Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[greg]

Fact is, England may well BE the best side in the world - most of the ambiguity about this relates to the closeness of the result. If it had been an absolute pasting, it's likely that there wouldn't be such a resistance to the concept. And things can change fast, in both directions, for both sides.

Reading through some of the threads, there is an obvious confusion among some (mostly non-Englishmen) that pondering such a notion means you are implying that England are as dominant as Australia have been for around a ten-year period. Obviously, you would need to skip forward ten years to substantiate that and it would be a stupid comment to make.

India defeating Australia was a little different 'cause they couldn't win away (even against Zimbabwe) and Australia had a noticable weakness on spinning tracks. But I think this situation is a little different to that. (Which is not to say I necessarily believe that England are the numero uno team right now, but they're obviously not that far off being able to make the claim.)

Thank you slow_love. That sums it up perfectly. Because Australia's period as #1 has coincided with a period of total dominance, people are concluding that any tentative claims to England being the best team now is a claim of total English dominance - ludicrous obviously since they only even hold total home/away dominance vs Windies and Bangladesh. They seem to see claims of England's status as some sort of denigrating of Australian achievement. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything it is often Australians, searching for explanations for their defeat, who are asking questions about just how good a few of the Aussie players eg. Hayden really are and were.

From experience it seem where there are overblown claims about England's status (outside of the tabloids) it has usually been preceded very shortly by someone questioning whether they are any good AT ALL (usually with a few references to umpiring, catching, substitutes... )

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thank you slow_love. That sums it up perfectly. Because Australia's period as #1 has coincided with a period of total dominance, people are concluding that any tentative claims to England being the best team now is a claim of total English dominance - ludicrous obviously since they only even hold total home/away dominance vs Windies and Bangladesh. They seem to see claims of England's status as some sort of denigrating of Australian achievement. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything it is often Australians, searching for explanations for their defeat, who are asking questions about just how good a few of the Aussie players eg. Hayden really are and were.

From experience it seem where there are overblown claims about England's status (outside of the tabloids) it has usually been preceded very shortly by someone questioning whether they are any good AT ALL (usually with a few references to umpiring, catching, substitutes... )

Personally, I think England are number 2 pending further results, which is basically what the ICC table says as well. If Australia win home and away against South Africa and England stumble in the subcontinent, Australia will rightly still be considered the best side, even though England beat them and are obviously very close. The opposite could also happen, which would mean that Australia would likely lose their top spot. If both teams beat everyone for another year, it comes down to the next Ashes. It's the same as Australia and the West indies in 93-95 really. Australia could ahve and probably should have won in 93, but it wasn't until they went to the West Indies and convincingly beat them that they took the number one ranking outright.

Anyone who thinks England aren't a definate contender for number 1 right now isn't watching enough cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Personally, I think England are number 2 pending further results, which is basically what the ICC table says as well. If Australia win home and away against South Africa and England stumble in the subcontinent, Australia will rightly still be considered the best side, even though England beat them and are obviously very close. The opposite could also happen, which would mean that Australia would likely lose their top spot. If both teams beat everyone for another year, it comes down to the next Ashes. It's the same as Australia and the West indies in 93-95 really. Australia could ahve and probably should have won in 93, but it wasn't until they went to the West Indies and convincingly beat them that they took the number one ranking outright.

Anyone who thinks England aren't a definate contender for number 1 right now isn't watching enough cricket.

I think Sean and Slow Love and Greg have put it all perfectly. It is POSSIBLE to be the #1 side in the world without being totally dominant of all opposition. Obviously, Australia dominated all opposition when they were #1 but that doesn't mean England have to do that to be called #1. I mean, it is the difference between Federer's time as #1 and Lleyton Hewitt's. Hewitt was nowhere near as dominant as Federer over his opposition and yet he managed to be #1 for a decent while. The domination of all opposition is just an addition to being #1, not a pre-requisite. You can be #1 even if you do reasonably well against everyone, without being dominant.

 

[marc71178]

Okay so instead of more than half the matches against minnows, its half the matches against minnows.

No, it is one series against minnows, Bangladesh.

West Indies are not minnows because they have a strong batting line up when the first choice team is selected.

 

[marc71178]

The ICC ranking is as relevant as a pearl before a swine.

Because they rate teams performances against other teams based on the strength of the opposition?

So what please is more relevant?

And dont even go to the players ranking.......i have already shown before that it is utter tosh.

Erm no, you haven't.

 

[marc71178]

which is why i didnt include NZ in the list of minnows when i said half of english victories are against minnows in the last six tests or so.

England haven't played NZ in their last 6 Tests.

They've played them in the last 6 series (a run that includes only 1 minnow in Bangladesh)

 

[marc71178]

I never said that they are gospel- but i do believe that they are more logically consistent than ICC rankings and the former PwC rankings.

How are they more logical than rating wins over better sides higher than wins over weaker sides?

 

[marc71178]

And as per the 'currently' argument - my contention( incase you missed it) is that England has been perfrorming well for the last 2 years or so and in that span, a large chunk of their victories have come against very poor opposition, like WI, BD and ZIM.

2001 isn't 2 years ago.

A side including Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Gayle is far from being "very poor"

 

[marc71178]

India struggles to put away weak teams - they have for a while. Much more than england does when it comes to ruthlessly crushing a weak team. But India does a lot better when it comes to playing a great team - as evidenced by their much superior record against OZ over the recent times ( past 4-5 years).

What relevance is a series 4 years ago to current cricket? Next to none.

 

[marc71178]

Which havnt been logically refuted at all.

Oh they have Richard, they most definitely have.

 

[marc71178]

So many factors played into England's advantage such as: dropped catches, no balls, weather, injury.

Dropped catches and no balls are faults of the team, so that cannot be an excuse.

The weather also worked against England in the Old Trafford Test and quite possibly denied them a win there.

As for injuries - well, Old Trafford had an England injury that also potentially meant that game was drawn. And bearing in mind the injuries suffered by England in the past (whereby entire bowling attacks are wiped out rather than just 1 bowler) - you got off lightly.

 

[marc71178]

Fortunately for England the Australian batters didn't consistently take advantage of that.

One reason being because England's bowlers didn't let them because they kept creating the chances with great regularity.

 

[marc71178]

Regardless Australia are still the recognised #1. One series loss is not enough to change that

Personally I still think England are number 2 by a fair distance.

However they are a fair distance from both number 1 and number 3 at this point.

 

[greg]

Dropped catches and no balls are faults of the team, so that cannot be an excuse.

The weather also worked against England in the Old Trafford Test and quite possibly denied them a win there.

And an injury at Trent Bridge was a major contribution to making people think that the series was a "close 2-1" rather than a battle at the start with England running away with it by the end.

 

[Sanz]

And an injury at Trent Bridge was a major contribution to making people think that the series was a "close 2-1" rather than a battle at the start with England running away with it by the end.

Obviously injury to Mcgrath after 1st test didn't benefit England, did it ?

 

[greg]

Obviously injury to Mcgrath after 1st test didn't benefit England, did it ?

Is anyone saying it didn't? Although people thinking after lords that McGrath would have had a similar impact in every game had he stayed fit are deluding themselves. If ever a pitch were made for McGrath it were Lords. Remember 1997? Bowled England out for 80. He hadn't been quite as successful at Edgbaston the previous test!

On the subject of dropped catches etc:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/219402.html

 

[Langeveldt]

Oh they have Richard, they most definitely have.

LOL! What a schoolboy error!

 

[Slifer]

2001 isn't 2 years ago.

A side including Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Gayle is far from being "very poor"

Far from being very poor but they are probably the most inconsistent among 'established' test playing nations.

 

[tooextracool]

McGrath was fit for one match and effectively won that for Aus!

Him being stupid enough to step on a cricket ball whilst playing football pre-second test was the turning point of the Ashes.

IMO, with him in the Aus side, Eng was never going to score enough runs to win a test match.

its arguable as to whether mcgrath would have been anywhere near the bowler he was at Lords for the rest of the series if he was fit. the Lords slope and seam movement make him unplayable. personally his performance at Lords doesnt come close to proving how many wickets he would have taken in the rest of the series.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, yes, I would. How many players did I just pick, and how many are in a cricket team?

A world XI right now would look something like:

Sehwag
Langer
Ponting/Kallis
Dravid
Lara
Flintoff
Gilchrist
Warne
Shoaib/Pollock/Bond
Murali
McGrath

That doesn't mean Flintoff would be the first name on the sheet, and if I had a choice between having Murali, Dravid, Warne, McGrath, Lara etc in my team or Flintoff, I'd rather the former. If I wanted a seamer, McGrath would be my first choice and then Flintoff, and if I wanted an all-rounder (bowling and batting, not keeping) Flintoff is a mile ahead of everyone else.

and if i had to choose one player out of that entire team, i would choose flintoff first. believe it or not there is a very big case for flintoff being the best player in the world, because hes invaluable to any side. fact is that mcgraths bowling isnt streets ahead of flintoffs, yet flintoffs batting and fielding is. and its the same when you look at dravid,mural,warne and whoever else.