By when do you think India will become number one team in the World?

[GotSpin]

Funny actually; Anderson and Zaheer would walk into anyone's World XI yet both average over 30.

Shows you how little a career average means really, especially during a player's career.

And at the end of their careers, let's say they both average 29-30. Future CWers will not grasp that there was a period were they were both **** hot.

But then I guess it comes down to whether you rate players on their peaks.

Depends whether you can properly balance their peaks and troughs.

I, for one, don't rate highly players that were **** for a number of years before coming good for their last couple. I'm not strictly referring to Zaheer/Anderson though

 

[Bun]

They are still not #1 is ODIs yet and I still think South Africa are the best team at the moment even after their world cup "choking."

at the 3 people that voted "They are already the best?" back in 2004/2005. Australia were kicking their asses like hell back then so how were they #1? Were they even top 3?

No.

 

[Spark]

Who would people would say was #3 back then out of interest? Obviously Aus/Eng filled the top two spots. Both before and after the Aus tour of India.

 

[vcs]

Who would people would say was #3 back then out of interest? Obviously Aus/Eng filled the top two spots. Both before and after the Aus tour of India.

In true "aussie" style, there was no No. 3.

TBH, I don't know.. probably Pakistan. They were pretty good between 2005 and early 2007. There was a bit of stability under Inzamam and Woolmer's leadership.

England also started slipping very quickly after Ashes 2005, so I wouldn't say they were clear No. 2 any longer, which they were between 2003-Ashes 2005.

 

[Spark]

He said 04/05 though

 

[GIMH]

Depends whether you can properly balance their peaks and troughs.

I, for one, don't rate highly players that were **** for a number of years before coming good for their last couple. I'm not strictly referring to Zaheer/Anderson though

I think it depends. I think with a player like Anderson, we always knew he had the potential, he has been consistent for a few years now (on the most part) and is still in his 20s. I don't think when his career ends, we should say, well he wasn't much cop because his overall average was X and conveniently ignore that was picked for Tests aged about 22 and had his action ****ed about with by coaches.

Do you rate someone more if they start awesome then have a few **** years?

 

[centurymaker]

I think it depends. I think with a player like Anderson, we always knew he had the potential, he has been consistent for a few years now (on the most part) and is still in his 20s. I don't think when his career ends, we should say, well he wasn't much cop because his overall average was X and conveniently ignore that was picked for Tests aged about 22 and had his action ****ed about with by coaches.

Do you rate someone more if they start awesome then have a few **** years?

Exactly, If Anderson continues to do well, he'll go down as a very good bowler in a era of high batting avgs.

 

[vcs]

Lee is the only case I can think of, apart from Zaheer and Anderson, where a bowler improved so drastically after a very unremarkable start to his career.

Well actually in Lee's case, the start was remarkable, but he regressed quite a bit for a few years in Test cricket after that.

 

[Bun]

Lee had a good start to his career iirc.

 

[Howe_zat]

Who would people would say was #3 back then out of interest? Obviously Aus/Eng filled the top two spots. Both before and after the Aus tour of India.

In true "aussie" style, there was no No. 3.

TBH, I don't know.. probably Pakistan. They were pretty good between 2005 and early 2007. There was a bit of stability under Inzamam and Woolmer's leadership.

England also started slipping very quickly after Ashes 2005, so I wouldn't say they were clear No. 2 any longer, which they were between 2003-Ashes 2005.

When this thread started (Feb 2004) the top 3 sides were Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. England broke into the top 3 in April of that year (ahead of Pakistan) and India moved to 3rd in November 2004, with England in 2nd. The rankings stayed that way for about a year.

 

[Daemon]

Its a question every one is asking ..

When will England win the Ashes?
When will India be world champs?

 

[G.I.Joe]

How many of those who have voted 5 years on the poll did so after the thread bump?

 

[GIMH]

*puts hand up*

 

[Bun]

Ill take a stab in the dark...50 years?

hahaha

Never, their players will always lack the clinical cricketing knowledge and ability needed to compete with the very best, home and away..

lol

 

[Top_Cat]

Depends whether you can properly balance their peaks and troughs.

I, for one, don't rate highly players that were **** for a number of years before coming good for their last couple. I'm not strictly referring to Zaheer/Anderson though

Be interested in your thoughts on a bloke Mike Hussey or Matt Hayden.

 

[GotSpin]

Be interested in your thoughts on a bloke Mike Hussey or Matt Hayden.

Mike Hussey is a different creature altogether because he has done so well at home yet abysmally away. There's no surprise that his decline happened to coincide with quite a few away series.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but do you rate him or not?

 

[GotSpin]

I think it depends. I think with a player like Anderson, we always knew he had the potential, he has been consistent for a few years now (on the most part) and is still in his 20s. I don't think when his career ends, we should say, well he wasn't much cop because his overall average was X and conveniently ignore that was picked for Tests aged about 22 and had his action ****ed about with by coaches.

Do you rate someone more if they start awesome then have a few **** years?

But his overall average, for whatever the reasons, does show us that he just wasn't that good for quite a while. While not referring to Anderson specifically, I don't rate a player that comes good after wandering in the wilderness for years. Fidel Edwards is perhaps a decent example. Started test cricket too young, was crap but was finally starting to come good in 2009 before his injury. I don't think that can completely make up for 5 or 6 years of bad bowling though.

I feel like we get wrapped up in applauding a particular player for a couple good seasons in the present while forgetting how woeful they were previously

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah but do you rate him or not?

As a player at home? Sure, why not. But he's similar to Johnson in a way. Average unless he's playing in his favourite familiar conditions.

 

[vcs]

Hussey's away troubles are overstated IMO. He did very well in India in 2008 but his average was brought down in the last series because he received a couple of shockers. Also did very well in SA in 2006, not so well the next time. England is his bogey destination so far which he needs to improve upon. He has played a couple of matches each in NZ and WI, not much of a sample size.