best team in world cricket right now

[OverratedSanity]

This is what we said before the last time we left for all those tours.

Guaranteed Shami or Yadav will be injured. Ishant will play because the universe works that way. Catches in the slips will be dropped and Ashwin will go wicketless. Vijay will be out of form and Saha will return to spudness. Steyn will be back from injury and raring to go. ABdV comes back because he can't resist taking India on. Amla finds form in the one game his teammates fail in. QdK scores some heartbreaking 100s from 220-5. We lose wickets to Maharaj like we did to Moeen.

India can't win overseas. It's fated.

Well, tbf, the last time we toured, it was an extremely inexperienced lineup and expectations weren't high.

But I know what you mean.

 

[vcs]

In our last cycle, I thought we did well in SA and Aus. We still lost those series, which says a lot for how low my expectations are.

In England it was depressing how we seemed to give up in the last 3 games. In NZ, we were quite competitive in both matches, and would have drawn the series but for McCullum.. Maybe the 5-bowler strategy might prevent that from occurring this time around. (the last day bowling failure in Jo'burg was another example)

 

[Motorwada]

Thing is prior to 2011 India was pretty decent overseas (but not as dominant at home). We drew/won some series overseas and those we lost we still managed to win a match. So even if we go to that sort of performance + maintain similar home performance we'll be number 1 for a long time.

 

[cnerd123]

If South Africa weren't restricted by quotas, I'd guarantee their Test XI would be the same. They can pick whoever they want in the Test XI, they're using ODIs and T20s to meet targets. It's been that way for years now, yet people like bringing out the same, tired, false narrative repeatedly despite being proven incorrect. I

 

[hendrix]

Your rationale?

They won a test in India, and somewhat held their own in the series. They destroyed New Zealand both home and away, and were far more convincing at it than South Africa.

They have two decent spinners for different conditions, a pace bowler who is performing exceptionally everywhere, and the best batsman in the world.
I think they're more likely than any other team to win a test randomly picked in any country except England.

 

[Motorwada]

In our last cycle, I thought we did well in SA and Aus. We still lost those series, which says a lot for how low my expectations are.

In England it was depressing how we seemed to give up in the last 3 games. In NZ, we were quite competitive in both matches, and would have drawn the series but for McCullum.. Maybe the 5-bowler strategy might prevent that from occurring this time around. (the last day bowling failure in Jo'burg was another example)

Yeah that cycle was a lot better than the 2011 in which we were hopeless. Hope that the 2013-14 cycle is like the cycle that Dravid, Ganguly, VVS had in the late 90s which led to regular overseas wins for the next decade or so.

 

[Motorwada]

They won a test in India, and somewhat held their own in the series. They destroyed New Zealand both home and away, and were far more convincing at it than South Africa.

They have two decent spinners for different conditions, a pace bowler who is performing exceptionally everywhere, and the best batsman in the world.
I think they're more likely than any other team to win a test randomly picked in any country except England.

Yeah but they lost pretty badly to SL whom we beat convincingly and that team had the same two decent spinners, pace bowler and best batsman.

 

[cnerd123]

They won a test in India, and somewhat held their own in the series. They destroyed New Zealand both home and away, and were far more convincing at it than South Africa.

They have two decent spinners for different conditions, a pace bowler who is performing exceptionally everywhere, and the best batsman in the world.
I think they're more likely than any other team to win a test randomly picked in any country except England.

The only weakness with the Aus lineup is the batting. You literally don't see the same Top 6 playing from one series to the next. Warner hasn't impressed overseas, Handscomb and Renshaw are so raw, and Maxwell literally just showed up.

It's papered over by Smith basically being Bradman atm. As we saw in India, if Smith gets one good ball or plays one poor stroke early in his innings, it isn't too hard to roll the rest of them out for cheap. I can see why people are hesitant to rank them above other more seemingly well-rounded sides because of it.

 

[vcs]

Thing is prior to 2011 India was pretty decent overseas (but not as dominant at home). We drew/won some series overseas and those we lost we still managed to win a match. So even if we go to that sort of performance + maintain similar home performance we'll be number 1 for a long time.

Yeah. One thing I like about this team is that they are ruthless and don't settle for draws, or underperform in dead rubbers. Dhoni's No. 1 team often did just enough to ensure home series wins. The extra points from beating SA and NZ 3-0 and England 4-0 will act as a bit of a buffer if/when we lose overseas.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yeah. One thing I like about this team is that they are ruthless and don't settle for draws, or underperform in dead rubbers. Dhoni's No. 1 team often did just enough to ensure home series wins. The extra points from beating SA and NZ 3-0 and England 4-0 will act as a bit of a buffer if/when we lose overseas.

Yea you're right on that point. Don't know if it's a change/shift in mentality, but this Indian side seems a lot more ruthless. We aren't winning home series 2-1 (except Australia and they put up a fantastic fight) and 1-0 anymore, we're absolutely pummeling the opposition.

England looked like such a sad, beaten outfit by the end.

By the way, I live in/grew up in Hong Kong but as I'm sure you can tell from the wording, I'm (of) Indian (origin).

 

[Marius]

If South Africa weren't restricted by quotas, I'd guarantee their Test XI would be the same. They can pick whoever they want in the Test XI, they're using ODIs and T20s to meet targets. It's been that way for years now, yet people like bringing out the same, tired, false narrative repeatedly despite being proven incorrect. I

I agree partly, but without quotas I'm not sure Duminy would still be in the side and Bavuma might have been dropped at the beginning of the NZ series - he had a horrible series against SL: 21 runs in five innings.

 

[Zinzan]

I agree partly, but without quotas I'm not sure Duminy would still be in the side and Bavuma might have been dropped at the beginning of the NZ series - he had a horrible series against SL: 21 runs in five innings.

I'd say at least 3 off the top of my head If not for quotas. In that universe neither Duminy nor Bavuma make the test side, and IMO Abbott makes their best SA bowling line-up on the back of what he did in Australia, and most certainly would have played in NZ conditions.

 

[Dendarii]

If South Africa weren't restricted by quotas, I'd guarantee their Test XI would be the same. They can pick whoever they want in the Test XI, they're using ODIs and T20s to meet targets.

Not quite. It is true that they can pick whoever they want in the test side as it's not a hard quota for very match but rather an average across the season, and that's what people seem to miss, with statements like "quotas are keeping AB out of the side". However, it does make things easier if they stick to the quota for the test side, and they have been doing that.

But given that the only two stumbles they've had this season were the third test against Australia (which was a dead rubber), and requiring a helping hand from the weather to avoid losing to New Zealand, how much difference would fielding a stronger side actually have made?

 

[Zinzan]

Not forgetting those who buggered off overseas.

 

[Marius]

Not quite. It is true that they can pick whoever they want in the test side as it's not a hard quota for very match but rather an average across the season, and that's what people seem to miss, with statements like "quotas are keeping AB out of the side". However, it does make things easier if they stick to the quota for the test side, and they have been doing that.

But given that the only two stumbles they've had this season were the third test against Australia (which was a dead rubber), and requiring a helping hand from the weather to avoid losing to New Zealand, how much difference would fielding a stronger side actually have made?

But having an average over the season means you still have a quota.

And that means, if you want to not have to worry too much about quotas in the Test side, picking players on race rather than conditions in the ODI or T20I set-ups.

It may already have happened, and if it hasn't it will, but one day we'll play on a greentop and we'll have to play Aaron Phangiso instead of Pretorius or Morris, to help the quota average and protect the Test side.

Still nobody has explained to me how insiting on these quotas gets nets built in Khayelitsha, pays for coaching sessions in Soweto, or pays for kit in KwaMashu.

 

[Gob]

The only weakness with the Aus lineup is the batting. You literally don't see the same Top 6 playing from one series to the next. Warner hasn't impressed overseas, Handscomb and Renshaw are so raw, and Maxwell literally just showed up.

It's papered over by Smith basically being Bradman atm. As we saw in India, if Smith gets one good ball or plays one poor stroke early in his innings, it isn't too hard to roll the rest of them out for cheap. I can see why people are hesitant to rank them above other more seemingly well-rounded sides because of it.

There are no well rounded batting sides really other than India.

 

[Gob]

And lol Pakistan

 

[Slifer]

The rankings won't reflect it, but have to say India went down slightly in my estimations in spite of winning the series 2-1, since prior to the series starting I was convinced no current side would be that competitive against them at home in anything more than a 3 test series. Meanwhile Australia went up in my estimations.

Same applies to the NZ/SA series...Thought SA were decidedly average in many aspects of their game and were obviously flattered by the 1-0 scoreline, whereas I thought NZ punched above their weight slightly, even though they were at home, remembering SA should still be very well suited to NZ wickets and normally give us a good hiding here.

Awta especially the nz series.

 

[Slifer]

I have to say I think it's Australia at the moment.

No. They have won one series lately and just last year got smashed at home by RSA and SL (SL drew with Ban).

 

[Slifer]

Overall I'd say India probably has the best batting lineup and IMO RSA has the best bowling attack (more so if Steyn comes bk).