How would you rank the teams? 07 version

[Dasa]

That's more or less what I meant.

Mumbai has about as much in common with Mohali as it does with Galle.

...but you said:

there are still far more difference in cricket-playing conditions than there are in India and Sri Lanka.

While I said the variation between conditions in South Africa/Australia is the same as those between India/Sri Lanka, thus it's incorrect to assume that "India and Sri Lanka, however, for the most part aren't that different in terms of the things that count (ie heat, dustiness and pitch\outfield conditions)" just as it would be incorrect to say:
"Australia and South Africa, however, for the most part aren't that different in terms of the things that count."

 

[Richard]

What's radically different about typical-Sri Lankan-ground and stereotypical-Indian-ground?

Because for sure - you could never get the slightest impression that anywhere at all in virtually any country other than India and Sri Lanka was the same place.

Some parts of India surely have more in common with Sri Lanka than anywhere else in cricket has in common with somewhere else?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well, for one difference there's a fair bit more swing assistance for pace bowlers in SL...

 

[Richard]

At Galle?

You 'avin a laff?

At Colombo, maybe, and perhaps at Kandy, but not everywhere.

 

[vic_orthdox]

At Galle?

You 'avin a laff?

At Colombo, maybe, and perhaps at Kandy, but not everywhere.

Well, cricket at Galle is a moot point for a fair while...

 

[Richard]

Yeah.

Has there been any further developments in the plans to reconstruct the ground of late, does anyone know?

 

[viktor]

I quite clearly said Pakistan and India\Sri Lanka are not really comparable.

India and Sri Lanka, however, for the most part aren't that different in terms of the things that count (ie heat, dustiness and pitch\outfield conditions).

1, those things are simply stereotypes, in the vast majority of cases they're not really true.
2, even if they were, there are still far more difference in cricket-playing conditions than there are in India and Sri Lanka.

multi-quote, cool.

 

[Richard]

I didn't mean in India and Sri Lanka's case, I meant the "Australian \ SAfrican pitches are bouncy".

It's a sterotype, but these days most Aussie and Saffie pitches (of late even The WACA and Kingsmead) are not significantly more bouncy than those in England.

 

[shortpitched713]

Its been shown that your former statement is also just a stereotype as Indian and Sri Lankan pitches are diverse amongst themselves, let alone between countries.

 

[Richard]

OK... let me try to rephrase this...

There are a pretty good deal of spin-friendly pitches in India, yes? There are also a lot of grounds, so some do not fit this. The stereotype tends to remain, though, yes.

There are not that many grounds in Sri Lanka, but near enough all tend to offer more help to spinners than either batsmen or seamers, yes? Sri Lanka can justifiably be called more like India than anywhere else, no?

 

[viktor]

More like India, yes. India, no.
If you were to stretch your arguement some more, may be we could consider SA's win against India in the 3rd test equivalent to an away win since the pitch was more like an Indian pitch. There you have it: 9 wins apiece!
Anyway, I don't contest your opinion that SA is a better Test team than India. I just think an away win is an away win, period. Trying to break it down based on pitch conditions etc is always arbitrary and prone to error/bias.

 

[Richard]

I've always tended to judge India on in\out of the subcontinent, not in\out of India (and yes, I do realise that it took 29 tries to win a Test in Pakistan, and for the most part Pakistan and India aren't really comparable in cricketing terms).

 

[viktor]

I've always tended to judge India on in\out of the subcontinent, not in\out of India (and yes, I do realise that it took 29 tries to win a Test in Pakistan, and for the most part Pakistan and India aren't really comparable in cricketing terms).

Whatever floats your boat I guess... but, out of curiosity, say that period when India hadn't won in Pakistan, wouldn't judging India on the entire subcontinent produce an artificial, higher, rating? How do you reconcile to that?

 

[Richard]

Lower, no?

As I say - I find it hard to group India and Pakistan for the most part, but the fact remains that India went 15 years without winning a Test outside the subcontinent. And 20 years without winning a series (discounting the substandard Zimbabweans in 2005\06).

BTW, why on Earth don't you post more often? You've been a member here for ages, make great sense when you do post... and yet hardly ever do.

 

[viktor]

Lower, no?

As I say - I find it hard to group India and Pakistan for the most part, but the fact remains that India went 15 years without winning a Test outside the subcontinent. And 20 years without winning a series (discounting the substandard Zimbabweans in 2005\06).

BTW, why on Earth don't you post more often? You've been a member here for ages, make great sense when you do post... and yet hardly ever do.

I see what you mean. losing to Pakistan becomes a loss at home as opposed to an away loss..right, lower.

As to my posting, I haven't been able to catch much cricket in the last 4-5 years so can't really talk too much. Also its much more fun to watch you guys tear each other apart :-P ..I reckon in 25 yrs its going to be me and James or his descendents.. a bloodless coup and its all mine....*evil laughter*

 

[Jono]

Well considering in recent times that NZ have beaten Pakistan, South Africa AND India..I find it difficult to see them being way down ranked #7 or #8.
Not to mention a 4-1 result against the West Indies.

The problem is that sometimes we capitulate quite badly to Australia and that makes things seem worse than they really are.

What it comes down to is its almost impossible to definitively separate teams 2 to 7. You can claim that SA are 2 more-so then any other team, but other than that its all unpredictable.

I mean what it comes down to is NZ is still not a surety of making it into the finals in a ODI tournament that has England in it, and they lost a match to England, an early one as well.

Hate to say I told you so Tim, but...

NZ have now lost to an incredibly under-manned (No KP, and all the "so-so" ODI bowlers such as Anderson, Simon Jones, Lewis) England ODI team, which even when full strength is fairly ordinary, twice in one series and couldn't make the final of a tri-series tournament. Its hard to separate any of the teams, and sometimes that includes England.

 

[Richard]

Well given that NZ had James Franklin you could fairly say they were undermanned, too...