How long will England be no.1 for?

[Howe_zat]

Thoughts?

 

[four_or_six]

I'm hoping at least until the end of the Ashes double-header in 2013/14. That would be pretty cool, and mean that we've performed well in India, against South Africa, and also in the Ashes.

 

[Uppercut]

Ages. They're much better than anyone else, they have serious depth and their team's going to be together for a long time yet.

If South Africa get their act together they might be in with a chance of overturning it next summer, but even then I think they might have had a few too many poor results lately.

 

[Bun]

going to screw it up soon

 

[weldone]

Till they have a series here in India, I think.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Difficult to say. A lot depends on how the other teams shape up. At a guess, what weldone said.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think losing in India will be enough to lose them number one by the time that happens. Unless they balls up badly in Dubai or at home to South Africa.

 

[Himannv]

They're strong but not that strong. I doubt they would really dominate as much in the subcontinent and I think South Africa away might be challenging as well. Will give it sometime between 8 months and 2 years.

 

[GIMH]

If we maintain our current levels between now and that India series, defeat there would be unlikely to displace us anyway.

As things stand, India aren't good enough to beat us anywhere, so I'm not too fussed anyway. Saffa, and a bit later Australia will be the main challengers, IMO, although Australia have a lot of work to do and that's based off nothing more than a gut feeling.

The answer, however, is forever.

 

[centurymaker]

if southafrica manage to beat aus, they'll be taking the no.1 position soon after.

 

[marc71178]

I think it's if SA win all 5 home games then they would take over before England play again.

 

[GIMH]

Given Saffa's recent home record, it doesn't seem too likely

 

[Jayzamann]

Longer than India. Between 2 and 5 years.

 

[Turbinator]

They don't stand a chance in the subcontinent.

 

[GIMH]

Weaker England sides this one won in the subcontinent in 00-01 (Sri Lanka and Pakistan), and tied a series there in 06 (a side featuring Ian Bell opening, Shaun Udal, lol). Anyone would think there are different rules there the way some of you go on.

Last time out in India, we were beaten 1-0 by a very special performance from the India batsmen. But we were certainly not out of our depth. Given that was the Moores era with Pietersen as skipper, it's safe to say we are a LOT better now. It's laughable how our chances there are written off.

 

[Uppercut]

England somehow still underrated, it would appear. They have the best pace attack, the best spinner, the most depth, the best coach, the longest batting lineup, the best fielding unit and they score more runs than anyone else. They're not set to lose any key players for a few years yet, and they seem a lot more interested in being number one than anyone else does.

Will the general opinion of England please catch up with the realistic standard of their team so I can stop betraying my roots by sticking up for them all the time?

 

[Bun]

They don't stand a chance in the subcontinent.

this.

 

[Bun]

England somehow still underrated, it would appear. They have the best pace attack, the best spinner, the most depth, the best coach, the longest batting lineup, the best fielding unit and they score more runs than anyone else. They're not set to lose any key players for a few years yet, and they seem a lot more interested in being number one than anyone else does.

Will the general opinion of England please catch up with the realistic standard of their team so I can stop betraying my roots by sticking up for them all the time?

best spinner? that's totally misleading.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, it is a bit. If by "misleading" you mean "an indisputable fact".

 

[GIMH]