The Battle for Number 2 (no pun intended)

[silentstriker]

I don't see how 3 defeats outweighs that.

It doesn't, but you do have to get back to winning if you want to be considered a clear #2.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree, and I fully expect that outside of Asia we will.

 

[silentstriker]

I agree, and I fully expect that outside of Asia we will.

Then you have to give up your aspirations to be the clear #2....because you would be in the same boat India is in. Slightly better off because there are more tests outside the subcontinent than inside it. But slighly worse off because your home record is not as good as India.

 

[Armadillo]

Erm, actually, before Pakistan our record was thus:

16 wins from 23 Tests, 2 defeats.

I don't see how 3 defeats outweighs that.

But lets face it, when did people start branding England number 2, after the ashes of course.

 

[viktor]

Strictly speaking, we have.

As have we:
http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/IND_IN_ZIM/

cheers

 

[Tom Halsey]

But lets face it, when did people start branding England number 2, after the ashes of course.

We were number 2 way before the Ashes. It was the Ashes that raised questions whether we were number 1 or not.

 

[Tom Halsey]

But slighly worse off because your home record is not as good as India.

7 wins in 7, and then beating the best team in the World... I beg to differ.

 

[silentstriker]

We were number 2 way before the Ashes. It was the Ashes that raised questions whether we were number 1 or not.

Well, you are obviously not...but as for #2...here are India's record at home in last 7:

1-0-1 so far against England
2-0-1 SL
1-0-1 SA

So no, England was not the clear number two way before the Ashes.

Especially since India had tied Australia 1-1 in Australia in 2003, while England had not. I'm not saying that India were number two...probably England still was...but it wasn't clear at all.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well, you are obviously not...but as for #2...here are India's record at home in last 7:

1-0-1 so far against England
2-0-1 SL
1-0-1 SA

So no, England was not the clear number two way before the Ashes.

Especially since India had tied Australia 1-1 in Australia in 2003, while England had not. I'm not saying that India were number two...probably England still was...but it wasn't clear at all.

And what was your away record? Genuine question.

And where did I say it was clear?

 

[viktor]

And where did I say it was clear?
We were number 2 way before the Ashes

Amnesia? or were you referring to an entirely different kind of number 2 when you made that statement?

I think everybody has pretty much agreed that India's away record is bad. Which is why, infact, we are having this debate. If India, away, recently had performed anywhere near the way Eng did in WI or SA, we would have been the Second ranked team in the world.

 

[adharcric]

England will not be the number two team unless they:

Beat Sri Lanka at home
Beat Pakistan at home
Tie Australia away

India will not be the clear number two team unless they:

Beat WI away
Tie South Africa away
Tie England away

Pakistan will not be the clear number two team unless they:

Tie SL away
Tie England away
Beat WI home

Agree about all of that, except Pakistan need to defeat SL away.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's no doubt England were the clear number 2 after the Ashes, and before it as well.

Before the England tour of South Africa, they were the main contenders for second, and South Africa were well beaten on home soil.

India need to win some test series overseas before they are a serious contender, as in fact do Pakistan. A lot of people have jumped on the Pakistan bandwagon recently, and fair enough as they have performed very well, but before the wins against England and India at home, their last excusions away were drawn series against India and the West Indies, and a whitewash at the hands of Australia. In fact, the last time Pakistan won a series on the road was their 1-0 victory over New Zealand in 2003/04.

That's a long time between drinks, and it's a bit early to call Pakistan the number two for me. Wait until we see how they go touring England, and it'll be clearer.

Right now, England are still second for me, with Pakistan, India and South Africa all challenging them.

 

[honestbharani]

I somehow cannot call England as #2, not right now and not anytime soon. It is still too close to call for me. None of the teams have really seized the initiative, which I expected India to do post 2001, Pakistan to do since Woolmer took over and England to do since the Ashes... None of the sides have actually done it.

 

[viktor]

There's no doubt England were the clear number 2 after the Ashes, and before it as well.

Before the England tour of South Africa, they were the main contenders for second, and South Africa were well beaten on home soil.

India need to win some test series overseas before they are a serious contender, as in fact do Pakistan. A lot of people have jumped on the Pakistan bandwagon recently, and fair enough as they have performed very well, but before the wins against England and India at home, their last excusions away were drawn series against India and the West Indies, and a whitewash at the hands of Australia. In fact, the last time Pakistan won a series on the road was their 1-0 victory over New Zealand in 2003/04.

That's a long time between drinks, and it's a bit early to call Pakistan the number two for me. Wait until we see how they go touring England, and it'll be clearer.

Right now, England are still second for me, with Pakistan, India and South Africa all challenging them.

On what basis do you group SA with Pak and India? IIRC, their recent test record hasn't been that good. I haven't checked though.
Again with England, they haven't done too well in the subcontinent, so I wouldn't call them the clear #2 yet.

Edit: just some rough stats. Since beginnning of 2003, away
SA: 23 7 8 0 8 0.88 682 131 747 102 40.7 38.2 3.01 3.25
won 7 lost 8
2 agnst Zim & 2 agnst BD
India: 14 7 3 0 4 2.33 705 238 679 124 50.0 37.5 3.73 3.84
2 agnst Zim & 2 agnst BD

I guess that does put SA close to Ind atleast.

 

[What-A-Player]

Well, India not only beat Australia in India before, but they went to Australia and tied the series there 1-1.

That means nothing if you can't win anywhere else.

The last team to beat Australia at home were the Windies in 1992/93

Considering that fact, only NZ and India have managed to make a draw after that..so it means "something" rather than "nothing"

 

[Jono]

Funny how after just 3 defeats, everything's changed so suddenly from us being very nealy the best, isn't it?

That's what happens when you don't win a test match after the Ashes.

And it was only idiots like Boycott that claimed England were the world champions. Everyone else said they had a great team but had to prove themselves in Asia to actually seriously challenge Australia for #1 spot.

I mean, would England beat Sri Lanka away?

 

[aussie]

England are still #2, but India & Pakistan have the ability to catch up on them if they win a few away tours. But watch out for SA they are building back a side now that without worrying about what they have to do looks the 2nd best side in the world on paper, so for me within the next year i would back SA to be the 2nd best side in the world as they were for a long time between 99-2003.

 

[IndianByHeart]

India won't ever be #2 to me until they can win something away from the subcontinent.

And England can never be number two for untill they manage to win a series in Subcontinent!

 

[IndianByHeart]

England are still #2, but India & Pakistan have the ability to catch up on them if they win a few away tours. .

If England loses the Indian series, then there is no way one can label them as number 2 team.

 

[luckyeddie]

And England can never be number two for untill they manage to win a series in Subcontinent!

You could pretty well say the same thing about India and Pakistan - the only time they ever seem to win is in the subcontinent.