• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

best team in world cricket right now

the best


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Australia won the dead rubber didn't they?
Yep. And they could have lost 4-0 in 2013 if bad light hadn't intervened at the Oval IIRC. As for 2005 and 2009, it would have been pretty ****ing embarrassing for Australia if those series hadn't been close, seeing as their team was easily superior to England's at the time.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Two different arguments getting mixed up here. England > Australia in the SC, for me, easily. But I also think RSA and NZ would have done much better had they got the pitches and the luck with the toss that England have got here. Especially RSA. That batting line up on these tracks would have been a bit frightening to bowl at, tbh.
See, the reason why I don't think this is because:

1) SA got bowled out for a paltry score despite winning the toss and batting first in Bangalore which was a flat track. Their batting was just in dire straits, and that match proved that the pitches, while they did contribute, wasn't the reason they couldn't make scores. Having spuds like van zyl and Vilas and having Faf and ab completely out of sorts killed them.

2) The nagpur deck was a genuine turner, but the thing is, it spun from ball one. It definitely provided India with an advantage, but SA were bowled out for 79 on day 2. Day 2. The pitch had not had any time to get much worse. They were shot. I'd wager a large amount they'd have been bowled out for less than 100 even if they'd batted first there. They didn't even have scoreboard pressure, since India barely got 200.

3) It would've been very easy for England to fall apart mentally after going 2-0 down and later, 3-0 down. And they've still come out here and made a good score here. Which SA failed to do.

To put so much of it down to pitches is doing a disservice to England, especially when compared to sa. They have been objectively better.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yep. And they could have lost 4-0 in 2013 if bad light hadn't intervened at the Oval IIRC. As for 2005 and 2009, it would have been pretty ****ing embarrassing for Australia if those series hadn't been close, seeing as their team was easily superior to England's at the time.
You can't have followed it that closely. The bad light game in 2013 was only close because of Australia's declaration(s) IIRC, Aus were comfortably the better side in both the drawn games and with game 1 being one of the closest Tests ever shows how close the series really was.

You're right about 2005 and 2009. Australia had some of the worst luck possible in order to lose those series (also a couple out of form players), not taking anything away from Eng who generally played better regardless (in 2005 especially)

Still not even remotely relevant to the discussion but fun nonetheless
 
Last edited:

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
See, the reason why I don't think this is because:

1) SA got bowled out for a paltry score despite winning the toss and batting first in Bangalore which was a flat track. Their batting was just in dire straits, and that match proved that the pitches, while they did contribute, wasn't the reason they couldn't make scores. Having spuds like van zyl and Vilas and having Faf and ab completely out of sorts killed them.

2) The nagpur deck was a genuine turner, but the thing is, it spun from ball one. It definitely provided India with an advantage, but SA were bowled out for 79 on day 2. Day 2. The pitch had not had any time to get much worse. They were shot. I'd wager a large amount they'd have been bowled out for less than 100 even if they'd batted first there. They didn't even have scoreboard pressure, since India barely got 200.

3) It would've been very easy for England to fall apart mentally after going 2-0 down and later, 3-0 down. And they've still come out here and made a good score here. Which SA failed to do.

To put so much of it down to pitches is doing a disservice to England, especially when compared to sa. They have been objectively better.
Agree completely! Good post.

But in a way it's kind of reassuring for SA and their fans that their own failings contributed to their getting outplayed, more so than India's heroics. This time around against England, India have played perfect cricket since Rajkot, pretty much. That's got to be demoralizing to the opposition.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
It's funny how many people are giving South Africa a free pass for being absolutely terrible in India last year.
 

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
See, the reason why I don't think this is because:

1) SA got bowled out for a paltry score despite winning the toss and batting first in Bangalore which was a flat track. Their batting was just in dire straits, and that match proved that the pitches, while they did contribute, wasn't the reason they couldn't make scores. Having spuds like van zyl and Vilas and having Faf and ab completely out of sorts killed them.

2) The nagpur deck was a genuine turner, but the thing is, it spun from ball one. It definitely provided India with an advantage, but SA were bowled out for 79 on day 2. Day 2. The pitch had not had any time to get much worse. They were shot. I'd wager a large amount they'd have been bowled out for less than 100 even if they'd batted first there. They didn't even have scoreboard pressure, since India barely got 200.

3) It would've been very easy for England to fall apart mentally after going 2-0 down and later, 3-0 down. And they've still come out here and made a good score here. Which SA failed to do.

To put so much of it down to pitches is doing a disservice to England, especially when compared to sa. They have been objectively better.
Agree with most of the above, but the pitches except for Bangalore where pretty dire compared to the current Eng/India series. It was quite obvious what was going to happen after the ODI series and Shastri had his fit... When Elgar was spinning the ball square on day 1 the pitch is more than a bit spin friendly. But India used the conditions well and annihilated us.

The only argument for SA being better than Eng in the SC is that we still managed to draw or win series against SL and Pakistan which England have not always done. No team will compete with India in India unless the pitches are flat or the other team has a better spinner than Indian spinners, which at this stage is not gonna happen. India is a deserved number one, the pecking order between Eng and SA will probably be determined next year in Eng. And Aus performance in India will determine their position. Pakistan is just to inconsistent to be near the top imo.
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
England were in the games longer virtue of the surfaces but South Africa were until the end very competitive with the ball. Only one Indian batsman averaged over 35 and six South Africans averaged under 30 with the ball, compared to just Joe Root in this series. Though to summarise they both got smashed.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Bang on, & I'd agree England > Australia in the SC, but I'd say the same about both SA and NZ as well. The bigger point is I'm positive this series would have been much more comfortable for India had they won every toss, there's no doubt in my mind. And the only evidence we do have is the one Test they did bat 2nd and got romped by 250 runs, bigger than two of the 3 margins in the NZ series.
Give this ****ing toss thing a rest - it is not as big a deal as you're are trying to make out, just a useful excuse for NZ for being properly thumped.

England have definitely been a lot more competitive then any other recent touring side to India, and but for stupid silly mistakes (number of dropped catches in last 2 games for example) would've been even closer to India then they have been.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If it wasn't for Kohli this series would've been much closer, with Rajkot maybe even going England's way.

If NZ didn't have to bowl to Kohli they'd have still been destroyed.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
England were in the games longer virtue of the surfaces but South Africa were until the end very competitive with the ball. Only one Indian batsman averaged over 35 and six South Africans averaged under 30 with the ball, compared to just Joe Root in this series. Though to summarise they both got smashed.
Interesting way to look at it I suppose, but the individual stats don't really matter overall. England got into better positions in most of these games as a team than SA ever did.
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
Marginally, but it is really depressing. Choosing between who was better, England or South Africa, is barely a choice at all really!!
 

Slifer

International Captain
England, RSA, and Nz have all been utterly smashed in India. That their fans are arguing which was smashed worst is actually funny. Oz hasn't played in India yet, so can't really comment there.

However, going by recent results, I'd still have India as one with RSA behind. Between Oz and England as of now, Oz has to be number 3.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
See, the reason why I don't think this is because:

1) SA got bowled out for a paltry score despite winning the toss and batting first in Bangalore which was a flat track. Their batting was just in dire straits, and that match proved that the pitches, while they did contribute, wasn't the reason they couldn't make scores. Having spuds like van zyl and Vilas and having Faf and ab completely out of sorts killed them.

2) The nagpur deck was a genuine turner, but the thing is, it spun from ball one. It definitely provided India with an advantage, but SA were bowled out for 79 on day 2. Day 2. The pitch had not had any time to get much worse. They were shot. I'd wager a large amount they'd have been bowled out for less than 100 even if they'd batted first there. They didn't even have scoreboard pressure, since India barely got 200.

3) It would've been very easy for England to fall apart mentally after going 2-0 down and later, 3-0 down. And they've still come out here and made a good score here. Which SA failed to do.

To put so much of it down to pitches is doing a disservice to England, especially when compared to sa. They have been objectively better.
1. Bangalore was after the first test annihilation happened. Shastri was right. They wanted to demoralize RSA in the very first test and they managed to do that. England did not face such a test, so you are just extrapolating that they have done better basically based on nothing. The way they capitulated in the 4th innings at both Vizag and Mumbai tells me they would have done the same as England if given that kind of a track. Lets face it, RSA tried their best to be aggressive and upset the spinners, which is what Root and Co. did at Mumbai too. It just comes off better on the flatter decks.


2. 79 all out on day 2 on that track is the equivalent of 280 odd Eng made in the 1st innings at Mohali. In other words, you cant really compare England performing on 5 flat and true (for the most part) tracks against RSA on up and down and turning tracks (again, nothing unplayable AFAIC but we have had these arguments in that tour thread).

3. See points 1 & 2.


To me, the relative strengths of the side at least as a batting unit, I think RSA would have done just as well as England have done here. What I should have mentioned in my original post though, was that England have much better depth to their bowling and as bad as they have been at times iwth the ball here, I think RSA would have been worse, much worse, esp. without Steyn.

Agree completely! Good post.

But in a way it's kind of reassuring for SA and their fans that their own failings contributed to their getting outplayed, more so than India's heroics. This time around against England, India have played perfect cricket since Rajkot, pretty much. That's got to be demoralizing to the opposition.
Its my point. RSA had a lot of ceiling in terms of what they actually did and what they were capable of and I think most of it was down to the pitches, I dont even think the toss was as much of a factor. England have pretty much played as well as any reasonable person could have hoped for and still been simply outclassed.

Give this ****ing toss thing a rest - it is not as big a deal as you're are trying to make out, just a useful excuse for NZ for being properly thumped.

England have definitely been a lot more competitive then any other recent touring side to India, and but for stupid silly mistakes (number of dropped catches in last 2 games for example) would've been even closer to India then they have been.

INda dropped many many more mate, you just dont remember them coz the next chances were created pretty soon thereafter and/or the other department ensured it was not felt as bad. I agree the tosses are no excuse but I dont see any reason why England are clearly better than RSA in terms of how both teams performed in India. To me, RSA on these pitches would have done what England did and England, on those pitches, would have done what RSA did. Maybe England have a slight edge coz of their bowling depth but they also seem to have a captain who has NFI how to use that depth to his advantage. :p
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
England have been emphasing their dropped catches.. far too much, forgetting that India have actually dropped more chances than them.. (and some much easier ones too!).

As HB rightly said, it's just that India have created far more opportunities, so dropped catches have hurt somewhat less.
Fewer batsmen have been allowed to go on to get 100 after a dropped chance.
But, ftr, the previous two English century-makers were both dropped on 0. Mooen Ali & Keaton Jennings.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Give this ****ing toss thing a rest - it is not as big a deal as you're are trying to make out, just a useful excuse for NZ for being properly thumped. .
Lol, England are getting properly thumped too, and yes the toss isn't everything, but it's still significant on India tracks, whether you want to pretend it isn't or not. Be interesting had England lost all the tosses in the series, whether you might mentioned it.

England have definitely been a lot more competitive then any other recent touring side to India, and but for stupid silly mistakes (number of dropped catches in last 2 games for example) would've been even closer to India then they have been.
Give this ****ing silly mistake thing a rest - it is not as big a deal as you're are trying to make out, India drops loads, and the last I checked, silly mistakes usually cost teams victories. just a useful excuse for England for being properly thumped.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
England have been emphasing their dropped catches.. far too much, forgetting that India have actually dropped more chances than them.. (and some much easier ones too!).

As HB rightly said, it's just that India have created far more opportunities, so dropped catches have hurt somewhat less.
Fewer batsmen have been allowed to go on to get 100 after a dropped chance.
But, ftr, the previous two English century-makers were both dropped on 0. Mooen Ali & Keaton Jennings.
Indeed, I've watched bit and pieces of this series, and India have actually dropped my chances from the bits I've seen, but that is a smallish sample.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Quite agree.

We've been bloody unlucky if you ask me, winning all those tosses when you've got that statistic to overcome :ph34r:
Like to see one done in SC games only in the last 24 months & see how it looks if we take India out, considering they're clearly one side good enough to overcome losing the toss in India.

But thanks for providing the last 10 years of all Test cricket played nonetheless ;)
 

Top