• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Test Ratings

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
schak: All teams go through troubles with players missing etc. In the one-off Test in India a few years ago, we were missing Shane Warne, Tim May and others and India duly thrashed the pants off us. All of the excuses you use could just as easily be used by the Aussies to explain their losses too:

Loss to SL: Bookmaker's scandal.
Loss to India in 1996: No Mcgrath, Shane Warne just coming back from major finger surgery.
Loss to India last year: Couldn't find decent openers to partner Hayden and Aussie players struggle with off-spin

etc. etc. etc. see how ridiculous the excuses get?

The point is, all teams have personell problems at any stage in a decade and Australia has had just as many as others. So using that as an excuse for a team's poor performance is just ridiculous. And for some reason, people think that all of these problems that befall teams ONLY happen whilst playing Australia because team problems MUST have been an explanation for a loss. It surely couldn't have been that Australia just outplayed them, could it?

As for Australia vs SA, the just completed series against SA at home was the only series where SA were missing any of their best players against Australia. Every other series they've played, they've had they're best team available and I'll dig out the teams if you want proof. Yet they've still lost to Australia, with exception to the first two Test series against each other, when both series were drawn. That tells me they have some sort of problem with playing Australia AND it says something about the quality of Australia's play.

You don't end up at somewhere near the top of the tree over a ten year period (see my post above) and the VERY undisputed top over the last 5 years without being a very good team. Luck will only take you so far. Why do you think the WI were so good for at least 15 years? Because they worked harder at their game than anybody. They sure made it look easy but in the end it was a combination of talent with HARD WORK.

And this is why it's useless to analyse a team's performance on a series-by-series basis. That's why I posted results over the last ten years because it takes into account that ALL teams have their peaks and troughs at any given time and so statistically, you have to be fair and take a step back. And after doing that, Australia comes out on top with SA a close second overall (when you take into account home series results as well).

And as for whether Australia will beat SA or vice versa, well we'll just have to see, won't we? ;) The tide can't have turned yet because the series hasn't started! :D

P.S. It was the great Neil Harvey himself who went on TV to critise the Australian Test team for lacking depth!!!
Yeah, and Neil Harvey is so out of touch with the modern game, he just can't fathom that players today could possibly be any better than the players he played with. He'll wax lyrical about the guys he played with (regardless of statistics) and then deride someone like Steve Waugh for being 'too conservative' and that shows he's an ignoramous of the highest order. This is the same guy who said Adam Gilchrist was 'just a slogger' and Glenn Mcgrath is 'not a very good bowler. Just straight up and down'.

So I wouldn't put too much creedence into what old Harves has to say.

[Edited on 3/21/02 by Top_Cat]
 

schak82

Cricket Spectator
schak: All teams go through troubles with players missing etc. In the one-off Test in India a few years ago, we were missing Shane Warne, Tim May and others and India duly thrashed the pants off us. All of the excuses you use could just as easily be used by the Aussies to explain their losses too:

Loss to SL: Bookmaker's scandal.
Loss to India in 1996: No Mcgrath, Shane Warne just coming back from major finger surgery.
Loss to India last year: Couldn't find decent openers to partner Hayden and Aussie players struggle with off-spin

That's the exact point I'm making. What I will note to that is that you have not noted any injuries which encompassed the 16 test match series which took Australia to the top of the world rankings!
Everytime a team suffers from injuries they are weakened and such are not able to play at their best. Australia is lucky, it has players who are completely dedicated to the game and thus even if they
lose players they have the replacements already calling out for a chance. When they get thrashed it is a case of bad selection by the ACB (especially the loss to India last year).

One more thing I will note is that in last year's loss to India, their problem was not Harbhajan Singh alone. Remember they did win the first test. What was the key as well was that for once batsmen
woke up to the fact that Shane Warne is not GOD and that it is very easy to defeat his simple techniques. The techniques of a legspinner which many people use but do not uphold.

Schak
 

Albion

Cricket Spectator
Interesting to drag this thread up....... originally posted on Jan 9 2002

How do you think the table has changed?
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
QUALITY THREAD DIGGING

Fantastic post, I hope that you and me can become great shovel friends.
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
1. Australia - Legendary if ageing team, with several all time greats. New replacements such as Clarke and Katich are not as good as those they replaced, and the team will decline after the impending retirement of McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Martyn, Langer, Gilchrist etc.
2. England - Great batting depth, very tough team to beat, but with a largely mediocre and highly overrated bowling lineup (although it is still better than that of nearly all other teams in the world today)
2. India - Phenomenal batting lineup, more than a match for any other, but with one dimensional bowlers that cannot travel. Almost unbeatable at home.
4. Sri Lanka - Batsmen score all their runs at home, two top class bowlers and the rest no where.
5. South Africa - A few star players but not the team they were a few years back.
5. Pakistan - Rarely pick their best eleven, loads of great players that are not utilised, could be the best in the world if the administrators somehow managed to solve the internal bickering and approached the game in a more professional manner.
7. New Zealand - Plain average.
8. West Indies - Highly talented but inconsistent batting lineup, bowling is a shambles.
9. Bangladesh - A few promising individuals but no depth or mental resolve.
10. Zimbabwe - Should be banned.
 

EnglishRose

School Boy/Girl Captain
a massive zebra said:
1. Australia - Legendary if ageing team, with several all time greats. New replacements such as Clarke and Katich are not as good as those they replaced, and the team will decline after the impending retirement of McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Martyn, Langer, Gilchrist etc.
2. England - Great batting depth, very tough team to beat, but with a largely mediocre and highly overrated bowling lineup (although it is still better than that of nearly all other teams in the world today)
2. India - Phenomenal batting lineup, more than a match for any other, but with one dimensional bowlers that cannot travel. Almost unbeatable at home.
4. Sri Lanka - Batsmen score all their runs at home, two top class bowlers and the rest no where.
5. South Africa - A few star players but not the team they were a few years back.
5. Pakistan - Rarely pick their best eleven, loads of great players that are not utilised, could be the best in the world if the administrators somehow managed to solve the internal bickering and approached the game in a more professional manner.
7. New Zealand - Plain average.
8. West Indies - Highly talented but inconsistent batting lineup, bowling is a shambles.
9. Bangladesh - A few promising individuals but no depth or mental resolve.
10. Zimbabwe - Should be banned.


After England get thrashed in the Ashes, they will continue sliding down the ladder I am sure :-) English cricket has no real upcoming talent -- they're all playing football (where England is rubbish anyway). I mean Jon Lewis and Chris Tremlett are the considered the next bowling hopes of England :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
a massive zebra said:
1. Australia - Legendary if ageing team, with several all time greats. New replacements such as Clarke and Katich are not as good as those they replaced, and the team will decline after the impending retirement of McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Martyn, Langer, Gilchrist etc.
2. England - Great batting depth, very tough team to beat, but with a largely mediocre and highly overrated bowling lineup (although it is still better than that of nearly all other teams in the world today)
2. India - Phenomenal batting lineup, more than a match for any other, but with one dimensional bowlers that cannot travel. Almost unbeatable at home.
4. Sri Lanka - Batsmen score all their runs at home, two top class bowlers and the rest no where.
5. South Africa - A few star players but not the team they were a few years back.
5. Pakistan - Rarely pick their best eleven, loads of great players that are not utilised, could be the best in the world if the administrators somehow managed to solve the internal bickering and approached the game in a more professional manner.
7. New Zealand - Plain average.
8. West Indies - Highly talented but inconsistent batting lineup, bowling is a shambles.
9. Bangladesh - A few promising individuals but no depth or mental resolve.
10. Zimbabwe - Should be banned.
I'd agree, except I'd have South Africa ahead of Sri Lanka. They have looked very solid since the series against England, while Sri Lanka just went down to New Zealand. A team has to be able to win away from home to be rated inside the top half, I think.
 

C_C

International Captain
My top 10 :

1. Australia - nuff said.

2. England/India. England boasts a superior overall record but India has done better against the runaway numero uno team- has shown that it can win against the best of the best while England is unproven in that category. This Ashes will deciede for me if England edges clear or India edges clear. If ENG manages to win the series, there would be no doubt but even if England manages a close-fought series, losing it 3-2 or 2-1, they would draw clear of IND. If ENG gets pulverised 3-0 or 4-1 kinda deal, India would move ahead.


4. Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka are dominant at home, having lost only to the world champions in the past few years. They are pretty dysmal away from home.

5.South Africa: They are good at home but definately beatable. They do slightly better than Sri Lanka away from home - they've only beaten minnows away from home for the past few years. Its close but Sri Lanka wins overall due to their significantly superior domination at home while giving considerably less ground at overseas stakes.

6. Pakistan : I cant rate them and they are every bookie's nightmare - predicting Pakistan is akin to predicting the weather 3 months ahead - it simply is a coin toss.
When they field a full strength side, they can compete with the very best. But they can also lose against alsoran teams. When they field half-arsed sides, they don't do too well against the ones they should and do well against the ones they shouldnt.
True wildcard if there ever was any. if they can sort out their opening problem, they can become an excellent team.

7. New Zealand : Without Bond they are ordinary. With Bond, they can climb into the top 3-4. Here's to the speedy recovery of 007.

8. West Indies : might as well call them Larapaul Indies.......because thats all that there's to it really. I shudder to think what will happen to them when lara hangs up his boots. But ofcourse, given the lack of quality batsmen comming outta WI in the recent years (the last WI batsman who could average 40+ consistently debuted in 1994), i dont think its unimaginable to see a gaunt 70 year old Lara taking the field in 2042 world cup.

9. Bangladesh- they are slightly better than the Zimbos but not by much.

10. Zimbos. A sad story that is bitterly disappointing for many true cricket fans. They had the ability to compete with the best of em in the late 90s but with the politics, they are now a little better than Vancouver XI.
 

simmy

International Regular
EnglishRose said:
After England get thrashed in the Ashes, they will continue sliding down the ladder I am sure :-) English cricket has no real upcoming talent -- they're all playing football (where England is rubbish anyway). I mean Jon Lewis and Chris Tremlett are the considered the next bowling hopes of England :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
You have "Watson" as back up. Nuff said. As for back-up Australia U19s lost to Bangladesh U19s.. convincingly. Nuff said. :cool:
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You have "Watson" as back up. Nuff said.
Watson is a batting all-rounder, NOT a bowler like those two.

As for back-up Australia U19s lost to Bangladesh U19s.. convincingly. Nuff said.
I think this says more for the quality of Bangladesh's U/19's side than the Aussie one.
 

Swervy

International Captain
C_C said:
My top 10 :

1. Australia - nuff said.

2. England/India. England boasts a superior overall record but India has done better against the runaway numero uno team- has shown that it can win against the best of the best while England is unproven in that category. This Ashes will deciede for me if England edges clear or India edges clear. If ENG manages to win the series, there would be no doubt but even if England manages a close-fought series, losing it 3-2 or 2-1, they would draw clear of IND. If ENG gets pulverised 3-0 or 4-1 kinda deal, India would move ahead.
but surely you have to perform against everyone..and I dont think India have performed consistantly vs other teams.

India match up well with Australia, the style of play matches well against Australias weaknesses...but to be honest England have done far more in the last 2 years to suggest that they are the second best test team in the world.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
simmy said:
You have "Watson" as back up. Nuff said. As for back-up Australia U19s lost to Bangladesh U19s.. convincingly. Nuff said. :cool:
Since when is Watson a bowler and since when is he our only back-up, in a country with Tait, Lee and so on sitting on the fringes of the test side?

Anyway, Tremlett looks like a very good bowler to me, so I'm not sure what EnglishRose has against him. Lewis is nothing special and shouldn't be in the running for a test spot.
 

C_C

International Captain
KP,Do not project your biases and insecurities onto me.
I apply my philosophies uniformly.
Just as i consider it imperative for a player to perform well against the best to be considered a great,i put a bigger weightage in results against the top teams.

Swervy- England is better than IND when it comes to other teams - though marginally.
Much of last year's successes have been built on the back of weak teams
England-India debate would be resolved very soon. If this ashes doesnt, England's tour of IND in early 2006 will.
 

Swervy

International Captain
C_C said:
KP,Do not project your biases and insecurities onto me.
I apply my philosophies uniformly.
Just as i consider it imperative for a player to perform well against the best to be considered a great,i put a bigger weightage in results against the top teams.

Swervy- England is better than IND when it comes to other teams - though marginally.
Much of last year's successes have been built on the back of weak teams
England-India debate would be resolved very soon. If this ashes doesnt, England's tour of IND in early 2006 will.
well considering Indias strength at home, I dont think it will outright determine much. India have to prove they can win away from home..India will never be regarded as a great team is they continue to flop away from home.

England have proven themselves away now, with the win in South Africa
 

Top