''England is no.1 test team''

[Lillian Thomson]

aussie has clearly hacked a few accounts.

aussie struggled to log in under his own account.

Anyway aside from that this England team is not that great. On a flat wicket the seamers are very average.

 

[Jono]

You can have your own view of who is no.1, but there is a no. 1. Whether its India, England or SA, just because they're not 10 times better than the next best doesn't mean they aren't the no. 1 team. Being slightly better than the next best still makes you no. 1.

 

[GIMH]

England is no. 3 test team currently according to ICC rankings.

Such an intelligent response.

Article argues 'I disagree with the ICC rankings'

Response

'The rankings say...'

You have to laugh.
------

Nonetheless, I'll be taking nothing for granted until we are officially number one but people are entitled to their own opinion regarding who the best side is.

 

[weldone]

Such an intelligent response.

Article argues 'I disagree with the ICC rankings'

Response

'The rankings say...'

You have to laugh.
------

Nonetheless, I'll be taking nothing for granted until we are officially number one but people are entitled to their own opinion regarding who the best side is.

Hmmm...On second thought, I think I should have added this line too "I agree with the current ICC rankings, and thereby don't agree with the article."

Does that make sense to you now?

Or, still laughing?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, that's perfectly valid. But it seems some people need to use the rankings to justify why the rankings are right. Circular logic.

 

[weldone]

I'm not one among those 'some'.

If anything, I might have used the rankings to justify why my opinions are more valid than the article.

But here, I didn't do that. I just said that I agreed with the ICC rankings, and not the article (the same way I don't agree with my Bangladeshi friend who thinks Bangladesh is a better team than Australia).

 

[silentstriker]

Meh the best team is the one that's ranked highest. Of course, you can disagree with the formula used for the rankings and come up with another that might place Eng or SA or whoever as #1 and that's fair enough - I disagree with parts of the formula too.

Otherwise you're going on current form, which is also fine but then it becomes simply a matter of who played the best last Test match. India weren't #1 in the world after beating Australia in 2001.

 

[Redbacks]

(the same way I don't agree with my Bangladeshi friend who thinks Bangladesh is a better team than Australia).

If our selectors stay on a couple more years..... nah even that couldn't do it.

 

[Redbacks]

Otherwise you're going on current form, which is also fine but then it becomes simply a matter of who played the best last Test match. India weren't #1 in the world after beating Australia in 2001.

It's a factor in English tabloid culture to get too far ahead of themselves. The past 10 football tournaments are testament to that.

 

[Daemon]

It's like saying Mt Everest is not definitively the highest mountain in the world because it's less than 3% taller than the next highest mountain. Sorry, but what?

Not exactly. Mt Everest and the second highest mountain don't grow or shrink in size every week. (Don't give me some geography lesson about how mountains grow, you know what I mean )

Not disputing the original point though. For those arguing that England couldn't beat India in India, well it hasn't happened yet so until then, assuming England win this series, England will be number 1. That doesn't mean much though, because not a lot seperates them from India and England.

Anyways, enough about England. If India can even draw this then they're pretty much no.1 in my eyes, with two drawn series away from home against top sides in top form and a gun record at home.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It's a factor in English tabloid culture to get too far ahead of themselves. The past 10 football tournaments are testament to that.

At least this time the cricket team is actually good and might be as good as they claim, the football team are always ridiculously overhyped. Don't forget England are going to win Euro 2012 before taking the World Cup.

 

[Redbacks]

At least this time the cricket team is actually good and might be as good as they claim, the football team are always ridiculously overhyped. Don't forget England are going to win Euro 2012 before taking the World Cup.

I agree, this England team is quality, it's going to be the ability to produce when things get tough that maketh or braketh the man though. It just seems common for the press to really pump up the tires of English teams who show promise. To an outsider it looks a bit odd, just like Aus commentators still claiming that there wasn't too much between the sides in the last ashes probably did.

 

[marc71178]

Not disputing the original point though. For those arguing that England couldn't beat India in India, well it hasn't happened yet so until then, assuming England win this series, England will be number 1. That doesn't mean much though, because not a lot seperates them from India and England.

Say it finishes 3-0 or 4-0 (for arguments sake) - would you still say there's not a lot between them then?

 

[nick-o]

It's like saying Mt Everest is not definitively the highest mountain in the world because it's less than 3% taller than the next highest mountain. Sorry, but what?

(Channeling "Hairspray" here, but) Mt Everest is not the highest mountain in the world.

Mt Chimborazo FTW.

(Everest only wins when playing in the subcontinent...

 

[hazsa19]

aussie struggled to log in under his own account.

Anyway aside from that this England team is not that great. On a flat wicket the seamers are very average.

Don't come much flatter than Adelaide, and Lords is very flat. Can't think of another group of seamers who would be any better on flat tracks.

 

[silentstriker]

Say it finishes 3-0 or 4-0 (for arguments sake) - would you still say there's not a lot between them then?

It would depend on the manner of the losses, who's out, if someone couldn't bowl for 90% of the game, etc.

Obviously 4-0 or 3-0 = England are the best team but India's rankinh won't be completely decimated if they lose that badly I would think and could come back within a couple of series.

 

[marc71178]

4-0 and they actually swap points average.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Don't come much flatter than Adelaide, and Lords is very flat. Can't think of another group of seamers who would be any better on flat tracks.

Lords wasn't a flat wicket.
You either need to think harder or not bother at all.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not exactly. Mt Everest and the second highest mountain don't grow or shrink in size every week. (Don't give me some geography lesson about how mountains grow, you know what I mean )

*Geology.

 

[silentstriker]

Allan Donald also said he thinks we are the best side in the world and very interestingly said we have the best bowling attack.

I don't think we are until we beat India though. If we do that i don't really see any justification for us not being the best.

4-0 and they actually swap points average.

Exactly - no one has or is likely to have an australianesque lead and a dip or a spike in form over the course of only a few months could see new #1s. I don't see why anyone is getting ahead of themselves here. Especially if zaheer is out, England will win this comfortably and even if they don't win by two Tests - India has to tour Australia next- a place where they have NEVER (along with all the other subcontinent sides) won a test series - so unless England self destruct in this series or the next, the ranking should be theirs.