Number one position

[TNT]

Is the current England team the weakest team to hold the number one position.

 

[Jager]

Is the current England team the weakest team to hold the number one position.

The India that had the title taken from them were far weaker in my opinion, without Zaheer they have no one to take wickets. Their batting lineup may have looked glorious on paper, but proved less than that overseas. That's the most recent example and I am 100% sure there have been far, far weaker sides throughout test cricket's 135 year history.

 

[Jarquis]

No. Next.

 

[Spikey]

this user..

 

[Cabinet96]

The batsmen might have struggled in Asia, but most of them have got buckets of runs under their belts. The bowlers have been stunning everywhere in the world.

Far too early to say anything anyway. If they lose badly to South Africa and India then maybe we can start to discuss this, but there have been a heck of a lot of number 1 teams in test history.

 

[GIMH]

This England team is better than the Aus one that came here in 09 perched at the top anyway. And that's a fact, Eric Bischoff!

 

[Cabinet96]

this user..

2009 Australian Team tbh.

Edit: Beaten

 

[vic_orthdox]

Close eye being kept, guys.

 

[TNT]

This England team is better than the Aus one that came here in 09 perched at the top anyway. And that's a fact, Eric Bischoff!

Thats easy to say but the Aus team of 09 would not have been beaten 3 nil by Pakistan and then struggled in Sri Lanka. It would be interesting to see if a number one team has taken such a battering as England have lately.

 

[smash84]

pretty similar threads

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...year.html?highlight=England+worst+team+number

 

[Cabinet96]

Thats easy to say but the Aus team of 09 would not have been beaten 3 nil by Pakistan and then struggled in Sri Lanka. It would be interesting to see if a number one team has taken such a battering as England have lately.

India?

Edit: And the fact that we beat that Aus team home and away when we were a mid table team shows they weren't the strongest number 1 team that's been around.

 

[Spikey]

don't keep a close eye just close the stupid thread

 

[TNT]

I guess being number one has to be allocated to a team, looking at past number one teams like Aus and WI who could win at home and away consistantly made the position elite but now that we dont really have a quality number one team it gives the impression that cricket has waned.

 

[Jager]

I guess being number one has to be allocated to a team, looking at past number one teams like Aus and WI who could win at home and away consistantly made the position elite but now that we dont really have a quality number one team it gives the impression that cricket has waned.

Or that the quality of cricket has spread from one or two high class nations to four or five.

 

[Cabinet96]

People's standards are too high after watching the West Indies and, more recently, Australia dominate for so long. In truth to be number 1 you don't really have to thrash everyone who and away. Being able to beat everyone you play at home, and being able to beat most teams away (something England have done) is enough to be the number 1 team IMO.

Also I don't think the lack of a clear number shows that the standards has lowered. If anything it shows the standard has improved as the rest of the other teams have caught up to a similar standard.

 

[Cabinet96]

Or that the quality of cricket has spread from one or two high class nations to four or five.

Indeed. I sorta think the same thing has happened with individual players, hence why you don't get many people averaging in the low 20's or high 50's currently.

 

[TNT]

Or that the quality of cricket has spread from one or two high class nations to four or five.

I did consider that but because nothing happened until Australia lost its quality players and can hold their own even though they are a shadow of the old team its hard to see where the quality is.

 

[slowfinger]

I did consider that but because nothing happened until Australia lost its quality players and can hold their own even though they are a shadow of the old team its hard to see where the quality is.

citation needed

 

[GIMH]

don't keep a close eye just close the stupid thread

Believe me I'm gonna iron my hands for typing this but I agree with Spikey

 

[Teja.]

Being able to beat everyone you play at home, and being able to beat most teams away (something England have done) is enough to be the number 1 team IMO.

Also I don't think the lack of a clear number shows that the standards has lowered. If anything it shows the standard has improved as the rest of the other teams have caught up to a similar standard.

Yeah, look, I'd say that the standard has improved if teams were fighting it out series after series with no clear winner. However, the trend of 4-0, 4-0, 3-0,3-1 etc. is pretty dangerous to the game IMO.

The teams being roughly equal would only equate to the standard of cricket improving if it meant close test matches and series'. If the number one team tours the number two team, gets butchered and then the new number one tours the number five team and gets butchered again, I wouldn't say it's a particularly good trend for test cricket.