Rank the test sides

[silentstriker]

I rate Mishra higher than Bhajji, but there is no way that he is the same as Hauritz. And I think Mishra is a little overrated here too, especially as he hasn't played outside India (let alone in a place like Australia, or South Africa). Let's see what happens, I've been more impressed with Harbhajan in the last year or so, as he has stopped being so uber reliant on his doosra, and is starting to go back to his pre-2003 ways of actually thinking about his wickets.

Frankly, Harbhajan against Australia in 2001 was the best series from a spinner I have ever seen. Period. Including Murali and Warne. Every ball, almost without fail, landed perfectly and seemed to do exactly what Harbhajan wanted it to do. That series alone puts him above a lot of people.

Still, I stand by my 1) SA, 2) Australia, 3) India. I think Australia would still win in Australia and India would win in India. But I'd back India to win less than Australia overseas, and Australia and India to both defend their home equally well against most sides.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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

I just put England at Number 1 to see what it would look like.

 

[Zinzan]

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


I just put England at Number 1 to see what it would look like.

Haha, you really don't rate New Zealand

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haha, you really don't rate New Zealand

Oops sorry, amended.

 

[aussie]

The thing is, you seriously have no idea.

How would you know, when i have never had any substantial debate with you with regards to anything relating to Indian cricket?. Fact is the point i made about Dravid is fact, if he was AUS he would have been dropped from the test side.

 

[aussie]

I rate Mishra higher than Bhajji, but there is no way that he is the same as Hauritz. And I think Mishra is a little overrated here too, especially as he hasn't played outside India (let alone in a place like Australia, or South Africa). Let's see what happens, I've been more impressed with Harbhajan in the last year or so, as he has stopped being so uber reliant on his doosra, and is starting to go back to his pre-2003 ways of actually thinking about his wickets.

Frankly, Harbhajan against Australia in 2001 was the best series from a spinner I have ever seen. Period. Including Murali and Warne. Every ball, almost without fail, landed perfectly and seemed to do exactly what Harbhajan wanted it to do. That series alone puts him above a lot of people.

Still, I stand by my 1) SA, 2) Australia, 3) India. I think Australia would still win in Australia and India would win in India. But I'd back India to win less than Australia overseas, and Australia and India to both defend their home equally well against most sides.

I can see why. I haven't seen too many series from Murali to judge 100%. But i'd put Warne's Ashes 05 performance & Saqlain vs IND 99, on par with Bhaji 01 personally.

 

[Migara]

Para looks pretty decent and unlike a lot of their batsman, has scored heavily in South Africa with the A side. Think a big issue for Sri Lanka is that their quartet is comfortably over 30 and not much is coming through quickly. Kapugedera has been around the national side for coming on five years, still hasn't secured himself a place and they keep going back to the likes of Mubarak and Vandort.

MJ and Sanga are around 32. So has 4-5 more seasons to play. Samarweera is 34, so probably 3 more seasons. Samaraweera's place will be taken up by Mathews, who is averaging 40 in tests and 45+ on dodgy SL wickets in FC. Kandamby and Kapugedara will be the others to replace big names. Dilshan also might last for about 5 seasons given his supreme fitness. Kaushal Silva might come in to the side in the expense of PJ after Murali retires. But ATM SL middle order is settled,a nd there won't be many changes in the side for next 3 years unless some one loses form.

 

[silentstriker]

I can see why. I haven't seen too many series from Murali to judge 100%. But i'd put Warne's Ashes 05 performance & Saqlain vs IND 99, on par with Bhaji 01 personally.

I did not watch Saqlain's 99 performance vs. India, so I cannot comment. I did watch the entire Ashes '05, and I wouldn't put Warne's performance on the same level. It seemed more heroic because he seemed like the lone warrior, especially when McGrath was absent.

And obviously, I am in no way comparing the two as bowlers. Just in terms of how they bowled for that one tournament.

 

[morgieb]

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

 

[marc71178]

How would you know, when i have never had any substantial debate with you with regards to anything relating to Indian cricket?. Fact is the point i made about Dravid is fact, if he was AUS he would have been dropped from the test side.

Like Hussey has been, and Hayden a couple of years ago?

You really need to stop passing off opinions as facts, almost becoming as bad as Richard in that regard.

 

[honestbharani]

yep.. and the real fact is Dravid has been in great form recently... You ignore form like that (AND the bad form of blokes like Rohit Sharma) at your own peril..


And reg. bench strength, guys like Rohit and Raina are NOT (at least for now) being looked upon as serious contenders for test berths.. This selection panel seems to have made it clear that blokes like Vijay and Badrinath are ahead in contention for test berths than these guys... And there are the technically more proficient ( at least based on what I have seen) guys like Rahane and Pujara and even Kaif...

 

[subshakerz]

I did not watch Saqlain's 99 performance vs. India, so I cannot comment. I did watch the entire Ashes '05, and I wouldn't put Warne's performance on the same level. It seemed more heroic because he seemed like the lone warrior, especially when McGrath was absent.

And obviously, I am in no way comparing the two as bowlers. Just in terms of how they bowled for that one tournament.

Saqlain's 99 performance was exceptional, on par or perhaps better than Bhajji's. Saqlain was at the peak of his powers and consistently troubled the best players on spin in their own territory. The only spinner to really do so in India in the last 40 years.

Warne's performance was great, but it should be remembered that he wasn't facing the best players of spin (barring Pietersen, who did quite well against him in that series). Also, with McGrath gone, he was the only strike bowler Australia had, but he couldn't win a match on his own the way McGrath did at Lord's. Ultimately, for bowlers, its about the matches you win.

 

[subshakerz]

Still, I stand by my 1) SA, 2) Australia, 3) India. I think Australia would still win in Australia and India would win in India. But I'd back India to win less than Australia overseas, and Australia and India to both defend their home equally well against most sides.

Yes, this is my reasoning. Sri Lanka, SA, Australia, and India are all roughly the same level when it comes to defending their own territory (in the last few years, they've each lost once or twice at home). So it seems logical to rank them on their ability and performance outside the country. On that scale, SA is ahead, while Australia are still a bit better travellers than India at the moment. Sri Lanka really need more series abroad to be tested.

 

[Uppercut]

I rate Mishra higher than Bhajji, but there is no way that he is the same as Hauritz. And I think Mishra is a little overrated here too, especially as he hasn't played outside India (let alone in a place like Australia, or South Africa). Let's see what happens, I've been more impressed with Harbhajan in the last year or so, as he has stopped being so uber reliant on his doosra, and is starting to go back to his pre-2003 ways of actually thinking about his wickets.

Regarding Mishra, the excitement is just because he's got everything you could hope for in a leggie. Massive spin, plenty of excellent variations, and remarkable accuracy. Lovely changes in his flight too. You never know how he'll do outside of the sub-continent, but if there's ever been an Indian you'd back to succeed overseas, he's the one.

 

[Cruxdude]

Saqlain's 99 performance was exceptional, on par or perhaps better than Bhajji's. Saqlain was at the peak of his powers and consistently troubled the best players on spin in their own territory. The only spinner to really do so in India in the last 40 years.

Saqlain was good in that series but Harbhajan really blew Australia out of the park in that series. In Chennai and Kolkatta he was literally unplayable.

Too much of one day cricket has made him what he is now. There are some encouraging signs but lets see what happens.

 

[silentstriker]

Regarding Mishra, the excitement is just because he's got everything you could hope for in a leggie. Massive spin, plenty of excellent variations, and remarkable accuracy. Lovely changes in his flight too. You never know how he'll do outside of the sub-continent, but if there's ever been an Indian you'd back to succeed overseas, he's the one.

Bit short, lacks bounce.

 

[tooextracool]

Bit short, lacks bounce.

Nothing wrong with being short as a leg spinner, if anything it allows you to be able to flight the ball a bit better.

 

[aussie]

Bit short, lacks bounce.

Didn't bother Subhash Gupte TBF..

 

[silentstriker]

Nothing wrong with being short as a leg spinner, if anything it allows you to be able to flight the ball a bit better.

Kumble's height got him a lot of wickets, though obviously he was unorthodox. And Mishra is really short - much shorter than someone like Warne for example.

 

[ret]

As for now, I would group the sides in to 3 tiers:

in alphabetical order

- Australia, India and SA
- Eng, Pak and SL
- BD, NZ and WI