How Would You Rank The Teams?

[kvemuri]

I knew something like this would happen. Do you think I opened up my thread to see the same lists over and over again?

And they achieve at home, just not away.

Sounds exactly like what the NZLanders do, same as the Sri Lankans do and more than half of the current test playing nations do, except a team named Australia.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Sounds exactly like what the NZLanders do, same as the Sri Lankans do and more than half of the current test playing nations do, except a team named Australia.

Oh yes, I know that.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Do you think I opened up my thread to see the same lists over and over again?

You are very, very sneaky sir

And they achieve at home, just not away.

I'm sure they do. I'm not really offering a personal view of India, rather trying to answer another question about what people have against them.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I'm sure they do. I'm not really offering a personal view of India, rather trying to answer another question about what people have against them.

Certainly. As has been pointed out here, Australia are winners - home and away. England are starting to do it. But no one else consistently wins away. So it is up to peoples personal opinions as to how they rank the teams. That is what I find interesting. Also, I'm a bit of a **** stirrer

 

[Dick Rockett]

I'm a bit of a **** stirrer

Yes, you are

Mind you, it doesn't take much effort to aggravate some people on here. The one who leaps to mind first has been strangely absent the last couple of days.

 

[Sanz]

I'd say ever since Bob Woolmer has taken over as a coach, Pakistan's batting has been good. Maybe it's not clear as to which team is 2nd best out of India, England and Pakistan, but based on recent results, I won't hesitate in claiming Pakistan are the 2nd best at the moment. Had England won or atleast drawn against Pakistan, I would have put them ahead. Similarly if India had a few decent pacers, then your claim that India are better than Pakistan might make sense as well.

I think you are just confused, couple of posts earlier you put India on no. 6 and you are saying that you cant decide among India, Pak and England , who is no. 3 .And about Pakistan bowling, well without Akhtar it is as good/bad as Indian bowling.

And obviously you can claim anything, one cant stop you, enjoy the stay @ no. 2

 

[silentstriker]

Probably because most people see India as a team of underachieving megastars, and because their fans don't see things the same way. Arguments ensue.

I am probably one of the most jingoistic Indian fans on here, and I completly agree that India are a team of underachieving megastars.

However, they are still not worse than NZ/SA

 

[Unattainableguy]

I think you are just confused, couple of posts earlier you put India on no. 6 and you are saying that you cant decide among India, Pak and England , who is no. 3 .And about Pakistan bowling, well without Akhtar it is as good/bad as Indian bowling.

And obviously you can claim anything, one cant stop you, enjoy the stay @ no. 2

I put India at # 6, and you came out saying India are a better team than Pakistan because Pakistan haven't been consistent enough. I made my claim based on their recent success( and it has come because they have been consistent)but obviously, it'll take a long time before you are convinced.

And please, stop this claim that without Akhtar, Pakistan's bowling is as bad as India's. Without Warne and McGrath, Australia's bowling is just as bad. Take a main bowler of any team out, and their bowling will not be any special. Just one good bowler makes quite a lot of difference, and the fact most teams have atleast one very good bowler is why I rank them ahead of India in tests.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I am probably one of the most jingoistic Indian fans on here, and I completly agree that India are a team of underachieving megastars.

However, they are still not worse than NZ/SA

I'd agree that at the moment, they are above both those sides. However, I think it takes more than a couple of successful series to really single out a team as being particularly good.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Funny, in tests I rate India and Sth Africa above NZ, and I live here!

 

[Sanz]

I put India at # 6, and you came out saying India are a better team than Pakistan because Pakistan haven't been consistent enough. I made my claim based on their recent success( and it has come because they have been consistent)but obviously, it'll take a long time before you are convinced.

Yes because 6 is ridiculous, check the rankings. We might slip 6 if start losing consistently, but right now, we are not. Rankings aren't decided after winning 2 series. Lastly you dont need to convince me, I would have been convinced had pakistan played better in WI and/or Sri Lanka.

And please, stop this claim that without Akhtar, Pakistan's bowling is as bad as India's. Without Warne and McGrath, Australia's bowling is just as bad. Take a main bowler of any team out, and their bowling will not be any special. Just one good bowler makes quite a lot of difference, and the fact most teams have atleast one very good bowler is why I rank them ahead of India in tests.

Warne and Mcgrath are two bowlers, Mcgrath is out in the current series and I dont think it has affected Australia a bit, besides there is Lee as well. They have 3 main bowlers and once all 3 are gone at the same time yes they would bad but that is 3 bowlers vs. 1 injury prone bowler. How many series has shoaib missed since Bobby woolmer has come - 3 ? I never denied that the one bowler makes the difference, it sure does pal, especially if it is someone like Akhtar, but he misses tests/series dut to injury more than any other bowler, like the current tour of SL, that last tour of India.

 

[Unattainableguy]

Yes because 6 is ridiculous, check the rankings. We might slip 6 if start losing consistently, but right now, we are not. Rankings aren't decided after winning 2 series. Lastly you dont need to convince me, I would have been convinced had pakistan played better in WI and/or Sri Lanka.

I know rankings are not decided after a few series, but still recent few series give you a better idea of where teams stand than let's say series in 2004(where India beat Pakistan). I ranked teams based on how good players a team has plus its recent series results. So if India had won against England, I would have put them at number 4. And regardless of the series result, I would have put them at number 4 if they had one fast bowler who was consistently taking wickets.

Warne and Mcgrath are two bowlers, Mcgrath is out in the current series and I dont think it has affected Australia a bit, besides there is Lee as well. They have 3 main bowlers and once all 3 are gone at the same time yes they would bad but that is 3 bowlers vs. 1 injury prone bowler. How many series has shoaib missed since Bobby woolmer has come - 3 ? I never denied that the one bowler makes the difference, it sure does pal, especially if it is someone like Akhtar, but he misses tests/series dut to injury more than any other bowler, like the current tour of SL, that last tour of India.

Australia have two main bowlers compared to other teams who have one, so an Australian attack without Warne and Mcgrath even with Lee in the team isn't threathning. I know Akhtar is more injury prone than other bowlers, but even without a Shoaibless Pakistan attack, bowling still looks good with Asif, Kaneria, and a few other decent bowlers.

 

[GIMH]

Silentstriker - I believe it is harder to win away from home, I am not sayng my system is accurate, I was just a little bored one day to be fair. It's not like England's away record is great, I haven't picked the system to benefit them, otherwise last year's Ashes would carry extra points!! I just did it on Excel, it came out like that, and then this thread came up so I thought I might as well post it. My personal rankings, would probably be, without too much thought:

1.Australia
2.England
3.Pakistan
4.India
5.New Zealand
6.South Africa
7.Sri Lanka
8.West Indies
9.Bangladesh

PS No India aren't punished for playing less Tests, as all scores are equated so it is as if all sides have played the same number of games

 

[amit2]

i cant understand what problem everyone has against india and giving ind so lowly ratings whereas eng r getting over-rated in these ratings with many ppl giving them a rating of no.2 just due to a lucky ashes win at home. ind, beat aus in 2001 and would have thrashed aus 4-0 in the 2004 series if a 2-year old ****** going by the name of parthiv hadnt played. eng, have done nothing besides the lucky ashes win and lost to a weakened pak team 2-0. the drawn series in ind came due to mr. defensive rahul dravid batting super-slowly. if ind had gone on attack in the 1st and 3rd test on day 5, the series would have easily been won by ind 3-0, but mr. defensive played super-slow innings preventing ind wins in both tests.

as for odis, aus r a team which cant defend 434, forget defending 250 whereas ind is a team which can easily defend 203 even when the opposition is at 117/3 after 19 overs, so rating aus above ind is a joke in odis. ind, draw the series against sa 2-2 and sa were lucky to win the 1st match but still ind made 249/9 from 35/5, something which other odi teams can only dream of.

here r my ratings -

the "parthiv patel should be banned from all forms of cricket" test ratings

1. india
2. australia
3. pakistan
4. south africa
5. new zealand
6. sri lanka
7. england
8. west indies
9. bangladesh

the "drop super-slow players from odis" odi ratings

1. india
2. south africa
3. australia
4. pakistan
5. new zealand
6. sri lanka
7. bangladesh - they have had slightly better results than windies since 2004 champions trophy having beaten even aus
8. west indies
9. england - you deserve this rating
10. kenya
11. zimbabwe
12. scotland
13. ireland
14. holland
15. canada
16. uae
17. namibia
18. bermuda

 

[chris.hinton]

what a great thread

 

[chris.hinton]

Amit what an Idiot you are mate how was England Beating the Aussies to win the Ashes Lucky......and india being number 1 you cannot beat our bare bones xi in the recent test and you lost to Pakistan as well

you are an idiot sir

 

[adharcric]

so amit2, i've noticed a in every post you've made so far.
seriously consider anger management methods.
(the scary part is that this doesn't look like a reincarnation of nehrafan, etc.) ... really, this means there are more than 1 of these species floating around

 

[adharcric]

Amit what an Idiot you are mate how was England Beating the Aussies to win the Ashes Lucky......and india being number 1 you cannot beat our bare bones xi in the recent test and you lost to Pakistan as well

you are an idiot sir

don't descend to the same level yourself by seriously responding to a post(er) like that ...

 

[James90]

i cant understand what problem everyone has against india and giving ind so lowly ratings whereas eng r getting over-rated in these ratings with many ppl giving them a rating of no.2 just due to a lucky ashes win at home. ind, beat aus in 2001 and would have thrashed aus 4-0 in the 2004 series if a 2-year old ****** going by the name of parthiv hadnt played. eng, have done nothing besides the lucky ashes win and lost to a weakened pak team 2-0. the drawn series in ind came due to mr. defensive rahul dravid batting super-slowly. if ind had gone on attack in the 1st and 3rd test on day 5, the series would have easily been won by ind 3-0, but mr. defensive played super-slow innings preventing ind wins in both tests.

as for odis, aus r a team which cant defend 434, forget defending 250 whereas ind is a team which can easily defend 203 even when the opposition is at 117/3 after 19 overs, so rating aus above ind is a joke in odis. ind, draw the series against sa 2-2 and sa were lucky to win the 1st match but still ind made 249/9 from 35/5, something which other odi teams can only dream of.

here r my ratings -

the "parthiv patel should be banned from all forms of cricket" test ratings

1. india
2. australia
3. pakistan
4. south africa
5. new zealand
6. sri lanka
7. england
8. west indies
9. bangladesh

the "drop super-slow players from odis" odi ratings

1. india
2. south africa
3. australia
4. pakistan
5. new zealand
6. sri lanka
7. bangladesh - they have had slightly better results than windies since 2004 champions trophy having beaten even aus
8. west indies
9. england - you deserve this rating
10. kenya
11. zimbabwe
12. scotland
13. ireland
14. holland
15. canada
16. uae
17. namibia
18. bermuda

AMIT!!! I missed you my friend! Got a girlfriend yet?

 

[Jono]

Amit you should get your head checked out.

So should anyone who claims NZ are a better test side than India at the moment.