best team in world cricket right now

[smash84]

You've contradicted yourself with those statements. On one hand you seem to be suggesting India would be more likely to win there & on the other hand you don't.

I am saying that India aren't favorites to win. Its a toss up perhaps. But my conjecture in this is as good as yours.

 

[Burgey]

Zinzan, why u mad at smali? This isn't the 80s or the 2000s. There's a genuine contest for top spot between a number of teams. It's pretty topsy-turvy and they're all beating each other in different locations.

 

[Slifer]

RSA VS INDIA IMO. Let's assume that both teams played a 3 tests series home/away vs the other teams here's my opinion as of right now:

India would completely smash all the other teams at home and possibly win by atleast 2-0 versus any of the other test sides at home.

Away, they'd beat WI, win or draw in SL and either lose or draw in the UAE vs Pakistan. They'd get smashed in Australia,England, and lose (not get smashed) in Nz and RSA. They'd win in both Bangladesh and Zim fairly easily.

At home RSA would smash by atleast 2-0 the following teams: WI, SL, PAK, ZIM, BANG, NZ. They'd either draw or lose to England and Oz. They'd beat India at home but not crush em.

Away RSA would probably win in NZ, WI,BANG, ZIM rather easily. They'd get smashed in India. Win or at the very least draw in Oz and England. Versus PAK in the UAE, they'd either lose or draw and win/lose/draw in SL.

Overall, I feel RSA and India is too close to call. I give neither team a chance of beating the other away. India would probably be more competitive in RSA than vice versa. India are dominant (scarily so) at home and okayish away. RSA are very good but not dominant home and away. Only place they'd be rolled is in India. Still I'm undecided.

 

[Zinzan]

Zinzan, why u mad at smali? This isn't the 80s or the 2000s. There's a genuine contest for top spot between a number of teams. It's pretty topsy-turvy and they're all beating each other in different locations.

I agree & I've no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is it's pretty much been general etiquette on CW in the last 5 years or so to accept the ICC rankings, even if the methodology isn't perfect.

Everyone were good sports about it when Pakistan reached no 1 a few months back, but whenever it's India (and I recall the same thing back in 2010) the same people seem very selective. And I say this as a neutral.

I'm not mad at smali, just feel he's being quite selective in his criticism of the rankings.

 

[Zinzan]

RSA VS INDIA IMO. Let's assume that both teams played a 3 tests series home/away vs the other teams here's my opinion as of right now:

India would completely smash all the other teams at home and possibly win by atleast 2-0 versus any of the other test sides at home.

Away, they'd beat WI, win or draw in SL and either lose or draw in the UAE vs Pakistan. They'd get smashed in Australia,England, and lose (not get smashed) in Nz and RSA. They'd win in both Bangladesh and Zim fairly easily.

At home RSA would smash by atleast 2-0 the following teams: WI, SL, PAK, ZIM, BANG, NZ. They'd either draw or lose to England and Oz. They'd beat India at home but not crush em.

Away RSA would probably win in NZ, WI,BANG, ZIM rather easily. They'd get smashed in India. Win or at the very least draw in Oz and England. Versus PAK in the UAE, they'd either lose or draw and win/lose/draw in SL.

Overall, I feel RSA and India is too close to call. I give neither team a chance of beating the other away. India would probably be more competitive in RSA than vice versa. India are dominant (scarily so) at home and okayish away. RSA are very good but not dominant home and away. Only place they'd be rolled is in India. Still I'm undecided.

I do think it's fair to say that India in SA would be a closer contest than SA in India currently, even if SA would still be favs at home.

 

[Slifer]

Yep!!!

 

[smash84]

I agree & I've no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is it's pretty much been general etiquette on CW in the last 5 years or so to accept the ICC rankings, even if the methodology isn't perfect.

Everyone were good sports about it when Pakistan reached no 1 a few months back, but whenever it's India (and I recall the same thing back in 2010) the same people seem very selective. And I say this as a neutral.

I'm not mad at smali, just feel he's being quite selective in his criticism of the rankings.

wow, so all the people who don't agree with India being the top side right now are India haters

brilliant

 

[Burgey]

I agree & I've no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is it's pretty much been general etiquette on CW in the last 5 years or so to accept the ICC rankings, even if the methodology isn't perfect.

Everyone were good sports about it when Pakistan reached no 1 a few months back, but whenever it's India (and I recall the same thing back in 2010) the same people seem very selective. And I say this as a neutral.

I'm not mad at smali, just feel he's being quite selective in his criticism of the rankings.

Fair enough.

I'm not so sure about accepting the rankings on their face as being a thing here. But then again I maybe haven't taken much notice of that side of things. They're a construct, and they make for interesting discussion.

Edit: I probably don't take as much notice of them because I grew up in an era where they weren't around, so you sort of weighed these things up for yourself. It was also pretty easy to tell when I grew up in the 70s and 80s who the best side was. Same with the 90s, come to that.

 

[Burner]

On what basis is SA being talked about as number 1 here? I mean I like SA's approach and love them as a team but come on! They lost at home to England, got hammered in India, almost lost in bangladesh, in bangladesh god damnit. Let them at least show a little more consistency. This is some jumping the gun.

 

[Zinzan]

wow, so all the people who don't agree with India being the top side right now are India haters

brilliant

Ahhh, you're doing that extreme language routine again Smali, as you did when you suggested the only difference between 'neck & neck' is 'light-years away' & when your response to the idea the Indian attack would be better in the UAE was that "it's not impossible for pace to do well there".

So ftr, not India haters no, but people who seem to deny them what they don't deny others sides... yes.

You need to get away from this black and white language and extreme take on things, otherwise it make you impossible to debate.

 

[Motorwada]

On what basis is SA being talked about as number 1 here? I mean I like SA's approach and love them as a team but come on! They lost at home to England, got hammered in India, almost lost in bangladesh, in bangladesh god damnit. Let them at least show a little more consistency. This is some jumping the gun.

With the rise of Bangladesh I don't think any non SC team can beat them at home so that's one more place to add to the calculations. No more ignoring them.

 

[smash84]

Ahhh, you're doing that extreme language routine again Smali, as you did when you suggested the only difference between 'neck & neck' is 'light-years away' & when your response to the idea the Indian attack would be better in the UAE was that "it's not impossible for pace to do well there".

So ftr, not India haters no, but people who seem to deny them what they don't deny others sides... yes.

You need to get away from this black and white language and extreme take on things, otherwise it make you impossible to debate.

So somebody doesn't agree with me and they are prejudiced. Lovely.

Maybe your point isn't very clear which is why I try to draw a comparison to make it clear?

 

[Zinzan]

So somebody doesn't agree with me and they are prejudiced. Lovely.

Lol, And you're doing it again. Nuance my dear chap.

It's not any 1 point either, it's every argument you seem take an extreme view on. I provided you 2-3 examples above.

 

[Burner]

If anything, winning against this Aus side by anything less than an innings win should count against SA

 

[akilana]

Ya SA lost 2 series recenlty and I am sure Steyn and Philander not being there played some part in it. With Rabada replacing Steyn and Philander being back, the current SA team is better than the one that lost to India and England. It will be more competitive if they play again tomorrow.

Last 5 years SA has only lost 2 series at home and one away series. I don't think any team has a better rcord than that. If you stretch it, they lost only 3 series in thr last 10 years. Their home record is not as bad as people make it out to be.

 

[Zinzan]

If anything, winning against this Aus side by anything less than an innings win should count against SA

Harsh, but probably fair based on Aust's current state.

 

[smash84]

Lol, And you're doing it again. Nuance my dear chap.

It's not any 1 point either, it's every argument you seem take an extreme view on. I provided you 2-3 examples above.

What nuance? Despite my arguments in favor of south Africa you imply that I disagree with the rankings because I have something against India. How is that not an accusation of prejudice?

 

[Blocky]

India can't win anywhere except where the pitch capitulates completely due to their seam bowling attack and the fact that their batsman have specialised in low to no bounce conditions with their wristy late play. I don't even know how you can consider them a potential #1, they were closer to that in the Zaheer Khan era than they are in this one.

Pakistan have a world class spinner in Yasir Shah, a solid batting order (usually) and good seam bowlers, they can compete anywhere in the world and even though they just got beat by NZ in NZ, that's on the back of not a lot of recent cricket, I fully expect they'll rebound in the next match and make it interesting. India on the other hand come here and get beaten frequently.

Australia is a weird one, because they dominate sides that think they're still playing Australia from the late 90s but they're losing to sides who have an expectation of beating them.

RSA just lack consistency and keeping their best players on the pitch, they also lack a world class spinner.

 

[Contra]

People seem to be missing the fact that rankings are based purely on wins/losses/draws. The reason India is number 1 is more to do with the fact that when they play at home, they win series by big margins, and when they travel they don't lose as many test matches for their numbers to be dented.

Anyway there is still a lot of cricket to be played, so I'd wait until the end of Australia's tour here to make a true conclusion, India have done well but they need to continue to beat opposing teams by as many test matches as possible, 1-0, or 2-0 series victories won't allow for their rankings to swell up as much as they would like.

 

[Burgey]

People seem to be missing the fact that rankings are based purely on wins/losses/draws. The reason India is number 1 is more to do with the fact that when they play at home, they win series by big margins, and when they travel they don't lose as many test matches for their numbers to be dented.

Anyway there is still a lot of cricket to be played, so I'd wait until the end of Australia's tour here to make a true conclusion, India have done well but they need to continue to beat opposing teams by as many test matches as possible, 1-0, or 2-0 series victories won't allow for their rankings to swell up as much as they would like.

not sure if srs