When will India become Number Uno?

[S.P. Fleming]

I really dont think Australia are the side they were two years ago. Their bowling is looking in desperate need for some new blood. The Warne and McGrath factor is really coming to a reality. The middle order is nothing like it was with Watson and Haddin there instead of Gilly and Symonds. Other members of the top order will be retiring in the next few years, most notably Hayden but also perhaps Ponting and Hussey.

I think its a little early to say that India have already got that crown from Australia. But its fair to say the signs are there.

 

[Richard]

Haddin so far has actually performed better than Gilchrist did for most of his last 4 years.

The big difference is that Gilchrist (circa 2003/04-2007/08) simply seemed a more ominous presence due to his deeds in his first 4 years than Haddin will almost certainly ever do. Even when no longer capable of playing good innings' very often, everyone knew that the possibility of him doing it was still very much there.

And Symonds as I've said a million times has only looked good because Umpiring decisions have gone his way. Had Watson had the benefit of the Umpiring rub-of-the-green Symonds has in his most recent stint, I don't doubt he too would have an astronomical average.

And I don't really think their bowling is in desperate need of new blood as the new blood we've had in recent times (Johnson, Tait, White, Siddle - albeit most of them have had extremely brief careers so far) hasn't proven all that effective.

 

[Richard]

Think Sri Lanka away might be worse very soon with Murali and Mendis around and the Indian batting lineup aging, though.

I don't reckon Murali or Vaas are going to go on much if any longer than Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar and Kumble though.

 

[Precambrian]

Vaas already announced his retirement a year in advance right? As for Murali, now that Mendis has taken a big load of him, will only prolong his career by a year or two. At this rate, I won't be surprised if he goes till he's 40, unless injuries cut that short.

If India plays cricket like they have done in Mohali, where every weakness of the Australian side was snatched upon, they'll be surely No.1 in no time.

 

[aussie]

Haddin so far has actually performed better than Gilchrist did for most of his last 4 years.

The big difference is that Gilchrist (circa 2003/04-2007/08) simply seemed a more ominous presence due to his deeds in his first 4 years than Haddin will almost certainly ever do. Even when no longer capable of playing good innings' very often, everyone knew that the possibility of him doing it was still very much there.

And Symonds as I've said a million times has only looked good because Umpiring decisions have gone his way. Had Watson had the benefit of the Umpiring rub-of-the-green Symonds has in his most recent stint, I don't doubt he too would have an astronomical average.

And I don't really think their bowling is in desperate need of new blood as the new blood we've had in recent times (Johnson, Tait, White, Siddle - albeit most of them have had extremely brief careers so far) hasn't proven all that effective.

Now you know that is is total BS, just give up your FC average theory yo...

 

[Fezza_8600]

Why is that a shame?

Because when will any other sport stand a chance at development when you have cricket that's pretty much supported all the way? If you saw India's performance at the Olympics, you would understand. With a population of over 1 billion people, the Indian olympic team only came up with around 30-40 players.

Not saying cricket Shouldn't be shown the attention, just saying other sports in India need to be equally supported and have the proper facility to develop young talent and interest too.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because when will any other sport stand a chance at development when you have cricket that's pretty much supported all the way?

It's good for cricket. This is a cricket forum.

 

[Richard]

Now you know that is is total BS, just give up your FC average theory yo...

No I don't and won't respectively; I know all opposition to it is total BS.

 

[Prince EWS]

No I don't and won't respectively; I know all opposition to it is total BS.

I don't think you really believe that.

I myself am as firm a believer in it as a general theory you'll find without looking into a mirror, but still I have some serious opposition to its practicality.

As far as I know, you've only calculated the FCA of one or two cricketers. The main problem with this is the fact that we don't actually know what a good FCA is and what a poor one is - every batsman will have their scorebook average reduced by a certain amount, but by exactly how much is the question and I really have no comprehension of whether a FCA of 35 for example is average, good or poor. Unless you did it for everyone or at least a wide variety of different players to establish a rough guide to what they mean, they have 0 practical application. I might as well just tell you that I've devised an elaborate formula which gives every batsman in cricketing history an overall score and that Alec Bannerman scored 84891. It means nothing as there is no comparison point at all.

It'd be exceedingly hard (or at best, time consuming) to backtrack information and read through old match reports for hundreds of cricketers so I don't expect it to happen any time soon, rendering it pretty much useless in CW debates. I'd actually be interested in tracking it from an arbitrary point in time though - actually starting from Jan 1 2009 for example and keeping track of everyone's FCA from then on. As it is now, it often just looks like something you use to justify your personal preferences and whilst I know it isn't what you had in mind, I can definitely see why people would assume such.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you really believe that.

No, I don't, I was just making one silly sweeping statement to reply to another silly sweeping statement.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, I don't, I was just making one silly sweeping statement to reply to another silly sweeping statement.

Can't say I'm not disappointed not to find a much more interesting reply trying to argue everything I said, TBH.

 

[Richard]

There's a fair bit I could've said in reply to the stuff you posted TBH, but in agreeance and disagreeance. However, there are times I do and times I don't feel like discussing the merits of first-chance.

When I'm laid pretty low by a considerable cold is one of the latter.

 

[tooextracool]

Not making any claims about who is either better right now or potentially better, but Kyle Mills and even Chris Martin have both produced some exceptional spells in their (in Mills' case short) careers. And Jacob Oram, while his wicket-taking potential on non-seaming pitches is negligable, is almost certainly the most accurate bowler in The World currently and will mainly for this reason present as potent a threat as most people on a seaming deck.

Sorry, but if any of them ever manage to match the sensational performance that Zaheer put in in England in 2007, I will be shocked. If any of them manage to bowl the kind of spells that Zaheer and Ishant have produced so far in this series, I will be very much surprised as well.

 

[tooextracool]

I thought their attack was the best in the world a couple of months back. In Sri Lanka it undeniably is. In conditions conducive to fast bowling or swing, though, South Africa, Australia and England could all make claims to have the best. In truth, it's very difficult to tell at the minute.

Sl's pace attack is hardly anything above the ordinary. The best fast bowler has the lowest average, which is still in excess of 30, bowls at 75 mph and is nearing retirement. How the spin duo does abroad remains to be seen, and their batting is distinctly thin outside of Jayawardhene and Sangakkara. In reality, putting them down as the best team in the world or the best bowling attack in the world revolves exclusively around Mendis and such a side that revolves around one bowler is not going to be able to keep up its standards in the long run.

 

[Athlai]

Sorry, but if any of them ever manage to match the sensational performance that Zaheer put in in England in 2007, I will be shocked. If any of them manage to bowl the kind of spells that Zaheer and Ishant have produced so far in this series, I will be very much surprised as well.

Mills is likely going to shock you then.

 

[tooextracool]

If Mills starts to bowl at over 85mph per hour and gets the ball to swing both ways then I will consider watching him bowl. Considering hes already almost 30 years of age and very injury prone, I doubt that will happen. Zaheer Khan in England in 2007 had the ball swinging around corners, which is handy enough when you can swing it one way, but when you can swing it prodiguously both ways and do it from both over and around the wicket, it is nothing short of breathtaking.

 

[Uppercut]

Sl's pace attack is hardly anything above the ordinary. The best fast bowler has the lowest average, which is still in excess of 30, bowls at 75 mph and is nearing retirement. How the spin duo does abroad remains to be seen, and their batting is distinctly thin outside of Jayawardhene and Sangakkara. In reality, putting them down as the best team in the world or the best bowling attack in the world revolves exclusively around Mendis and such a side that revolves around one bowler is not going to be able to keep up its standards in the long run.

???

Forgetting someone?

Anyway, as i stated above, it's only the best on flat or turning pitches. On seamer's pitches or when the ball is swinging, Australia, SA and England all have a case.

 

[tooextracool]

???

Forgetting someone?

Anyway, as i stated above, it's only the best on flat or turning pitches. On seamer's pitches or when the ball is swinging, Australia, SA and England all have a case.

Im assuming that someone 36.5 years of age does not have a case to still remain the fulcrum of a side. The long term success of the side depends on players who actually have a future in the side, and both Murali and Vaas are only there for the short term, hence why the sucess of the side is correlated with Mendis.

 

[Uppercut]

Im assuming that someone 36.5 years of age does not have a case to still remain the fulcrum of a side. The long term success of the side depends on players who actually have a future in the side, and both Murali and Vaas are only there for the short term, hence why the sucess of the side is correlated with Mendis.

Yeah, referring exclusively to this moment in time though. On a turning or flat pitch tomorrow, SL attack>any other country's.

EDIT: Just noticed- you know you watch too much cricket when you refer to someone being "36.5" years of age

 

[tooextracool]

yeah at the moment they have the most lethal spin duo in the world, though im not that sold on their pace attack.

And well I guess i just lookup players cricinfo profiles too much