to separate Smith and Sehwag, but Katich to me seems the least talented of the three.
Gambhir = Hughes = Prince
I think Hughes will end up about as successful as Gambhir (even though I can't watching the former play) and SA have no other proven opener at the moment. However, Prince, slotting back into opening, might end up equally successful. In terms of ability, it's hard to separate the three.
Ponting > Dravid > Amla
Two giants of the modern game, and newcomer. Going with experience over potential here: Dravid and Ponting have scored against everyone and everywhere, and return of form for both might be one game away.
Tendulkar = Kallis > Hussey
Hussey might average the highest, but I'd rather have the former two in my lineup, any day. Tendulkar over Kallis because of consistency of scoring centuries and strike rate, but Kallis has his bowling.
DeVilliers > Clarke > Laxman
On current form as well as potential. Laxman has the worst technique, and is the least consistent of the three, I feel. But it's pretty close.
Duminy > North > Yuvraj
Yuvraj is awful in tests! Duminy looks tremendous, and North pretty good.
Dhoni = Haddin > Boucher
Sorry, Boucher looks spent as a batsman. Hasn't scored in ages, average has dropped below 30.
Harbhajan > Harris > McDonald/McGain/Krezja/Hauritz
Cleanest and clearest of the comparisons.
Steyn = Johnson > Zaheer
Very little separating the first two - Zaheer is a distant third here.
Ishant = Siddle > Ntini
Hard one. Mostly based on potential. Ntini isn't the force he used to be, while I think Siddle will end up with better stats. Ishant might end up doing pretty well too, and bowls the unplayable delivery more often.
M Morkel > Munaf > Hilfenhaus
Based on potential. I think Morkel could end up being as good as Johnson if he put his mind to it. And I have no doubt he will come back into the squad.

Adding up points:
SA: 18
India: 19
Aus: 21

Hmm...is that an accurate assessment?

This is not about Player Comparison, it is about best team in the world. Australia have erned their right to be there at the top until some other team earns that right by consistently winning.

 

[honestbharani]

i did this before, but let's look at their records vs. Each other. A direct comparison, home and away:

Australia: Won vs. India, lost vs. India, won vs. Sa, lost vs. Sa, 2-2-0
sa: Won vs. India, drew vs. India, won vs. Australia, lost vs. Australia, 2-1-1
india: Won vs. Australia, lost vs. Australia, drew vs sa, lost vs. Sa, 1-2-1

by that, it'd be sa > australia > india. Of course, i'd argue that india would probably beat sa at home if they played again, and would be more competitive in sa and in australia. But sa is better than when india last played them in sa too, so that may not be true.

In the end, you have to go on achievements, so on that, it'd be sa > australia > india.

However, australia still have the better overall record if you look at their performance against every country, so i've no problem with ranking them first. I know a few people disagree with me, but india are pretty clear number three.

I think the true indication of how close they are is that no matter who plays who, the home country would probably start as the favorites. And it would not be a shock if any of them win against any of the others.

awta

 

[Uppercut]

I think it's fair to say Australia are most certainly world number 1. You can't argue with their results.

But seeing who currently has the better all-round side based on their players is still fun.

 

[bagapath]

very good thread. and silent striker's post is pretty sharp.

my assessment at the moment is SA = Aus > Ind

it is mainly because SA and Aus have won at least one series away from home in the recent past. Ind is yet to win one series in SA or Aus. Till then they cannot be ranked with the best in business.