England down to 6th in test rankings

[Daryl Harper]

Thoughts?

 

[zaremba]

Neither surprised nor desperately bothered.

 

[HMas]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One decent bowler, worst wicketkeeper in history and can't even find 5 Test class batsman................I think the current team are overachieving.

 

[duffer]

Quite an outstanding username. Hope he isn't a multi.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hope is not lost yet. I think that with continued perseverance and effort they could claim that 8th spot that is rightfully theirs. I think this is an exciting time for cricket with England, New Zealand and the West Indies all evenly matched and jostling for that bottom ranking..

 

[Richard]

Quite an outstanding username. Hope he isn't a multi.

All posts so far bear the

mark, but there are other anti-England-to-the-maximum-possible-extent £$%@wits out there, so it's possible that this isn't him.

Anyway, as I've said every single time the matter comes-up, I couldn't care a hoot about ICC rankings, be they player or team. The old Test Championship, the straightforward one where you earned two points for a series victory, one for a draw and nothing else, was of some interest, but nothing else is.

England being poor is something of interest and disappointment (and ditto England being good is of interest and pleasing); England being in any form of ranking position, be it 1st or 8th, is of complete irrelevance.

 

[pskov]

Probably a fair reflection. Currently in world cricket it seems we have three pretty good teams (India, South Africa and Australia) followed by 5 rather average teams. The actual order doesn't particularly matter.

Certainly there isn't currently a side as good as Australia of the early 00s or WI of the early 80s, but likewise there isn't a team around at the moment as poor as early 00s West Indies or mid-90s England.

 

[Burgey]

All posts so far bear the

mark, but there are other anti-England-to-the-maximum-possible-extent £$%@wits out there, so it's possible that this isn't him.

Anyway, as I've said every single time the matter comes-up, I couldn't care a hoot about ICC rankings, be they player or team. The old Test Championship, the straightforward one where you earned two points for a series victory, one for a draw and nothing else, was of some interest, but nothing else is.

England being poor is something of interest and disappointment (and ditto England being good is of interest and pleasing); England being in any form of ranking position, be it 1st or 8th, is of complete irrelevance.

 

[Goughy]

Thoughts?

Fair

 

[Zinzan]

All posts so far bear the

mark, but there are other anti-England-to-the-maximum-possible-extent £$%@wits out there, so it's possible that this isn't him.

Anyway, as I've said every single time the matter comes-up, I couldn't care a hoot about ICC rankings, be they player or team. The old Test Championship, the straightforward one where you earned two points for a series victory, one for a draw and nothing else, was of some interest, but nothing else is.

England being poor is something of interest and disappointment (and ditto England being good is of interest and pleasing); England being in any form of ranking position, be it 1st or 8th, is of complete irrelevance.

Whether you agree with the calculations of the system of not, I can't imagine you'd disagree too much with England being ranked towards the bottom

 

[Evermind]

Thoughts?

I'd be more worried about your umpiring than about England's troubles, Mr Harper.

 

[inbox24]

Rankings might not be perfect, but they do give a general indication of where the team stands in terms of the rest of the world.

 

[aussie]

One decent bowler, worst wicketkeeper in history and can't even find 5 Test class batsman................I think the current team are overachieving.

Haa, don't lets be unfair now..

 

[Zinzan]

Rankings might not be perfect, but they do give a general indication of where the team stands in terms of the rest of the world.

I agree, Btw, I notice there's a little bit of orange mould growing on your avatar

 

[Evermind]

I agree, Btw, I notice there's a little bit of orange mould growing on your avatar

Having given him the avatar, I will take that as a compliment.

 

[Zinzan]

Having given him the avatar, I will take that as a compliment.

This product should help clean it up ....

 

[Redbacks]

other anti-England-to-the-maximum-possible-extent £$%@wits out there, so it's possible that this isn't him.

The barmy army do their best to ensure alot of people don't mind seeing England lose a few tests.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Mildly surprised we're now behind a team who're unlikely to be hosting any home tests for the forseeable, but it's an accurate reflection of where we are just now. We haven't beaten anyone ranked above us since 2005, with the exception of a desperately injured-weakened Pakistan.

Speaking of 2005, great as it was, was it something of a false dawn? We had a very good XI, but as has since been shown with injuries, retirements & mental breakdowns, the foundations of that success were built on quicksand. When Jones broke down after the 4th test and we brought in not the man who'd been 12th manning it all summer (Tremlett IIRC), but a specialist batsman who carries with him a largely unwarranted tag of being a bit of an all-rounder, the writing was perhaps already on the wall.

 

[Richard]

Probably a fair reflection. Currently in world cricket it seems we have three pretty good teams (India, South Africa and Australia) followed by 5 rather average teams. The actual order doesn't particularly matter.

Certainly there isn't currently a side as good as Australia of the early 00s or WI of the early 80s, but likewise there isn't a team around at the moment as poor as early 00s West Indies or late-80s England.

Corrected.