Rank the test sides

[subshakerz]

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.

Can you confidently say that they don't need at least a decent spinner given how their bowling performed in this Oval test?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

If you are ranking Australia first, it's only based on their dwindling reputation.

I agree that there's not much between the top teams, but South Africa still have to be rated ahead based on their recent track record. While they tied 3-3 in the tests played in the winter, South Africa completely outperformed Australia on their recent tours to India and England. That tips the rating in South Africa's favor pretty clearly.

 

[Pigeon]

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.

Are you serious?? They just did that in the current series and came out croppers.

And btw subcontinent makes up for 4/9ths of test cricket playing nations. That's 50% of your opponents. So a spinner is indeed needed for them to stay consistently winning. One thing that SA of the past was not.

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.

Usually when people go "out of technique form" (whatever that means) for 10-15 matches at a trot, they get dropped.

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.

Hows the weather in dreamworld?

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.

Morkel? Surely a work in process. But he's WC. Parnell is heading that way.You can shut your eyes, but that doesnt make the world go dark.

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

Let's wait for it to happen.

BTW you are baiting me. You hijacked my conversation with Ikki here, and that means you are deliberately leading me on. I've noticed this in other threads also. I am not going to reply to you from now on.

 

[subshakerz]

I think people underrate SL, I don't think any side in the world will beat them at home right now.

When was the last time Sri Lanka won a decent series abroad? They are overrated as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ikki]

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.

You're right, Mishra and Harbhajan are a step above. Harris, Swann and Vettori? Seriously, you're arguing the difference here as a difference between the sides? Not much difference between them if at all.

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.

Your take on it, I disagree. I think their draw with India is impressive but with their win in Australia they had a loss against us at home too. England...puh.

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.

Whether they are better is debatable, and that's my point. In terms of "who is #1" I just don't see it in that vein. Similarly, as Aus had to beat WIndies to truly take the title, I think the same has to be achieved with other teams if they are to take that crown.

 

[subshakerz]

Over the last year or so:

SA beat West Indies and New Zealand at home, drew with India away, beat England away, beat Australia away, and lost to Australia at home.

India lost to Australia away, drew with SA at home, lost to Sri Lanka away, beat Australia and England at home, and beat New Zealand away.

Australia beat India at home, beat West Indies away, lost to India away, beat New Zealand at home, lost to SA at home, beat SA away, and lost to England away.

Given the above, you would have to hand it to SA for their impressive streak away from home. India haven't really scored any monumental victory, and their record away merely decent. Australia is also a mixed bag, their inability to win a test in India or defeat a weak English team are real dents in their image.

 

[aussie]

Are you serious?? They just did that in the current series and came out croppers.

Aus lost due to batting failures. 4 seamers only played twice, their potential as a unit is clearly immence & would trouble all opposition batting-lineups very often.

And btw subcontinent makes up for 4/9ths of test cricket playing nations. That's 50% of your opponents.

So a spinner is indeed needed for them to stay consistently winning. One thing that SA of the past was not.

Sa won in IND 2000 with Clive Eskteen (spell check as the spinner) & Nicky Boje. Winning in the sub-continent as WI, AUS, & SA ahve shown is by your fast bowlers.

Usually when people go "out of technique form" (whatever that means) for 10-15 matches at a trot, they get dropped.

Thankfully selectors dont work like that. Fact is this was the make or break series for Hussey, there was no profound reason to drop him before this series.

:Hows the weather in dreamworld?.

Well please show me a team in the world that has better depth than that ATM.

Morkel? Surely a work in process. But he's WC. Parnell is heading that way.You can shut your eyes, but that doesnt make the world go dark.

If you think Morkel has been WC based on what he has been doing since ENG 08, then its clear you haven't been watching him. He has regressed significantly. Its highly unlikey he will even start SA's next test vs ENG.

ODI & T20 form doesn't equate to test success sir. All Parnell has done is bowl well in a T20 slog fest, we dont even know if he can swing the red-ball - which for left-armer as Mitchell Johnson's recent issues prove is BIG DEAL in test matches, regardless of how talented you are.

:BTW you are baiting me. You hijacked my conversation with Ikki here, and that means you are deliberately leading me on. I've noticed this in other threads also. I am not going to reply to you from now on.

Haa, na yo. Its just that in a few threads you have made points that i disagree with & i have quoted you on it.

 

[aussie]

Can you confidently say that they don't need at least a decent spinner given how their bowling performed in this Oval test?

Thats the same bowling attack than smoked ENG in the previous test. AUS lost this test due to their 1st innings batting performance. They where always playing catch-up from then.

AUS strenght is in their pace attack. If South Africa of the 90s could survive without a WC spinner - AUS can. So i have no worries unless, they tour IND/SRI.

 

[Ikki]

Is it me or does Pigeon eerily post like Precambrian?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Is it me or does Pigeon eerily post like Precambrian?

He is Precambrian - according to Pratters in the Site Discussin Forum.

 

[oitoitoi]

Thats the same bowling attack than smoked ENG in the previous test. AUS lost this test due to their 1st innings batting performance. They where always playing catch-up from then.

AUS strenght is in their pace attack. If South Africa of the 90s could survive without a WC spinner - AUS can. So i have no worries unless, they tour IND/SRI.

Australia don't have Allan Donald though....or even Fanie de Villiers

 

[subshakerz]

AUS strenght is in their pace attack. If South Africa of the 90s could survive without a WC spinner - AUS can. So i have no worries unless, they tour IND/SRI.

The absence of a worldclass spinner meant that SA of the 90s could never win in England or beat Australia. You are right when you say you don't need a worldclass spinner to win in the subcontinent, but it would have been helpful to beat opponents not as adept at playing spin.

 

[aussie]

Australia don't have Allan Donald though....or even Fanie de Villiers

Not yet. Johnson, Sidvicous & Hilfy can only get better. Plus Lee has to come back & once his injury woes eases he can probably give AUS another 12-18 months before he likely declines.

The absence of a worldclass spinner meant that SA of the 90s could never win in England or beat Australia. You are right when you say you don't need a worldclass spinner to win in the subcontinent, but it would have been helpful to beat opponents not as adept at playing spin.

SA where very unlucky not to win in ENG though. The 94 & 98 team where definately better than the side that won in 2008. Shane Warne was the reason they never beat AUS.

But even so, AUS wont be returning to the level of 95 - 06/07 in the near future. But will continue to stand strong.

 

[brackenNY]

England
India
Australia
South Africa
Sri Lanka

No one else matters.

 

[slippyslip]

England
India
Australia
South Africa
Sri Lanka

No one else matters.

Yeah, test cricket has been reduced to 5 teams. There is a massive gulf between the 5th placed team (be it England or Sri Lanka) and the 6th placed team Pakistan. But obviously Pakistan is hampered due to political problems.

Zimbabwe's political problems destroyed Zimbabwe's team just as it was getting good (Flower brothers, Murray Goodwin, Heath Streak etc). Bangladesh is just not developing like we hoped they would.

New Zealand and West Indies dont even pretend to care about test cricket anymore.

My rankings are:

South Africa
Australia
India
England
Sri Lanka
The Rest

Until India can start beating southern hemisphere teams at home they will not be the best. The win in NZ is a start but you also have to factor in New Zealand's lack of interest in test cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

England
India
Australia
South Africa
Sri Lanka

No one else matters.

Yeah, test cricket has been reduced to 5 teams. There is a massive gulf between the 5th placed team (be it England or Sri Lanka) and the 6th placed team Pakistan. But obviously Pakistan is hampered due to political problems.

Zimbabwe's political problems destroyed Zimbabwe's team just as it was getting good (Flower brothers, Murray Goodwin, Heath Streak etc). Bangladesh is just not developing like we hoped they would.

New Zealand and West Indies dont even pretend to care about test cricket anymore.

My rankings are:

South Africa
Australia
India
England
Sri Lanka
The Rest

Until India can start beating southern hemisphere teams at home they will not be the best. The win in NZ is a start but you also have to factor in New Zealand's lack of interest in test cricket.

*Loading shotgun*

In regards to rankings, I'd have them pretty much as the ICC do.

 

[marc71178]

Aus lost due to batting failures. 4 seamers only played twice, their potential as a unit is clearly immence & would trouble all opposition batting-lineups very often.

Erm, one of the defeats came from picking the 4 seamers, or are you still going to claim that not picking a proper spinner was the right way to go?

 

[Cruxdude]

I would rank them
SA
India
Australia
Srilanka

Srilanka though have the team to move up. Lets see how they do outside the sub-continent.

 

[Brett Dale]

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

 

[Zinzan]

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

Sorry but SL are a stronger test side than Eng these days, and yes I'd back them to win in Eng too.

My Rankings would be

1) India
2) SA
3) SL
4) Aust
5) Eng
6) Pak
7) = NZ & WI