best team in world cricket right now

[Black_Warrior]

This will never get resolved because the moment we look beyond the ranking systems, we are looking at subjective factors and everyone will value these factors differently.

For those who value away performances, they will never accept India as the best side now.

Those who value wins irrespective of home or away, India is clearly the best side.

 

[morgieb]

I think right now I'd say India. England probably the better side in all conditions, but I think the gap between India and England's home performances is bigger than the gap between their away performances.

I'm probably over-reacting to two Tests but Pakistan feel like they've peaked. Younis and Misbah can't have too much longer left, Azhar and Shafiq haven't gotten to their level, and while they have a gun leggie their seam attack is meh. Solid but not the best IMO. Similarly South Africa's batting is a bit too below par (yes England's top order isn't great either but they can mask it with extreme batting depth), as good as their bowling is.

Australia has far too big of a gap between their best and worst players, ditto New Zealand. Sri Lanka will be tough to beat at home but I can't see them winning enough away from home (and their home performances may decline once Herath goes), and the rest aren't worth talking about yet.

 

[marc71178]

The guy who was overreacting was the one who suggested South Africa was finished as a test side after 2 series losses including a tough away series in India where they are unbeatable.

What, you mean what nobody actually said?

 

[Tec15]

I think right now I'd say India. England probably the better side in all conditions, but I think the gap between India and England's home performances is bigger than the gap between their away performances.

I'm probably over-reacting to two Tests but Pakistan feel like they've peaked. Younis and Misbah can't have too much longer left, Azhar and Shafiq haven't gotten to their level, and while they have a gun leggie their seam attack is meh. Solid but not the best IMO. Similarly South Africa's batting is a bit too below par (yes England's top order isn't great either but they can mask it with extreme batting depth), as good as their bowling is.

Australia has far too big of a gap between their best and worst players, ditto New Zealand. Sri Lanka will be tough to beat at home but I can't see them winning enough away from home (and their home performances may decline once Herath goes), and the rest aren't worth talking about yet.

So Australia are no longer "indisputably the best side in the Southern Hemisphere" and "the hardest team to beat at home"? Good to know. We'll see about the rest.

 

[Black_Warrior]

They're still pretty hard to beat at home I'd say.. Other than South Africa who just have a ridiculous pace attack, I still don't see a lot of teams beating them here.

 

[vcs]

They're still pretty hard to beat at home I'd say.. Other than South Africa who just have a ridiculous pace attack, I still don't see a lot of teams beating them here.

Agreed. SA have done ridiculously well to beat Australia so convincingly with Steyn and AB out. Also ridiculous collapses in 3/4 innings at home? Probably the first time I've seen that from Australia in my lifetime.

 

[Furball]

They've spent the majority of the last 2 home Ashes doing just that.

 

[vcs]

They've spent the majority of the last 2 home Ashes doing just that.

2013-14? That was the last time they actually had a resilient middle-lower order (basically Haddin), so the opposite of what I'm pointing out.

In 2010-11, it wasn't that bad, Melbourne 1st innings aside. The rest of the lowish scores were scoreboard-pressure induced.

 

[Shri]

Last 5 years SA has only lost 2 series at home and one away series.

Do those stats really tell us much? In the last 10 years, only England have beaten India at home too. I am not sure we should assign too much importance to those things.

 

[Furball]

2013-14? That was the last time they actually had a resilient middle-lower order (basically Haddin), so the opposite of what I'm pointing out.

In 2010-11, it wasn't that bad, Melbourne 1st innings aside. The rest of the lowish scores were scoreboard-pressure induced.

2013/14 they basically had Haddin bailing them out a lot, in virtually every Test England had Australia 5 down for not many.

2010/11 had nothing to do with scoreboard pressure, Australia batted first in the last 4 Tests of that series and consistently failed to put up decent scores.

 

[Furball]

They're still pretty hard to beat at home I'd say.. Other than South Africa who just have a ridiculous pace attack, I still don't see a lot of teams beating them here.

This is an important point that a lot of people are overlooking. Unless I'm much mistaken, Perth was the first time that Australia had lost a Test at home under Lehmann. You have to go back to the last time South Africa toured in 2012 to find a team going to Australia and actually winning a Test, and you have to go back 5 years to Hobart for a side other than South Africa to do it.

Australia's batting clearly has problems but under Lehmann they still have a pretty decent away record. They've won series in West Indies, New Zealand and South Africa after all. I don't think they're the best side in the world but the way cricket is at the moment, they're not a million miles off it.

At the moment, the rankings say India and I'd probably go along with that. I think too many people here when they want to discuss who "the best" are want the number 1 team to achieve Australia/West Indies levels of dominance, and also expect the rankings to follow a simple "A > B > C > D > E > F > G > H > I" pattern. Truth is, Team A might be better than Team B, but in certain conditions Team B might be able to beat team F whereas A might not. Looking at football for a parallel, Arsenal took 6 points off Leicester in the league last season but that doesn't mean that Arsenal were the best team, because results against everyone, everywhere matters.

 

[vcs]

2013/14 they basically had Haddin bailing them out a lot, in virtually every Test England had Australia 5 down for not many.

2010/11 had nothing to do with scoreboard pressure, Australia batted first in the last 4 Tests of that series and consistently failed to put up decent scores.

Well, that is basically the definition of not being collapse-prone. Now they're losing their last 8 for <100 pretty often.

2010/11 is not particularly relevant, but yeah I can see your point. Hussey was there and that makes any team pretty resilient in my book.

 

[vcs]

This is an important point that a lot of people are overlooking. Unless I'm much mistaken, Perth was the first time that Australia had lost a Test at home under Lehmann. You have to go back to the last time South Africa toured in 2012 to find a team going to Australia and actually winning a Test, and you have to go back 5 years to Hobart for a side other than South Africa to do it.

Australia's batting clearly has problems but under Lehmann they still have a pretty decent away record. They've won series in West Indies, New Zealand and South Africa after all. I don't think they're the best side in the world but the way cricket is at the moment, they're not a million miles off it.

At the moment, the rankings say India and I'd probably go along with that. I think too many people here when they want to discuss who "the best" are want the number 1 team to achieve Australia/West Indies levels of dominance, and also expect the rankings to follow a simple "A > B > C > D > E > F > G > H > I" pattern. Truth is, Team A might be better than Team B, but in certain conditions Team B might be able to beat team F whereas A might not. Looking at football for a parallel, Arsenal took 6 points off Leicester in the league last season but that doesn't mean that Arsenal were the best team, because results against everyone, everywhere matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

 

[Black_Warrior]

Do those stats really tell us much? In the last 10 years, only England have beaten India at home too. I am not sure we should assign too much importance to those things.

I have said this before as well in this thread. It matters for some teams, not so much for others.

For example, saying England won in Australia in 2010 and in India in 2012, as brilliant and remarkable as those feats were, is a little less relevant here because the core of those sides is very different to the core of the current side. That had England's best batting line up in decades, with a great support staff and system that was working, along with the best spinner they had in decades. So in short, that was England's best side in decades. It's over for most part. So not relevant.

The South African side on the other hand, still retains to a considerable degree (AB and Steyn are being considered as they have not retired yet) the same side that became number 1 in 2012 and had the best away record.

This basically gives you an idea of how the team might perform in certain conditions because we have seen them do it before. Eg we know Amla can ton up in Australia, New Zealand and England, so we can reasonably expect Amla to a major factor for South Africa now and in the next 6-8 months.

 

[Dan_M_Bali]

India will be the number one Test team in the world all year as they seem to be playing Test matches at home indefinitely.

 

[Shady Slim]

should remove the poll and make this thread perpetual imo

ftr for me pak still the most balanced but south africa have a bit of je ne sais quoi and i like that so they're up there too

 

[Blocky]

Pakistan wins easily.

Close the thread.

 

[Black_Warrior]

India will be the number one Test team in the world all year as they seem to be playing Test matches at home indefinitely.

They'll have a massive lead in terms of points over anyone by the end of March. Expect that to last for a good part of next year.

 

[straw man]

I'm probably over-reacting to two Tests but Pakistan feel like they've peaked. Younis and Misbah can't have too much longer left, Azhar and Shafiq haven't gotten to their level, and while they have a gun leggie their seam attack is meh. Solid but not the best IMO. Similarly South Africa's batting is a bit too below par (yes England's top order isn't great either but they can mask it with extreme batting depth), as good as their bowling is.

Agree with this. Their trajectory seems like NZ's the last few years; ignored, ignored, start performing, underrated, going quite well, overrated, back to earth. 'Back to earth' is still competitive though.

 

[Furball]

I have said this before as well in this thread. It matters for some teams, not so much for others.

For example, saying England won in Australia in 2010 and in India in 2012, as brilliant and remarkable as those feats were, is a little less relevant here because the core of those sides is very different to the core of the current side. That had England's best batting line up in decades, with a great support staff and system that was working, along with the best spinner they had in decades. So in short, that was England's best side in decades. It's over for most part. So not relevant.

The South African side on the other hand, still retains to a considerable degree (AB and Steyn are being considered as they have not retired yet) the same side that became number 1 in 2012 and had the best away record.

This basically gives you an idea of how the team might perform in certain conditions because we have seen them do it before. Eg we know Amla can ton up in Australia, New Zealand and England, so we can reasonably expect Amla to a major factor for South Africa now and in the next 6-8 months.

Right, so England's achievements in winning away are irrelevant because only Cook, Anderson, Broad and Finn remain but South Africa, with Amla, de Villiers, Steyn and Philander are basically the same side?