Rank the test sides

[Dissector]

I would say:

1. South Africa
2. India
3. Australia
4. Sri Lanka
5. England
6. Pakistan
7. West Indies
8. New Zealand
9. Bangladesh
10. Zimbabwe

Not much to choose between the first two but Australia has dropped quite a bit from the top teams after their Ashes defeat. I still think there is a fair gap between them and Sri Lanka. SL/ England is difficult to judge but England's 1-0 defeat in the West Indies give SL the edge. Pakistan is also difficult to judge but hard to to justify anything better than 6. The 1-0 win against England gives the Windies an edge over NZ though both teams are fairly close. After that obviously a huge gap to BD. I don't know how much of a gap there exists between BD and Zim.

 

[Dissector]

Sorry. Meant to post this in the main CC forum. Can someone please move it there?

 

[Ikki]

Nah, I'd still rate Australia first. But TBH, Australia, India and S.Africa are all very strong teams at the moment. I think Australia, though, have the players to take them that step up again but it remains to be seen.

 

[oitoitoi]

I think people underrate SL, I don't think any side in the world will beat them at home right now. I reckon Matthews is the real deal as a batsman too which gives them a very formidable middle order. Kulesekara and Thushara are doing he job but they're somewhat untested outside SL. Dilshan at the top looks a good move too, the other opening slot is a problem, but one that's reduced with Sangakarra at 3. Let's not forget Murali. I'd put them on a par with Australia right now, perhaps even a touch ahead with their variety, a lot depends on conditions. SA are definitely no.1 though. India can blow hot and cold with their bowling, and the lack of aggressive captaincy holds them back IMO. Their top 4 is simply awesome though.

 

[Dissector]

Sri Lanka aren't as good as Australia abroad. For instance it's hard to see them beat SA in SA. And though they won comfortably in the end they weren't all that convincing against Pakistan at home either.

 

[Jamee999]

Moved to CC.

 

[oitoitoi]

Sri Lanka aren't as good as Australia abroad. For instance it's hard to see them beat SA in SA. And though they won comfortably in the end they weren't all that convincing against Pakistan at home either.

Seemed pretty comfortable in Pakistan to me (apart from the terrorist attacks...). They thumped them in the ODI's with a fairly similar team too. Fair enough they won't beat the Saffers in SA, but similarly Australia didn't even look competitive in India, SL go there with a decent chance of winning. It balances out in the end. And while SA beat Australia in AUS, can't see them beating this SL side in SL, though it would be a damn good series.

 

[Dissector]

I was referring to the recent Pakistan tour to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was on the back foot for a lot of that series. I don't think they have a real chance of winning in India but if they do well(say drawing the series) that would certainly justify a promotion to the top 3. But they couldn't even manage away wins in New Zealand and the West Indies so I would say they are a clear no. 4 at the moment.

 

[Pigeon]

Nah, I'd still rate Australia first. But TBH, Australia, India and S.Africa are all very strong teams at the moment. I think Australia, though, have the players to take them that step up again but it remains to be seen.

I completely disagree. Australia does not have a spinner to save them, and have serious issues in the middle order. The stalwarts in Ponting and Hussey are ageing rapidly and the replacements are untested.

SA definitely has the claim to be no.1 followed by India and then Australia. SL needs to win a few series abroad to break into the top 3.

 

[Dissector]

What are the upcoming series that could affect the rankings?

The series between the top three teams are played out and I think the next one will be India's tour to South Africa. Is that in late 2010? Obviously a huge series.

Australia in Sri Lanka would be quite interesting. When is that going to happen?

I expect South Africa and India will win their home series against England and Sri Lanka . If that doesn't happen it will affect their rankings.

Australia should manage to beat West Indies and Pakistan comfortably but that wouldn't justify a rise to the top 2.

 

[Ikki]

I completely disagree. Australia does not have a spinner to save them, and have serious issues in the middle order. The stalwarts in Ponting and Hussey are ageing rapidly and the replacements are untested.

SA definitely has the claim to be no.1 followed by India and then Australia. SL needs to win a few series abroad to break into the top 3.

Australia doesn't need a spinner to save them. Apart from Murali, all the sides more or less have a spinner in the Hauritz caliber. There is little differentiating them on that point. Hussey may be gone soon enough but that's not a worry since we have good depth in batting. Ponting on the other hand looks awesome and looks like he can hit a purple patch again at any time.

SA just got beat by Australia in their own backyard so I don't think such a claim is so definite. Australia, SA and India are more or less of even strength. But in the next few years, I think India will have problems replacing Tendulkar and Dravid, while S.Africa will lose Kallis and even without Ponting most of the Aussie team at the moment will mature and start moving into their prime.

As I said, it all remains to be seen, but there is little difference between them. The way I see it, until a team beats Australia home and away or has a significantly better record overall than Australia should still be called the #1 side in the world, even if it is debatable.

 

[aussie]

Even between AUS/IND/SA depending on conditions. All would lose in SRI once Murali is still playing though.

 

[Pigeon]

Australia doesn't need a spinner to save them. Apart from Murali, all the sides more or less have a spinner in the Hauritz caliber. There is little differentiating them on that point. Hussey may be gone soon enough but that's not a worry since we have good depth in batting. Ponting on the other hand looks awesome and looks like he can hit a purple patch again at any time.

I think you need a bit of rest to clear your head mate.

To say all other sides have spinners of Hauritz calibre is plainly ignoring the facts. India's Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra are miles better than him, Shakib Al Hasan of Bangadesh too is ahead of him. Swann is comparable and perhaps just a tad in front of him. Harris well.. I am not so sure. Vettori is again better spinner than him.

I am not so sure about this depth in batting. Had there been replacements knocking at Hussey's door, he wouldn't have gone through three full seasons averaging under 30 for sure.

SA just got beat by Australia in their own backyard so I don't think such a claim is so definite. Australia, SA and India are more or less of even strength. But in the next few years, I think India will have problems replacing Tendulkar and Dravid, while S.Africa will lose Kallis and even without Ponting most of the Aussie team at the moment will mature and start moving into their prime.

SA's defeat is puzzling indeed. But you seem to forget that barring that series, they are having an incredible year or two in International cricket. They beat Pakistan in Pakistan, drew India and defeated Australia and England away. It's hard to forget those easily. India edges it mainly because they have an incredible batting lineup, a spinner in good form and reasonably good fast bowlers. Oh yes, the future is a different ball game altogether, who knows. But at present, Ind and SA are ahead of Aus.

As I said, it all remains to be seen, but there is little difference between them. The way I see it, until a team beats Australia home and away or has a significantly better record overall than Australia should still be called the #1 side in the world, even if it is debatable.

Again, I think you are putting too much emphasis on what Aus did in the past than what they are doing now. That's the problem in living on past reputation. Agreed, it will be extremely hard on SA to emulate what Aus did in the 90s till 2007. But at the moment, they are indeed better than Aus.

 

[aussie]

Australia doesn't need a spinner to save them. Apart from Murali, all the sides more or less have a spinner in the Hauritz caliber. There is little differentiating them on that point. Hussey may be gone soon enough but that's not a worry since we have good depth in batting. Ponting on the other hand looks awesome and looks like he can hit a purple patch again at any time.

SA just got beat by Australia in their own backyard so I don't think such a claim is so definite. Australia, SA and India are more or less of even strength. But in the next few years, I think India will have problems replacing Tendulkar and Dravid, while S.Africa will lose Kallis and even without Ponting most of the Aussie team at the moment will mature and start moving into their prime.

As I said, it all remains to be seen, but there is little difference between them. The way I see it, until a team beats Australia home and away or has a significantly better record overall than Australia should still be called the #1 side in the world, even if it is debatable.

They already have. Their batting depth is gash. Look at the situation with Dravid currently. He has been carried in the test side for 2 years, plus even brought back into the ODI team.

If he was AUS neither would have happened. If you remember what happened with Junior Waugh in 2002.

 

[marc71178]

Funny how you say that when Hussey's been a fixture in the side for so long in spite of his very modest recent returns.

 

[Pigeon]

They already have. Their batting depth is gash. Look at the situation with Dravid currently. He has been carried in the test side for 2 years, plus even brought back into the ODI team.

If he was AUS neither would have happened. If you remember what happened with Junior Waugh in 2002.

Yeah, Dravid's selection was a step in the backward direction, but personally I feel Dravid turned a corner in tests. Also it is not as if he is lacking in competition in tests. Pujara and Badrinath are close frontrunners to replace him in the future. Pujara surely looks the goods for another Dravid of the future.

Tendulkar is irreplaceble but hey that's no slight on the bench. Players like him, Warne etc happen once in 50 years.

 

[Pigeon]

Funny how you say that when Hussey's been a fixture in the side for so long in spite of his very modest recent returns.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander also.

 

[aussie]

I think you need a bit of rest to clear your head mate.

To say all other sides have spinners of Hauritz calibre is plainly ignoring the facts. India's Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra are miles better than him, Shakib Al Hasan of Bangadesh too is ahead of him. Swann is comparable and perhaps just a tad in front of him. Harris well.. I am not so sure. Vettori is again better spinner than him.

All irrelevant. Point is AUS dont need a spinner to save them. They just have to do like SA in the 90s & pick & all seamer attack. They will only get exposed when they tour to the sub-continent.

I am not so sure about this depth in batting. Had there been replacements knocking at Hussey's door, he wouldn't have gone through three full seasons averaging under 30 for sure.

You still with this nonsense. Hussey has only been out of form technique wise from SA tour to AUS. He has saved his career with this recent innings.

With Hodge, Hughes, D Hussey, Jaques, Rogers, Ferguson (although he may not be 100% ready for tests as yet). Thats better than what any team in the world has.

Again, I think you are putting too much emphasis on what Aus did in the past than what they are doing now. That's the problem in living on past reputation. Agreed, it will be extremely hard on SA to emulate what Aus did in the 90s till 2007. But at the moment, they are indeed better than Aus.

You seem to be forgetting also that SA & IND have problems also. SA successful 5-man bowling attack is revamping ATM. Steyn is the only WC bowler they have right now.

Plus IND little period of success will soon go down, especially in the batting very soon. The replacements for Tendy, Dravid & Laxman are talented but worrying look like they will take a while to adjust to test cricket - a problem AUS wont have

 

[aussie]

Funny how you say that when Hussey's been a fixture in the side for so long in spite of his very modest recent returns.

3 series of bad form alone. AUS where in their rights to persist with him, just like Hayden in 2005 unfortunately - Dravid was 2 years. Now that he basically saved his career like Hayden, i expect him to return to some level of consistency.

 

[oitoitoi]

It's been 3 big series for Hussey though, and Dravid's form was largely attributed to the captaincy that didn't sit well with him. Wouldn't worry about Tendulkar or Laxman going anywhere soon. My concern regarding India is when are we going to kick Yuvraj out of the test side and get Badri or Pujara in (or possibly Rahane). Wouldn't worry about SA's bowling, they'll be just fine, Parnell look's awesome at a very young age, Steyn is the best quick in the world by a distance, Ntini is still a force at home and there's plenty of people who'd be perfectly respectable 3rd seamers.