TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
and wtf have I done that you would ban me for, other than be the target of trolls?Harsh you do realise you can actually ban TJB now right? You don't need to do this
seriously?
and wtf have I done that you would ban me for, other than be the target of trolls?Harsh you do realise you can actually ban TJB now right? You don't need to do this
I feel tearaway pacers are the only bowlers with a bit of chance on fully dead wickets,also I don't think Lyon/SOK are necessarily better than Rashid (or even Moeen), they just got pitches which really helped the spinners in first two tests and didn't really do much after the Second test once the pitches went back to normal, Australian pacers also maintained the pressure on Indian batting more successfully in terms of run scoring compared to England, it was just a good team effort from Australia in bowling, England always managed to find someone who released the pressure when India were feeling it.Why do Eng need a tearaway fast bowler.......why does any team need a tearaway fast bowler? Broad and Anderson seem to go all right without being express. What England need to be a No 1 side is one or two spinners worthy of the name.
The difference between Australia's performance in India to England's was essentially Lyon and SOK. That's why they were competitive and we weren't.
I thought you could take a joke. Don't get so wound up about it mate.and wtf have I done that you would ban me for, other than be the target of trolls?
seriously?
Lyon and SOK were miles ahead. Sure they both may not have put a lot more revs behind the ball than those two, or did come with a large bag of tricks or anything, but as you noted the key is to not release the pressure. Moeen and Rashid released the pressure constantly, Lyon and SOK did not.I feel tearaway pacers are the only bowlers with a bit of chance on fully dead wickets,also I don't think Lyon/SOK are necessarily better than Rashid (or even Moeen), they just got pitches which really helped the spinners in first two tests and didn't really do much after the Second test once the pitches went back to normal, Australian pacers also maintained the pressure on Indian batting more successfully in terms of run scoring compared to England, it was just a good team effort from Australia in bowling, England always managed to find someone who released the pressure when India were feeling it.
Not sure if you meant it as a joke but if it is serious, TJB has done nothing in this thread for a ban. He just had a different view point to several others. And Zinzan and I agree to his viewpoint.Hey I could but then CC's been almost dead since the series ended. We need the traffic.
dw about it I'm sure it's a joke, I'm just being overly sensitiveNot sure if you meant it as a joke but if it is serious, TJB has done nothing in this thread for a ban. He just had a different view point to several others. And Zinzan and I agree to his viewpoint.
Why so? India actually had overseas success leading up to and during that run.Well this stint at the top is better than India's last.
Stretching it a bit to call their four day reign in August last year a run, imo.Why so? India actually had overseas success leading up to and during that run.
The ICC officially began ranking teams in 2003Shouldn't Windies be at the top of that list for time at number 1?
fairy nuff.The ICC officially began ranking teams in 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship
I think dizzy started to early but Kasper or Bichel probably had their entire test careers in that time. Ditto Stuart Law and Martin Love. Maybe even Lehman too.fairy nuff.
the data i was thinking of is in the table below the one you listed.
West Indies - Mar 81 to Jul 88 - 89 months
Pakistan - Aug 88 to Sep 88 - 2 months
West Indies - Oct 88 to Jan 91 - 28 months
Australia - Feb91 to Apr 91 - 3 months
West Indies - May 91 to Jul 92 - 15 months
Australia - Aug 92 to Jan 93 - 6 months
West Indies - Feb 93 to Aug 95 - 31 months
India - Sep 95 to Nov 95 - 3 months
Australia - Dec 95 to Jul 99 - 44 months
I'm surprised that the Windies did not hold it straight from 81 to 95. What went down for the bold interlopers to have taken #1 during those 'reigns'
Australia were on top for the 21 months leading to 2003, so held top spot a continuous 95 months. 1 month shy of 8 years!
It might be an interesting task to find the greatest player who's career started and finished in one of those reigns. I initially though Gilly would be up there, but he started too early for the 2001-2009 period.
Gilly debuted in 1999, when Aus would surely have been no. 1 so I'm he'd certainly qualifyfairy nuff.
the data i was thinking of is in the table below the one you listed.
West Indies - Mar 81 to Jul 88 - 89 months
Pakistan - Aug 88 to Sep 88 - 2 months
West Indies - Oct 88 to Jan 91 - 28 months
Australia - Feb91 to Apr 91 - 3 months
West Indies - May 91 to Jul 92 - 15 months
Australia - Aug 92 to Jan 93 - 6 months
West Indies - Feb 93 to Aug 95 - 31 months
India - Sep 95 to Nov 95 - 3 months
Australia - Dec 95 to Jul 99 - 44 months
I'm surprised that the Windies did not hold it straight from 81 to 95. What went down for the bold interlopers to have taken #1 during those 'reigns'
Australia were on top for the 21 months leading to 2003, so held top spot a continuous 95 months. 1 month shy of 8 years!
It might be an interesting task to find the greatest player who's career started and finished in one of those reigns. I initially though Gilly would be up there, but he started too early for the 2001-2009 period.
But south Africa briefly took the number 1 after 99.Gilly debuted in 1999, when Aus would surely have been no. 1 so I'm he'd certainly qualify