How long will England be no.1 for?

[GIMH]

Ahh I like where this is going. I'll be sure to use the same logic (ie. that performing poorly throughout the 2011 Indian Test tour of England means you're a big fat dud) next time I rate some of CricketWeb's other favourite players.

Ah this is brilliant

 

[Uppercut]

Would imagine it's partly dependent on the 4th test.

As to the question in hand, it's too early to say. England are #1, yes and have earned the right to be considered just about the best test side as of now, but we haven't actually beaten SA since 2004/05 nor won a (non-Bangladesh) series on the subcontinent since 00/01.

I think we'll be better placed to given an answer this time next year.

Careful Brumby, don't want to get splinters in your arse.

 

[Burgey]

A week and a half.

 

[Jarquis]

Uppercut > you

 

[GotSpin]

No they wouldn't tbh.
The Australian dominant team were never clear favorites in India IIRC. India have lost 2 series in India since 1990 IIRC and both were affected for different reasons.

Get your head out of the sand. Bhaji was actually a reasonable spinner back in 2001. Him and Beer are now competing for the steaming pile of dog poo award. Indian bowling is **** when your best mate has his hammy and various other body parts strung together with sticky tape. It's a completely different ball game now and comparing touring India in the early 2000s to now is laughable. Not to say it'll be piss easy for England but the SC is not some magical land where cricket is played backwards or something

England have a longer batting line up and arguably better line up that doesn't rely on residents from the retirement village, a better spinner - whether you rate him or not, it doesn't matter, and bowling depth that the IPL devil tiger chargers or whatever they're called would kill for. And I'm sorry but upcoming bats like Raina and Mukund or whatever he's called are embarrassing to watch when the ball bounces above a dwarfs dick

 

[howardj]

For quite some time, chiefly for four reasons.

First, they are a good side who pride themselves on the basics.

Two, they have clear-headed leadership.

Three, they are relatively young.

Four, they are one of the few countries for whom Test cricket is a priority.

 

[Burgey]

Get your head out of the sand. Bhaji was actually a reasonable spinner back in 2001. Him and Beer are now competing for the steaming pile of dog poo award. Indian bowling is **** when your best mate has his hammy and various other body parts strung together with sticky tape. It's a completely different ball game now and comparing touring India in the early 2000s to now is laughable. Not to say it'll be piss easy for England but the SC is not some magical land where cricket is played backwards or something

England have a longer batting line up and arguably better line up that doesn't rely on residents from the retirement village, a better spinner - whether you rate him or not, it doesn't matter, and bowling depth that the IPL devil tiger chargers or whatever they're called would kill for. And I'm sorry but upcoming bats like Raina and Mukund or whatever he's called are embarrassing to watch when the ball bounces above a dwarfs dick

But unless you win in India, that's it, you're nothing.

Other countries play in the subcontinent more now. It's not as alien as it used to be. That doesn't mean those other teams automatically win, especially as India have had a very good side for a while now.

But to make out, as some people do, that it's some mysterious graveyard is a tad odd, given there is another continent further South which a lot less Test playing countries have ever won in, but apparently that doesn't matter so much.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Looking back, the warning signs for India should have been there when they went within a whisker of drawing a home series against Australia late last year. When Australia then went on to cop a hiding from England, the signs for India weren't looking too flash.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Actually I'm quite enjoying seeing England being so under-rated, the bookies are tending to agree - £200 on Trent Bridge, £150 on Edgbaston and the odds for the Oval are longer than either of the previous 2!

Really? Prices on Betfair are normally pretty in line with what the bookies offer and England are substantially shorter this time, to the point where I hesitated about putting any money on, though I still have.

No they wouldn't tbh.
The Australian dominant team were never clear favorites in India IIRC. India have lost 2 series in India since 1990 IIRC and both were affected for different reasons.

They lost two series in 98 and 01, wasn't old enough to know/remember the odds but I'd be very very surprised if they weren't clear favourites both times.

 

[TT Boy]

Winning in the subcontinent is easier than its been for the past 30 years. Whether or not you think England's bowlers might not be very effective in the subcontinent, there is no denying the fact that for the first time in a very very long time there is not one great spinner in any of the subcontinental sides. In fact with the exception of Ajmal and Harbhajan, there are few that could even put their hands up as being conclusively test class. And its not like the pace attacks for any of the subcontinental sides are particularly threatening either.

Fact of the matter is that the most likely result in any subcontinental test match is the draw. So lets not get carried away with the idea that a team like England have no hope in the subcontinent, especially when they have arguably the best spinner in the world turning out for them.

And not losing in the subcontinent is even easier, especially in India as the format they follow is to prepare complete and utter roads with that tactic only being altered unless somehow they lose on aforementioned road and then the real lively or how the ICC describe it - underprepared wicket is unleashed.

Though now that India are not number 1 anymore, hopefully we will see some result/bowler friendly conditions. Their bowlers sure could do with the average decrease as well and its not like their top order (Laxman and number 6 aside) can't absorb a few lean series.

 

[Bun]

And not losing in the subcontinent is even easier, especially in India as the format they follow is to prepare complete and utter roads with that tactic only being altered unless somehow they lose on aforementioned road and then the real lively or how the ICC describe it - underprepared wicket is unleashed.

Though now that India are not number 1 anymore, hopefully we will see some result/bowler friendly conditions. Their bowlers sure could do with the average decrease as well and its not like their top order (Laxman and number 6 aside) can't absorb a few lean series.

Which is that road you are talking about? Where we lost?

 

[TT Boy]

Shame you was banned. Seems rather unnecessary, what with India getting spanked as well.

Anyhow, this wicket was a road until Steyn started reversing it a mile...

1st Test: India v South Africa at Nagpur, Feb 6-9, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[marc71178]

Really? Prices on Betfair are normally pretty in line with what the bookies offer and England are substantially shorter this time, to the point where I hesitated about putting any money on, though I still have.

Yeah, using Paddy Power as that's who I bet with and CBA to have several accounts, 2nd Test was 10/11, 3rd Test 6/5, 4th Test is now 7/4 (although that has lengthened from 5/4 last night due to the weather forecast, was 5/4 last night)

 

[Cevno]

Get your head out of the sand. Bhaji was actually a reasonable spinner back in 2001. Him and Beer are now competing for the steaming pile of dog poo award. Indian bowling is **** when your best mate has his hammy and various other body parts strung together with sticky tape. It's a completely different ball game now and comparing touring India in the early 2000s to now is laughable. Not to say it'll be piss easy for England but the SC is not some magical land where cricket is played backwards or something

Harbhajan has always been average of 10 better at home than Away and still probably is so there you go. Recently he in his poor form won the match against South Africa the last time they toured. The other spinners including Ojha,Mishra get a lot more effective too.
Plus added to that Ishant is a much better bowler in India and then if we have Zaheer he is extremely effective there and even if we don't he is not as important here as he is on away tours in SA OR England.

England have a longer batting line up and arguably better line up that doesn't rely on residents from the retirement village, a better spinner - whether you rate him or not, it doesn't matter, and bowling depth that the IPL devil tiger chargers or whatever they're called would kill for. And I'm sorry but upcoming bats like Raina and Mukund or whatever he's called are embarrassing to watch when the ball bounces above a dwarfs dick

The last part is of being embarrasing to watch when the ball bounces above whatever length is irrelevant as the pitches are slower and less bouncy in India FFS!! Way to miss the point. Vijay scored a 150 against Australia in India the last time and then looked clueless in SA and West Indies. Raina was superb in Srilanka and a dead duck in SA.

Yes, Swann is more proven and in better form than any Indian spinner but also remember Indian players are better players of Spin than anyone and have dealt previously with the likes of Warne and Murali or turners pretty well while the English struggled against them in England. Plus then he didn't do too well last time too and none of English seamers are proven in India too much.

I am not saying that having lost just 2 series since (that too affected by different politics) 1990 makes India likely to be big winners but to say that England will be clear favorites is a overreaction.

 

[Cevno]

Shame you was banned. Seems rather unnecessary, what with India getting spanked as well.

Anyhow, this wicket was a road until Steyn started reversing it a mile...

1st Test: India v South Africa at Nagpur, Feb 6-9, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Good luck to you if you start calling pitches where the match ends on day 4 roads.

And the underprepared pitch argument is complete bollocks. Spinners are as much part of the game as the pacers. To go and cry to the Match referee about spinning tracks is ludicrious and childish.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Is it not true that England could lose number 1 status before they even play another test match if South Africa get clean sweeps in all their series?

All this talk of England losing it quickly doesn't bother me at all, with the depth we have and the strong team we will be in the top 3 for a long time, other sides may take top spot at times but that may be better for the sport as realistically you don't want anyone as dominant as Australia and West Indies were as it does get a bit boring. England may be that good, only time will tell but i can't see India regaining number 1 for a bit as they lack the bowlers to win against good sides away from home.

 

[centurymaker]

Good luck to you if you start calling pitches where the match ends on day 4 roads.

And the underprepared pitch argument is complete bollocks. Spinners are as much part of the game as the pacers. To go and cry to the Match referee about spinning tracks is ludicrious and childish.

if you are going to cry about those sort of tracks then don't complain when india prepare roads test after test. it's because of those complaints that india have basically stopped preparing bowling wickets these days.

 

[Flem274*]

England staying number one depends entirely on how their batting stocks fare. They seem to have a million bowlers, but when Eoin Morgan is in your percieved first eleven your boat isn't quite built. I understand there are some gun young guys like James Taylor and co. but we'll have to wait and see on those guys at test level. Taylor must be close surely? How long can Bopara be first reserve before they realize he's not up to it?

On India, they are a bit ****ed tbh. I gave them the benefit of the doubt when they almost drew with us at home but were saved by our usual batting choke in the third test. What were the media calling that series again? Misson Total Annihilation or something?

But after this series, with Zaheer in the twilight of his career, India need replacement bowlers and they need them yesterday.

 

[honestbharani]

I think they are good enough to be #1 for between 2 to 5 years at least. Not sure about longer as it is harder to predict.. I don't think they will as dominant as the Windies or the Aussies before them but with that quality pace attack, I think they will do well enough to be the clear, albeit not exactly a dominant, number one for the next 5 years.

 

[Ruckus]

Reckon England's current ranking is largely to due to all of their players hitting top form at the same time. Personally I think the level they are playing at will drop somewhat, and/or other sides will lift their games, and the top sides will continue to rotate around the no. 1 slot. Don't think any side really has the star power to be a dominant no. 1 (say, 5 years or more) at this stage. That being said, I still expect England to be right up there for a long time to come.

 

[tooextracool]

I've long felt that the English county system is head and shoulders above all others in the world. I know people have been critical of it in the past, but no other FC system has the same number of quality international players turning out every season. And almost all of these cricketers have said that the county system is the most professional and best structured system out there. Players are better compensated, the quality of resources has been good and English pitches arguably offer more for all bowlers (spinners and pacers alike) and more testing conditions for batters than most other countries. When you think about it, in a country that places as much emphasis on test cricket as England do and have done for over a century its actually a surprise that its taken this long for them to be a top test team.