***Official*** South Africa in India 2015

[cnerd123]

I mentioned on the Podcast how odd it is that Ishant, Wahab and Prasad are the best three fast bowlers in the Subcontinent, when just a couple of years ago they were the laughing stocks of each of their countries.

How things have changed.

 

[Howe_zat]

That aid, I didn't ever really think of Wahab as a laughing stock, except during the jacket thing, and I still don't rate Ishant Sharma

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm surprised that de Kock isn't even a squad option given he's played Tests this year, has a good first class record and is hitting tons in the ODIs

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm surprised that de Kock isn't even a squad option given he's played Tests this year, has a good first class record and is hitting tons in the ODIs

He was in terrible form so they dropped him from all formats. It does seem kind of weird that they decided to bring him back for the ODIs without considering the fact that he might hit runs and make them want to pick him in the Tests though, given they named both squads at once.

 

[Marius]

He was in terrible form so they dropped him from all formats. It does seem kind of weird that they decided to bring him back for the ODIs without considering the fact that he might hit runs and make them want to pick him in the Tests though, given they named both squads at once.

Yeah, it is a bit weird. But they've decided to stick with Vilas for now which is fine. I think it'll be better for QDK to be in SA and playing if he's only going to be carrying the drinks in India.

 

[SeamUp]

I think Vilas is a good cricketer but de Kock will get his spot back eventually.

Think de Kock's keeping is under-rated and the quality of Vilas' keeping has always needed work.

 

[cnerd123]

de Kock keeps like ABDV. Very athletic and good hands to compensate for poor footwork.

Not a bad thing, especially considering SA's quick bowling attack.

 

[smash84]

I mentioned on the Podcast how odd it is that Ishant, Wahab and Prasad are the best three fast bowlers in the Subcontinent, when just a couple of years ago they were the laughing stocks of each of their countries.

How things have changed.

yeah, i don't remember when Wahab was a laughing stock?

Sure he wasn't first choice seamer but that's a lot different from laughing stock.

 

[cnerd123]

yeah, i don't remember when Wahab was a laughing stock?

Sure he wasn't first choice seamer but that's a lot different from laughing stock.

Jacket incident. Had a few poor spells around that time too, a tendency to bowl too many full tosses.

'Laughing stock' obviously an exaggeration but it applied perfectly to two out of three and Wahab wasnt ever really well loved so I threw him in there in order to create this lovely little 'zero to hero' narrative for the three of them. Sounds a lot nicer than saying 'and to think Ishant and Dhammika were laughing stocks and Wahab was kinda alright but not very good and had that weird jacket incident with the bookie and no one was really a big fan of him, but we all saw his potential and it isnt as surprising that he is awesome now but nevertheless pleasant to see'

Bunch of anal ****s the lot of you, geez

 

[marc71178]

Yea they are the best overall, but at certain times other teams have looked and played better.


They're a good should for the best Test side in the world right now tho.

Oh I agree on that front, and think the rankings actually do a good job to reflect where teams rank.

Thing is they have too many random losses to be ranked as the best for the entire period.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Only team that ever looked better than SA in the last 8 years was AUS when they beat them last year & it was nothing major. Certainly not ENG & IND teams that the ranking system incorrectly said was # 1.

Nah, England and India were both the best teams in the world at the time they were ranked #1. Not every team ranked 1 is going to be a dominant dynasty which lasts a decade.

 

[Contra]

South Africa weren't able to beat either of England, India and Australia at home during that time period which is what always stalled their claim for #1, just because you do well overseas doesn't mean you can get excused for not winning series at home. Saffas also dropped a test against SL.

Rankings are based on Wins,losses, and draws, not how many years you have been undefeated overseas or whatever other criteria.

 

[aussie]

Nah, England and India were both the best teams in the world at the time they were ranked #1. Not every team ranked 1 is going to be a dominant dynasty which lasts a decade.

I never said a # 1 team had to be a dynasty - no way was ENG & IND ever better than SA during that period. SA of the last 8 years is very similar to the ENG # 1 team that was unbeaten from 1951-1958.

It was simply a ranking system error, for example do you know if AUS had beaten SA @ home in 2012/13 home series, the ranking system was projecting they would have become # 1?

 

[Contra]

Ranking systems are based on numbers, not subjective opinions, Saffas simply didn't have enough wins against teams with relatively high rating points to jump over them, whether that was because they don't play as many test matches, or simply didn't win enough matches is a different matter, I'd say its a combination of the two. SA reached #1 eventually because the other teams fell away and Saffas didn't, but that's not to suggest that India and England didn't do well during the period in which they reached #1.

 

[smash84]

yeah, i do agree there are flaws in the ranking system..

If Pakistan beat England in Sharjah they will be number 2 in the world after South Africa.

There's no way i consider them the 2nd best test team in the world. The day they walk out of Asia Pakistan are getting steam rolled.

 

[aussie]

South Africa weren't able to beat either of England, India and Australia at home during that time period which is what always stalled their claim for #1, just because you do well overseas doesn't mean you can get excused for not winning series at home. Saffas also dropped a test against SL.

Rankings are based on Wins,losses, and draws, not how many years you have been undefeated overseas or whatever other criteria.

Excuse me what are you attempting to re-write history?. In 3 series SA played IND since 2007, they beat IND @ home twice in 2007 & 2013/14, while drawing that 1 series in 2011/12.

And so what if SA dropped a test vs SL? Really now, even in the ranking system as faulty as it you don't or get/loose points for winning/being defeat in a test - its just the series end result & SA got full points for winning 2-1 at home to SRI 2011/12.

When SA failed to beat AUS 2009 & ENG 2010/11 at home were simply inconsequential blimps - just as AUS of 95-2007 failed to conquer IND/SRI before 2004. That AUS win in 2009 was one series were Mitchell Johnson was bowling in god mide before Ashes 2013/14 where SA couldn't handle him. Otherwise Johnson just like AUS were below par or simply crap - as there were in the well established worst period of AUS test team performances since the mid 1980s.

ENG got lucky in the 2010/11 that SA team odly had injuries to Kallis/Steyn throughout that series & were handing on for dear life to draw two games - it wasn't a competitive 1-1 by either means. Full strength SA teams comfortably dealt with ENG over here in 2008 & 2012.

Overseas wins certainly carry more weight, especially considering how in recent years teams travel so poorly.

 

[aussie]

Ranking systems are based on numbers, not subjective opinions, Saffas simply didn't have enough wins against teams with relatively high rating points to jump over them, whether that was because they don't play as many test matches, or simply didn't win enough matches is a different matter, I'd say its a combination of the two. SA reached #1 eventually because the other teams fell away and Saffas didn't, but that's not to suggest that India and England didn't do well during the period in which they reached #1.

I don't know what you are talking about there, but that's not reality. SA got to # 1 by taking it off officially from AUS when they won in AUS 2008/09. It was then incumbent on ENG & IND to actually beat them somewhere, home/away to take that ranking off them, that never happened - thus they were incorrectly placed as # 1 at various points.

 

[aussie]

yeah, i do agree there are flaws in the ranking system..

If Pakistan beat England in Sharjah they will be number 2 in the world after South Africa.

There's no way i consider them the 2nd best test team in the world. The day they walk out of Asia Pakistan are getting steam rolled.

Exactly. NZ the clear # 2.

 

[Contra]

Excuse me what are you attempting to re-write history?. In 3 series SA played IND since 2007, they beat IND @ home twice in 2007 & 2013/14, while drawing that 1 series in 2011/12.

And so what if SA dropped a test vs SL? Really now, even in the ranking system as faulty as it you don't or get/loose points for winning/being defeat in a test - its just the series end result & SA got full points for winning 2-1 at home to SRI 2011/12.

When SA failed to beat AUS 2009 & ENG 2010/11 at home were simply inconsequential blimps - just as AUS of 95-2007 failed to conquer IND/SRI before 2004. That AUS win in 2009 was one series were Mitchell Johnson was bowling in god mide before Ashes 2013/14 where SA couldn't handle him. Otherwise Johnson just like AUS were below par or simply crap - as there were in the well established worst period of AUS test team performances since the mid 1980s.

ENG got lucky in the 2010/11 that SA team odly had injuries to Kallis/Steyn throughout that series & were handing on for dear life to draw two games - it wasn't a competitive 1-1 by either means. Full strength SA teams comfortably dealt with ENG over here in 2008 & 2012.

Overseas wins certainly carry more weight, especially considering how in recent years teams travel so poorly.

That's nice and all but.... NONE OF THIS STUFF MATTERS TO THE OBJECTIVE ICC RANKING SYSTEM!

It's really simple dude, you either have a subjective discussion on what you consider to be the best team at whatever period, in the event you do that you CANNOT bring in the ranking system as evidence for either for or against a particular claim as the ranking system is simply a reflection of the number of wins/losses/draws teams have had, regardless of how well or badly a team might have played for the people who watched it.

However if you choose to have a discussion based on the ICC ranking system then you remove stuff like this from the discussion:

- Overseas wins certainly carry more weight (factually incorrect btw)
- ENG got lucky in the 2010/11 that SA team odly had injuries to Kallis/Steyn
- When SA failed to beat AUS 2009 & ENG 2010/11 at home were simply inconsequential blimps
- even in the ranking system as faulty as it you don't or get/loose points for winning/being defeat in a test - its just the series end result (factually incorrect btw)

I can simply just quote your whole post pretty much but I hope you got the point.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It was simply a ranking system error, for example do you know if AUS had beaten SA @ home in 2012/13 home series, the ranking system was projecting they would have become # 1?

Yeah, but they didn't.

And anyway, those things happen, sometimes, sure. Australia reached #1 in 2013/14 after a couple of great series vs England and SA. That isn't the case with what happened with India and England though... They were good for a far more extended period of time and they fully deserved their no.1 ranking, mainly because other teams were worse rather than they themselves being incredible, but that's a separate issue.