The Third best ODI team

[zaremba]

Well England are The Third best ODI team in the world. Does this flatter them? How on earth has it come about? And will it last?

 

[Athlai]

To be fair NZ just beat them two series in a row and the whole massive leap was due to a poor South African side (due to the loss of their best bowler). Verdicts out on KP's new team, reckon there top 4 material though, most countries can string together a solid ODI team in the top 8.

 

[Richard]

ODI rankings are never something I give an ounce of attention or credibility to. Virtually pointless (their only use is World tournament seedings), and often hugely misleading.

And to answer the "for how long?" - probably until the next series.

 

[Athlai]

ODI rankings are never something I give an ounce of attention or credibility to. Virtually pointless (their only use is World tournament seedings), and often hugely misleading.

And to answer the "for how long?" - probably until the next series.

The ranking system is flawed to be fair to rankings in general. I mean the Saffies were certainly not the number 2 side in the world when they started that series.

 

[Richard]

Truth is the cyclical nature of cricket means you can potentially say that about anyone at any time.

Shaun Pollock was almost certainly the greatest ODI player in history. You won't see the like of him again for quite some time. Losing him is bound to make a huge difference to a side. If he was capable of playing for another 3 years, SA would probably spend a fair portion of that in the top two. Sadly, no-one can go on forever and I for one fully credit Pollock for exiting on top of his game.

 

[four_or_six]

Well England are The Third best ODI team in the world. Does this flatter them? How on earth has it come about? And will it last?

Fred.

And it's so close it doesn't take much to move up and down.

 

[Athlai]

For example if you look at it another way... (excluding Bangers and other crap teams)

Australia 10 W 4 L 0 T 1 NR
W/L 2.5
England 6 W 6 L 1 T 2 NR
W/L 1.0
India 11 W 8 L 0 T 2 NR
W/L 1.37
New Zealand 6 W 2 L 1 T 1 NR
W/L 3.0
Pakistan 2 W 3 L 0 T 0 NR
W/L .66
South Africa 5 W 4 L 0 T 1 NR
W/L 1.25
Sri Lanka 6 W 11 L 0 T 2 NR
W/L .54
West Indies 2 W 10 L 0 T 1 NR
W/L .2

Now those figures (besides NZ benefiting from not playing all that many matches yet still firmly top 3 material) would give us the impression of something like.

Aus
Ind-NZ
SA
Eng
Pak
SRL
WI

Add a form guide...
Aus NR W L W W W W L L L W W W W W
Eng L L W T L W NR L L L W W W W NR
Ind NR NR W L L W L W W W W L W L W L L W W NR W L
NZ W W L T W L NR W W W
Pak L W L L W
SAF W W W W W L L L L NR
SRL NR L W L L L L W L L NR W L W W L L NR L W
WI L L L L L L W W NR L L L L L

Australia on the up, England on the up, India solid, NZ on the up, Pak solid, Saf down, Srl down, WI crashing burning.

Now in a quick spread of the teams average runs per wicket (X10 for each wicket remember this does not take into account matches of shorter length) and on their RPO (score against them we'll see another aspect in the value of their wins and what not.

Aus 307 - 249 = 58
Eng 311 - 258 = 53
Ind 305 - 258 = 47
NZ 338 - 264 = 74
Pak 483 - 292 = 191
SAF 310 - 259 = 51
SRL 266 - 232 = 34
WI 258 - 240 = 14

While Pak skew these figures massively due to only playing 5 games. This list shows how emphatic the teams victories have been. NZ (though more games should change this too having only played England) come out on top and then.

Aus, Eng, Saf, Ind Srl, WI

Margin of victory is important in considering the best teams yet without a full years cricket under our belt it still unreliable at best.

A top 5 have become clear though, Australia, England, India, New Zealand and South Africa. We'll have to wait for NZ and the Pollockless SA to play more cricket to be able to give real shape to any rankings though.

 

[GIMH]

If you ask me, us being third flatters Australia and South Africa

Flintoff is the best ODI player in the world, there I said it, if Bangladesh had him they'd be ranked 3rd

 

[Athlai]

If you ask me, us being third flatters Australia and South Africa

Flintoff is the best ODI player in the world, there I said it, if Bangladesh had him they'd be ranked 3rd

Flintoff is such a gun. As devastating with the ball as Bond and can hold a bat.

 

[Uppercut]

Truth is the cyclical nature of cricket means you can potentially say that about anyone at any time.

Shaun Pollock was almost certainly the greatest ODI player in history. You won't see the like of him again for quite some time. Losing him is bound to make a huge difference to a side. If he was capable of playing for another 3 years, SA would probably spend a fair portion of that in the top two. Sadly, no-one can go on forever and I for one fully credit Pollock for exiting on top of his game.

Wow, that's a really brash and controversial statement. But one i completely agree with. What a player.

 

[Richard]

You could not hope to find a better bowler. A few as good, but none better. And find one as good a bowler and with the capability to bat as high as seven?

If we never see his like again I'll not be flabbergasted.

 

[itduzz]

This is 3rd best ODI team

Butt
Jamshed
Younis
Malik
Yousuf
Misbah
Afridi
Akmal
Tanvir
Akhtar
Gul

 

[pup11]

I think England being ranked no.3 in world cricket is more of a joke than anything else, they have hardly won done anything substantial in Odi cricket since winning the CB series and there too they were piss-poor through the league stage but they somehow managed to outplay Australia in the finals.

Anyways just trashing South Africa 4-0 gets them into top 3 bracket, now that's how these Odi rankings works , but having said that we all know if KP and Freddie click and rest of the guys chip in with decent efforts England are capable of doing well against the best Odi sides too, but England rely way too much on KP and Fred to win them games, which is the reason why they haven't been consistent in Odi cricket over the period of time.

They have a very tough Odi series lined up against India in India, and it would be interesting to see how well they do in India, if England can do well against the Indians in India then we can say they are a team on their way up.

 

[gwo]

You could not hope to find a better bowler. A few as good, but none better. And find one as good a bowler and with the capability to bat as high as seven?

If we never see his like again I'll not be flabbergasted.

The flipside is a player like Tendulkar.

You could not hope to find a better batsman. A few as good, but none better. And fine one as good a batsman and with the capability to bowl as well as he?

 

[bryce]

The flipside is a player like Tendulkar.

You could not hope to find a better batsman. A few as good, but none better.

Have you heard of Bradman?
If there are a few batsmen as good as Tendulkar, but none better, how come say Tendulkar is better?

 

[bryce]

Medis FTW

 

[gwo]

Have you heard of Bradman?
If there are a few batsmen as good as Tendulkar, but none better, how come say Tendulkar is better?

Read THE context.

ODI.

 

[bryce]

Well your exact quote was "you could not hope to find a better batsman". In all likeliness Bradman would have been better than Tendulkar at batting in ODI's, but I don't want to delve into that arguement. I think Michael Bevan is the best ODI batsman ever anyway...

 

[Uppercut]

The flipside is a player like Tendulkar.

You could not hope to find a better batsman. A few as good, but none better. And fine one as good a batsman and with the capability to bowl as well as he?

Well Pollock's batting in ODIs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tendulkar's bowling.

 

[Richard]

The flipside is a player like Tendulkar.

You could not hope to find a better batsman. A few as good, but none better. And fine one as good a batsman and with the capability to bowl as well as he?

Pollock's batting easily > Tendulkar's bowling, as pointed-out in the above post.