• 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 .

Victor Ian

International Coach
What is with all this continuous debate as to who is the best team right now? Pakistan won the poll and it can't be edited. For all you people who have to state ten times a day, everyday, reasons why India is the best, that explanation itself is the reason they are not the clear best. When Australia and the West Indies were best, did anyone have to talk about it every day, ten times a day? I don't think so. Everyone just knew it.

As it stands. Australia win the most. India is the best home track bully. South Africa is the best away performer.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Mind bowling that this is so hard to understand:

- The wickets were slow and low, ridiculously more than usual
- Australia would have had the biggest advantage if they were fast and bouncy, ie. the opposite of what they were
- The fact that they were flat, possibly meaning that the Aus bowlers had more chance of taking wickets, is purely because they're just better bowlers

The **** are you on about? Excuses for what? No one is making any excuses nor is there anything to be made excuses for.

At least start making some sense if you're going to keep posting

Lol @ "better bowlers". I am not disputing that, for "those" conditions. That was my point. On a hard and true track, the faster, stronger and taller bowlers will get more out of the surface than the Indian skiddy swing bowlers would. And of course, our seamers can never bowl to a plan and keep probing as well as the Aussie pace attack in that series could. Hence, the tracks maximized that advantage for Australia. It is neither hard to understand nor is it rocket science, but given you find common sense always hard to understand, I agree its too much to expect from you.




And rofl @ "slow and low". I am sure you have NFI what that even means if you think any of those Aussie wickets were either slow and/or low. 8-)




And trust me, I dont need your ****ing approval to post sensible cricket posts, as much as it seems to annoy you
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
What is with all this continuous debate as to who is the best team right now? Pakistan won the poll and it can't be edited. For all you people who have to state ten times a day, everyday, reasons why India is the best, that explanation itself is the reason they are not the clear best. When Australia and the West Indies were best, did anyone have to talk about it every day, ten times a day? I don't think so. Everyone just knew it.

As it stands. Australia win the most. India is the best home track bully. South Africa is the best away performer.
Kumble believes this Indian team can be the greatest cricket team of all time haha
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
What are you talking about? We absolutely did get annihilated in England. First two tests were competitive and even halfway through the third it wasn't terrible, but after that it was embarrassingly one sided. England have been comprehensively beaten here but the way we just ****ing gave up on that tour was a disgrace. Didn't even get into half decent positions and throw it away, the team just didn't show up.

England haven't had a test anywhere near as good as the one we had at Lords but the 3 losses we suffered were much worse. Didn't show up with the bat, ball or in the field. Shambles.

Dude, you don't have to remind me. I was there and I remember it well. Just note the word "relatively" in the original post. Being hammered for 2.5 tests is faaar better than being hammered all 4 tests like we were in 2011.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
It is possible to imagine taking a team of 4 awesome quicks and hurting the world. Is it even remotely possible to imagine taking 4 spinners on a tour of world beating?
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lol @ "better bowlers". I am not disputing that, for "those" conditions. That was my point. On a hard and true track, the faster, stronger and taller bowlers will get more out of the surface than the Indian skiddy swing bowlers would. And of course, our seamers can never bowl to a plan and keep probing as well as the Aussie pace attack in that series could. Hence, the tracks maximized that advantage for Australia. It is neither hard to understand nor is it rocket science, but given you find common sense always hard to understand, I agree its too much to expect from you.




And rofl @ "slow and low". I am sure you have NFI what that even means if you think any of those Aussie wickets were either slow and/or low. 8-)




And trust me, I dont need your ****ing approval to post sensible cricket posts, as much as it seems to annoy you
The entire point of the discussion is that they were much, much slower and lower than normal Australian pitches, and were much less helpful to Australia's bowlers than normal Australian pitches. This isn't really debatable either, if you disagree with that in any way then I'd reach new levels of bafflement.

How the pitches relate "greentops" or whatever else you were talking about is beyond irrelevant, because normal Australian pitches are not greentops

Surely it couldn't be spelled out any clearer
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
It is possible to imagine taking a team of 4 awesome quicks and hurting the world. Is it even remotely possible to imagine taking 4 spinners on a tour of world beating?
They'll have to get their skates on. The great Windies had already destroyed everyone about two times on tour at this stage in (this) India's development.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What are you talking about? We absolutely did get annihilated in England. First two tests were competitive and even halfway through the third it wasn't terrible, but after that it was embarrassingly one sided. England have been comprehensively beaten here but the way we just ****ing gave up on that tour was a disgrace. Didn't even get into half decent positions and throw it away, the team just didn't show up.

England haven't had a test anywhere near as good as the one we had at Lords but the 3 losses we suffered were much worse. Didn't show up with the bat, ball or in the field. Shambles.
I take this back.

You suck, England.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Bear in mind that India's last tour of Australia came immediately after Phil Hughes' death, no way were Australian groundsmen going to prepare decks that would allow Johnson to do what he'd done to England 12 months prior.
 

Tec15

First Class Debutant
Yeah, England have really "competed" well against India in this series. Beaten 4-0 including two innings thrashings after winning the toss and batting first and scoring over 400 in the first innings. Just like England "competed"well in the their 2-0 loss in the UAE last time. About the only way people could argue with a straight face that England have comparatively performed "well" in these two tours is if they're only comparing it against Australia's minnow performances, but no they they really mean England are as good as or even better than South Africa in the subcontinent.8-)

In before "But, but South Africa were all out cheaply in a supposedly flat pitch in Bangalore, so India winning the toss and batting first on all the other under prepared mudpits doesn't matter, durr durr." :dry:
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bear in mind that India's last tour of Australia came immediately after Phil Hughes' death, no way were Australian groundsmen going to prepare decks that would allow Johnson to do what he'd done to England 12 months prior.
Interesting take, though I'd say it was more a case of "no way are India lasting 5 days against Johnson and co. if we prepare normal Australian pitches, and we'd lose a whole lot of money"

Yeah, England have really "competed" well against India in this series. Beaten 4-0 including two innings thrashings after winning the toss and batting first and scoring over 400 in the first innings. Just like England "competed"well in the their 2-0 loss in the UAE last time. About the only way people could argue with a straight face that England have comparatively performed "well" in these two tours is if they're only comparing it against Australia's minnow performances, but no they they really mean England are as good as or even better than South Africa in the subcontinent.8-)

In before "But, but South Africa were all out cheaply in a supposedly flat pitch in Bangalore, so India winning the toss and batting first on all the other under prepared mudpits doesn't matter, durr durr." :dry:
m8 that's exactly what we were doing. Comparing England and Australia.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
The idea that the tracks for the Indian series were to Australia's benefit is one of the dumber things I've heard lately, given that we had a certain Mitchell Johnson in the side. Furball makes a decent point though.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The idea that the tracks for the Indian series were to Australia's benefit is one of the dumber things I've heard lately, given that we had a certain Mitchell Johnson in the side. Furball makes a decent point though.
Not the first time I've seen certain poster(s) on here try and claim it though

really out of touch with reality
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Yeah, England have really "competed" well against India in this series. Beaten 4-0 including two innings thrashings after winning the toss and batting first and scoring over 400 in the first innings. Just like England "competed"well in the their 2-0 loss in the UAE last time. About the only way people could argue with a straight face that England have comparatively performed "well" in these two tours is if they're only comparing it against Australia's minnow performances, but no they they really mean England are as good as or even better than South Africa in the subcontinent.8-)

In before "But, but South Africa were all out cheaply in a supposedly flat pitch in Bangalore, so India winning the toss and batting first on all the other under prepared mudpits doesn't matter, durr durr." :dry:
I know you're trolling but if you're just going to judge a team's competitiveness during a series by looking at the final scoreline then that's a really stupid way of looking at things.

England came very close to winning the 1st Test in the UAE against Pakistan last year, and gave themselves a shot at winning the 1st Test this series. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that had England had a spinner of the quality of Swann this year, that day 5 of the first Test might have gotten extremely close to an England win.

And a Test series takes on a whole different complexion if you win the first Test instead of drawing it. In the UAE, England got agonisingly close to saving the 2nd Test, from memory I think there were about 5 overs left when Rashid had a brain fart and smashed one down mid-off's throat. Given he'd been disciplined enough to bat out 150+ deliveries at that point, I again don't think it's out of the question that a slightly better batsman (Collingwood) goes the distance and saves the Test with England 9 down. That makes the series 1-0 Pakistan with 1 to play when it was very close to being 1-0 England. And for the 3rd Test in that series, England were poor on the final day but had gotten themselves into a position where they might have done better.

This series, they were in the driving seat in the first Test and have made India generally work hard for their wins. They had very poor 2nd innings performances in Mumbai and Chennai that's resulted in a loss by an innings, but they've competed for parts of the Test and forced India to play well to win. Both series were deservedly won by Pakistan and India, but England weren't a million miles away from drawing, or even winning the series in the UAE. And while I think India would still have won this series regardless, it doesn't take a lot to happen differently for the margin to be less severe. Better bowling day 5 in the first Test and better batting day 5 in Mumbai and Chennai and it's a 2-1 series win for India, which looks a hell of a lot better than 4-0. But at the end of the day, England weren't good enough to make those moments in games count, which is why they lost 4-0.

Coming back to scheduling, I think it's interesting that England let things slip in a lot of 3rd sessions during the series, which says to me there's a lack of mental fitness. And that possibly comes from a bit of burnout and a ludicrous schedule over the last few months. The other thing about this, and other series, is that with the schedule cramming in as many Tests as possible into a short space, the momentum in a series can sometimes take on the momentum of a runaway train, because England have basically had no opportunity this series to go away, take stock, work on weaknesses in nets and in a tour game, and come back for the next Test more prepared. It's just into the next Test, then the next. I think that's why we're seeing quite a lot of one sided series recently, because the touring side gets no chance to arrest the momentum and two defeats all of a sudden becomes three or four.

But sure, let's just trash England and offer a free pass to the worst touring side to visit India in the last 10 years because the pitches were too difficult for them. Marvellous posting.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Bang goes any credibillity you had on this topic.
What's so hard to understand. India lost 3-1 in England; England lost 4-0 in India. India won a live test in England. England won ZERO in England. Therefore relatively speaking, England suffered a heavier defeat in India than vice versa
 

Grumpy

U19 Vice-Captain
I know you're trolling but if you're just going to judge a team's competitiveness during a series by looking at the final scoreline then that's a really stupid way of looking at things.

England came very close to winning the 1st Test in the UAE against Pakistan last year, and gave themselves a shot at winning the 1st Test this series. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that had England had a spinner of the quality of Swann this year, that day 5 of the first Test might have gotten extremely close to an England win.

And a Test series takes on a whole different complexion if you win the first Test instead of drawing it. In the UAE, England got agonisingly close to saving the 2nd Test, from memory I think there were about 5 overs left when Rashid had a brain fart and smashed one down mid-off's throat. Given he'd been disciplined enough to bat out 150+ deliveries at that point, I again don't think it's out of the question that a slightly better batsman (Collingwood) goes the distance and saves the Test with England 9 down. That makes the series 1-0 Pakistan with 1 to play when it was very close to being 1-0 England. And for the 3rd Test in that series, England were poor on the final day but had gotten themselves into a position where they might have done better.

This series, they were in the driving seat in the first Test and have made India generally work hard for their wins. They had very poor 2nd innings performances in Mumbai and Chennai that's resulted in a loss by an innings, but they've competed for parts of the Test and forced India to play well to win. Both series were deservedly won by Pakistan and India, but England weren't a million miles away from drawing, or even winning the series in the UAE. And while I think India would still have won this series regardless, it doesn't take a lot to happen differently for the margin to be less severe. Better bowling day 5 in the first Test and better batting day 5 in Mumbai and Chennai and it's a 2-1 series win for India, which looks a hell of a lot better than 4-0. But at the end of the day, England weren't good enough to make those moments in games count, which is why they lost 4-0.

Coming back to scheduling, I think it's interesting that England let things slip in a lot of 3rd sessions during the series, which says to me there's a lack of mental fitness. And that possibly comes from a bit of burnout and a ludicrous schedule over the last few months. The other thing about this, and other series, is that with the schedule cramming in as many Tests as possible into a short space, the momentum in a series can sometimes take on the momentum of a runaway train, because England have basically had no opportunity this series to go away, take stock, work on weaknesses in nets and in a tour game, and come back for the next Test more prepared. It's just into the next Test, then the next. I think that's why we're seeing quite a lot of one sided series recently, because the touring side gets no chance to arrest the momentum and two defeats all of a sudden becomes three or four.

But sure, let's just trash England and offer a free pass to the worst touring side to visit India in the last 10 years because the pitches were too difficult for them. Marvellous posting.
LOL WTF? You can make plausible random arguments for many sides who have lost away from home. Why mention Swann or Collingwood? They are as relevant to current cricket as are Underwood and Botham.

Marvellous posting.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
LOL WTF? You can make plausible random arguments for many sides who have lost away from home. Why mention Swann or Collingwood? They are as relevant to current cricket as are Underwood and Botham.

Marvellous posting.
I too like to miss the point of posts completely.
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
You could say, commencing 2011, four series, two in each country,

England win: eight (six home, two away)
India win: six (5 home, 1 away)
Draw: 3
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
The entire point of the discussion is that they were much, much slower and lower than normal Australian pitches, and were much less helpful to Australia's bowlers than normal Australian pitches. This isn't really debatable either, if you disagree with that in any way then I'd reach new levels of bafflement.

How the pitches relate "greentops" or whatever else you were talking about is beyond irrelevant, because normal Australian pitches are not greentops

Surely it couldn't be spelled out any clearer

Niiice, shift goal posts when you originally said they were "slow and low, ridiculously more so than normal"... They were not. That is a fact. The pitches did carry and zip through more than enough, otherwise you wont see Varun Aaron bouncing people out. But again, its so obvious that I expect you to miss it. Your adding the relative degree of comparison is after your original post. It may have been less than normal for a regular Australian track but it was still fast and bouncy and true, by any normal standards of cricket wicket judgement.

Interesting take, though I'd say it was more a case of "no way are India lasting 5 days against Johnson and co. if we prepare normal Australian pitches, and we'd lose a whole lot of money"



m8 that's exactly what we were doing. Comparing England and Australia.

Riiiight.. same way how India prepared flat decks and let Australia win all the tosses in 2013 then, huh? :p


The idea that the tracks for the Indian series were to Australia's benefit is one of the dumber things I've heard lately, given that we had a certain Mitchell Johnson in the side. Furball makes a decent point though.
That certain Mitchell Johnson was not in the same form as he was the previous summer. Surely its even dumber that you cant get that fact through to your head, isn't it? I wonder how much you have actually ever had to do in terms of pitch preparation. I have been involved in small capacities with preparing pitches and you cant just change them to bounce more unless you grow more grass on it and even then, the underlying soil will still provide its quality to the wicket, you can just ensure that it goes back to that true nature after a certain amount of time.


Not the first time I've seen certain poster(s) on here try and claim it though

really out of touch with reality

And I am responding to both Spark and a "Certain" aussie-aussie-aussie-oi-oi-oi poster here in saying that is why I mentioned they would have needed to prepare greener tracks if they wanted any more pace and boumce than they already had. And whatever pace and bounce was there worked perfectly for Australia as it accentuated the difference in quality between the two seam attacks and helped the spinner and the batsmen who was used to these conditions more to take advantage of the other team almost being powerless on such tracks. Again, I am not saying they were "prepared" to help Australia. I am just saying the way the tracks turned out helped show up the weaknesses of India and the strengths of Australia even more than faster, bouncier and yes, greener tracks might have.


And ROFL that the bloke who says CA prepares tracks to help visitors is talking about being out of touch with "reality".. 8-)
 
Last edited:

Top