First West Indies, then Australia....who next?

[Turbinator]

Yet they managed to take a depleted side to the country that you reckon will be the dominant force in the very near future and draw 1-1...

See thas da problem wid u English........u guys only give importance to tests, forgot the 5-1 beating from us ..........and its not our problem u guys were unfit and had to take a depleted side.............

 

[silentstriker]

See thas da problem wid u English........u guys only give importance to tests, forgot the 5-1 beating from us ..........and its not our problem u guys were unfit and had to take a depleted side.............

Because no one really cares who wins ODI tournaments (outside the world cup).

 

[Turbinator]

Because no one really cares who wins ODI tournaments (outside the world cup).

Actualy no alot of people do care, like me

 

[silentstriker]

Actualy no alot of people do care, like me

OK, most people do not care about ODI and ODI results outside of the world cup. Plus we all know England are trash in the shorter form of the game. But I would trade away our ODI team for the English test team any day of the week. If we are as dominant as Australia in tests, then I wouldn't give a rats *** if we go 0-100 in ODI matches.

 

[steds]

Test cricket >>>>>>>>>> ODI cricket

 

[Turbinator]

OK, most people do not care about ODI and ODI results outside of the world cup. Plus we all know England are trash in the shorter form of the game. But I would trade away our ODI team for the English test team any day of the week. If we are as dominant as Australia in tests, then I wouldn't give a rats *** if we go 0-100 in ODI matches.

YOu're out of your mind, first most people do care about ODIs and ODIs only and secondly dont trade away anythign for any of england's teams........they are crap.

 

[silentstriker]

YOu're out of your mind, first most people do care about ODIs and ODIs only and secondly dont trade away anythign for any of england's teams........they are crap.

It wouldn't be a trade. It would be a steal for us. Absolute steal. Just that bowling attack alone would be worth our entire lineup. I'm sure we could find decent batsman from the domestic structure...but that bowling is what would win us many series.

 

[Turbinator]

It wouldn't be a trade. It would be a steal for us. Absolute steal. Just that bowling attack alone would be worth our entire lineup. I'm sure we could find decent batsman from the domestic structure...but that bowling is what would win us many series.

Dude either ur out of ur mind or u hate the indian team alot.................i mean ur statements dont make sense..........

 

[silentstriker]

Dude either ur out of ur mind or u hate the indian team alot.................i mean ur statements dont make sense..........

What doesn't make sense? Outside of the world cup, I don't care if we go 0-100. But I care about winning every test series (especially the away ones).

 

[Arjun]

Frankly, no team in action now can dominate the game for a long time. We're talking of competition for positions 2 and 3, but even the Number 1 team will be debatable in a year or two.

Australia: The stalwarts are getting old, or maybe retiring. Most of the reserves are not up to the mark. This team own't be the dominating unit of the late 90's or early 2000's, but still competitive.

England: One-series wonders, maybe? One-man team? Probably. We've seen how they fall apart when their key players (Flintoff, Harmison, Trescothick) are either absent or not performing. In Tests, it all depends on their fitness, but we've seen them win the Ashes at home and lose a Test series against Pakistan shortly afterwards.

India: This is a team that's doing well, but one slip-up often results in massive steps backwards. Not the kind of team that can dominate. The talent is there, but they're not taking enough risks, and not backing themselves enough.

New Zealand: They have the work-ethic, the team spirit as well as the strategy to win matches and even tournaments, but to dominate will take a lot more. Raw talent is needed, and not just in one or two in eleven. And all have to stay fit for a long time.

Pakistan: If this team is more consistent, they can dominate the game.

South Africa: Refer New Zealand. This team has more talent and a lot more power, but execution has been missing.

Sri Lanka: If this team can dominate, it will be a miracle.

West Indies: Likewise.

 

[silentstriker]

Australia: The stalwarts are getting old, or maybe retiring. Most of the reserves are not up to the mark. This team own't be the dominating unit of the late 90's or early 2000's, but still competitive.

Maybe, there are some good ones coming up though. We will see. Though I agree that they won't dominate as they have been in the last ten years.

England: One-series wonders, maybe? One-man team? Probably. We've seen how they fall apart when their key players (Flintoff, Harmison, Trescothick) are either absent or not performing. In Tests, it all depends on their fitness, but we've seen them win the Ashes at home and lose a Test series against Pakistan shortly afterwards.

People seem to forget the 18 months preceeding the 2005 Ashes. England have been a very good team for a while now. I don't know about dominant, that remains to be seen...but they certainly have a very good chance to be excellent in the next three to five years. Assuming Flintoff stays healthy and some of the bowling replacements are up to the mark.

India: This is a team that's doing well, but one slip-up often results in massive steps backwards. Not the kind of team that can dominate. The talent is there, but they're not taking enough risks, and not backing themselves enough.

I don't believe the talent is there. It is there in batting, but we are lacking in that department when it comes to bowling.

New Zealand: They have the work-ethic, the team spirit as well as the strategy to win matches and even tournaments, but to dominate will take a lot more. Raw talent is needed, and not just in one or two in eleven. And all have to stay fit for a long time.

Agree.

Pakistan: If this team is more consistent, they can dominate the game.

Maybe. They've traditionally been the best overseas performers out of the entire subcontinent, so if I had to place a bet on who would be the best team from the subcontinent, thats where it would be. Inzy will be going soon, but they've got some good young bowlers with potential coming up, so we'll see. I don't see dominance from them, but like England, they can be very good.

South Africa: Refer New Zealand. This team has more talent and a lot more power, but execution has been missing.

Perhaps. They need to get over their subcontinental-woes. They do have good batting and good bowling - and thats a good start. Someone to keep an eye on, I would say right after England and Pakistan...SA are the best chance for the #1 title.

My ranking in terms of the best chance to be dominant within the next 10 years if Australia falter:

1) England
2) Pakistan

---Daylight---

3) South Africa

--More Daylight----
4) India/Sri Lanka/West Indies/New Zealand


This is assuming Australia falter, which is far from given. It is also possible that they falter for a couple years, and then become great again. They certainly have good domestic structure, and thats a start.

England and Australia will become dominant because of their domestic structure, Pakistan/India/SL would become dominant in spite of it. Forget the millions dollars paid out at the highest level - subcontinent needs good structure from the gound up.

 

[steds]

England: One-series wonders, maybe? One-man team? Probably. We've seen how they fall apart when their key players (Flintoff, Harmison, Trescothick) are either absent or not performing.

That's the same for any team. Look how Australia did when McGrath was injured in the Ashes or how Pakistan without Shoaib and Asif have just done. They're called key players for a reason.

 

[Gajanayake]

India do not have a good bowling attack. They don't even have a mediocre bowling attack. They have the worst bowling attack of any major test playing nation. They are horrible. Absolutely horrible. West Indies are easily better. So are Pakistan, Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand and Sri Lanka.

Australia, Pakistan and England, YES

South Africa - possibly.

West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, - NO.


Come off it, if the West Indies attack was so "easily better" how come they couldn''t win a test at home against India.
BOnd is probably the only world class bowler the Kiwis have and he's often injured as well.
If NZL had a much better attack than INdia, they would have won more overseas tests in the last five years than India and they haven't.
As for Sri Lanka, again no way - the SRi Lankan attack is still too dependent on Murali. The Indians also bank a lot of Kumble but I don't think their dependence is as great as Lanka's.

 

[silentstriker]

BOnd is probably the only world class bowler the Kiwis have and he's often injured as well.
If NZL had a much better attack than INdia, they would have won more overseas tests in the last five years than India and they haven't.

ThHats because their batting tends to be rubbish. Bowling is more important, but you do need SOME batting. Its hard for a NZ batsman to average 40...almost as hard as it is for indian bowlers to average 25.

As for Sri Lanka, again no way - the SRi Lankan attack is still too dependent on Murali. The Indians also bank a lot of Kumble but I don't think their dependence is as great as Lanka's.

Yea, well dependance or not, while he is playing, they are better. Once he retires, we will see. And BTW, if you are talking about a single game, I would have Vaas over any one of our pacers (he's older now, so obviously I wouldn't repalce them with him but for one game, he is vastly superior).

And as for West Indies, they haven't been doing well in any of the departments but their bowling is still slightly better than ours.

 

[Sir Redman]

Australia, Pakistan and England, YES

South Africa - possibly.

West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, - NO.


Come off it, if the West Indies attack was so "easily better" how come they couldn''t win a test at home against India.
BOnd is probably the only world class bowler the Kiwis have and he's often injured as well.
If NZL had a much better attack than INdia, they would have won more overseas tests in the last five years than India and they haven't.
As for Sri Lanka, again no way - the SRi Lankan attack is still too dependent on Murali. The Indians also bank a lot of Kumble but I don't think their dependence is as great as Lanka's.

The reason we lose tests is because of our second-innings batting. Over the last few years our average first-innings score is around 420, while our average second innings score is only about 190.

As for our bowling attack - I'm a bit biased but I think our full-strength bowling lineup isn't too bad. This is a purely theoretical exercise because a) we never play any tests; and b) we never have a full-strength team; but an attack of Bond - Franklin - Martin/Tuffey - Oram - Vettori, with backup from Styris and Astle, is pretty reasonable IMO. India only edge us in the spin department really.

 

[silentstriker]

As for our bowling attack - I'm a bit biased but I think our full-strength bowling lineup isn't too bad. This is a purely theoretical exercise because a) we never play any tests; and b) we never have a full-strength team; but an attack of Bond - Franklin - Martin/Tuffey - Oram - Vettori, with backup from Styris and Astle, is pretty reasonable IMO. India only edge us in the spin department really.

Yup. I'd easily take that pace attack over ours.

 

[Gajanayake]

ThHats because their batting tends to be rubbish. Bowling is more important, but you do need SOME batting. Its hard for a NZ batsman to average 40...almost as hard as it is for indian bowlers to average 25.




And as for West Indies, they haven't been doing well in any of the departments but their bowling is still slightly better than ours.

How so - the results certainly don't show that ? Now they've gone from being "easily better" to "slightly better" ?
INdia's bowling attack came a lot closer to taking 20 wickets than the Windies did in the series eralier this year and WI were on home turf as well.

 

[Gajanayake]

The reason we lose tests is because of our second-innings batting. Over the last few years our average first-innings score is around 420, while our average second innings score is only about 190.

As for our bowling attack - I'm a bit biased but I think our full-strength bowling lineup isn't too bad. This is a purely theoretical exercise because a) we never play any tests; and b) we never have a full-strength team; but an attack of Bond - Franklin - Martin/Tuffey - Oram - Vettori, with backup from Styris and Astle, is pretty reasonable IMO. India only edge us in the spin department really.

I think India hold a pretty decisive advantage in the spin dept to be honest. You're gonna win a fair few games with Kumble and Harbhajan around.

Tha pace attacks IMo are probably 50-50 atm.

 

[Turbinator]

Silentstriker wuts wrong with u........why are u so against India for.......i mean everyone here thinks India has talent except u...........face it they do haf talent............and yes i agree our pace attack isnt that great but its far better than NZland or west indies and also better than england i believe so...................gaygenjajflkjjfd;ajldalkghfd;ljk or wutever ur name is ( mind me i forgot to look at ur name bef4 starting this post and i am now to lazy to ) i agree with u my man!!!

And silentstriker India does haf talent in bowling its jus we're goign thru a team rebuilding proccess and they are raw bowlers.

And why do we even compare oruselves to teams liek NZLAND plz for God sake lets not compare ourselves to mediocre teams liek ENgland, West indies, and NZland ....i know many of u will start to differ on this point but w/e.

 

[silentstriker]

And silentstriker India does haf talent in bowling its jus we're goign thru a team rebuilding proccess and they are raw bowlers.

Talk to me when they are not 'raw' anymore. Thats what they said about Zaheer Khan and Ajit Agarkar and a whole lot of other indian bowlers over the years.