How Would You Rank The Teams?

[Sanz]

What is Pakistan doing above England India etc, their home wins over India and England dont count for much if they cant be consistent. As I had predicted, they are struggling against a half Strength Sri Lankan Side.

 

[Unattainableguy]

As opposed to England's batting problems? Or New Zealand's cricket problems?

Whatever, I am officially giving up on this thread. I suppose I can't convince anyone with stats, so I won't try.

PS: NZ ahead of SA and India in tests? Thats a first.

I must admit maybe I should have ranked SA ahead of NZ, but SA have lost the series to India and Australia(away and home). Atleast I would have backed NZ to win one of the series or atleast draw.

Now about NZ ranked ahead of India: Again unless India find some decent bowlers, they will struggle to win test matches against good teams. Munaf Patel, Sreesanth, they all look promising, but it remains to be seen if they can secure their place in the side.

 

[Unattainableguy]

What is Pakistan doing above England India etc, their home wins over India and England dont count for much if they cant be consistent. As I had predicted, they are struggling against a half Strength Sri Lankan Side.

What inconsitency? After their tour of Australia, they drew against West Indies( yes, they should have won), drew against India after being 1 down, beat India 1-0, beat England 2-0. India, on the other hand, with so much media hype about beating England 3-0, struggled against the same England side even though more England players were unavailable, and let's not forget they didn't have a decent spinner to take advantage of the conditions whereas India had 2.

And I don't know why Pakistan are struggling as the likelyhood of this match having any result is not great. Let's not forget if Sri Lanka are missing their key players, so is Pakistan. They don't have Shoaib, Rana( who just went back), and Mohammad Yousif( because of an injury).

 

[silentstriker]

I must admit maybe I should have ranked SA ahead of NZ, but SA have lost the series to India and Australia(away and home). Atleast I would have backed NZ to win one of the series or atleast draw.

Now about NZ ranked ahead of India: Again unless India find some decent bowlers, they will struggle to win test matches against good teams. Munaf Patel, Sreesanth, they all look promising, but it remains to be seen if they can secure their place in the side.

So, how do you explain their superior test match record, as well as superior test series record?

 

[sirjeremy11]

I don't think the ICC ratings are completely fair, but I think it is the fairest going around at the moment.

Agreed. Exactly the same way I see Duckworth Lewis. And Daniel Vettori's place in the NZ team.

 

[Sanz]

What inconsitency? After their tour of Australia, they drew against West Indies( yes, they should have won), drew against India after being 1 down, beat India 1-0, beat England 2-0. India, on the other hand, with so much media hype about beating England 3-0, struggled against the same England side even though more England players were unavailable, and let's not forget they didn't have a decent spinner to take advantage of the conditions whereas India had 2.

So that's two series wins both @ home. How is it called consistency ? Check out England's record in last few years before comparing it. Yes England lost to Pak, so what they still drew with India in India. India haven't lost a series @ home in last few years except one, have drawn with Aus, Eng, won in Pak. true they lost in Pak and that's why they are in no. 3 behind England.

And I don't know why Pakistan are struggling as the likelyhood of this match having any result is not great. Let's not forget if Sri Lanka are missing their key players, so is Pakistan. They don't have Shoaib, Rana( who just went back), and Mohammad Yousif( because of an injury).

Except Shoaib none are as critical as Attapattu, Vaas.

 

[Sanz]

I must admit maybe I should have ranked SA ahead of NZ, but SA have lost the series to India and Australia(away and home). Atleast I would have backed NZ to win one of the series or atleast draw.

Now about NZ ranked ahead of India: Again unless India find some decent bowlers, they will struggle to win test matches against good teams. Munaf Patel, Sreesanth, they all look promising, but it remains to be seen if they can secure their place in the side.

Why this generosity, put us behind Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as well.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Why this generosity, put us behind Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as well.

Don't forget Kenya

 

[Scaly piscine]

Even assuming losses on both of them, the Indian record would be:

3-3-1

Still better than SA. But then, if you say Australia and England were understrength and thus a tie wasn't good...then surely the WI wins don't count either, because they are barely better than the minnows (and WI are worse than understrength England or Australia)? So, then it would be 0-5-1 for SA.

So now you are saying a 3-3-1 team is worse than an 0-5-1.

God this is such an appalling argument that it's pointless addressing any of it directly. If SA had played India at home SA would have won. If SA had played SL at home they'd have won. The only differences in favour of India are that they won in Pakistan, it's doubtful whether SA could match that, but it is also a doubt that India could draw in NZ or win in WI. If SA had been lucky to face teams with massively influencial injuries like India did (against England and Australia) SA would have likely emulated India's draws against those teams - they might well have even won and they'd have had the improved rating to go with it.

Basically what I'm saying is if SA and India played one series home and away against every other team tomorrow SA would win or draw more series than India (only marginally mind).

 

[Unattainableguy]

So that's two series wins both @ home. How is it called consistency ? Check out England's record in last few years before comparing it. Yes England lost to Pak, so what they still drew with India in India. India haven't lost a series @ home in last few years except one, have drawn with Aus, Eng, won in Pak. true they lost in Pak and that's why they are in no. 3 behind England.

They won against Pakistan in 2004, that's 2 years back when Pakistan had all sorts of batting problems, and the bowlers didn't do as well as they could have in that series. Other than that, India's only series wins have come from beating SA and Sri Lanka( who have been awful to say the least)

And how is India a better side than Pakistan at the moment when they only managed a draw against a depleted England side whereas Pakistan beat the same team 2-0?

 

[Dasa]

Why do some people have such a problem with India?

 

[Unattainableguy]

Why do some people have such a problem with India?

I don't have any problem with India.

 

[Sanz]

They won against Pakistan in 2004, that's 2 years back when Pakistan had all sorts of batting problems, and the bowlers didn't do well as they could have in that series. Other than that, India's only series wins have come from beating SA and Sri Lanka( who have been awful to say the least)

So in 2004 Pakistan were struggling batting wise, it has only been a year and half since their batting has performed, mostly at home. I will give them some time before declaring themselves as No. 2. And yest SL are aweful and Pakistan is still struggling. That's why I asked that you should wait before declaring yourself as NO. 2 and India as no. 8

And how is India a better side than Pakistan at the moment when they only managed a draw against a depleted England side whereas Pakistan beat the same team 2-0?

Check out the ICC TEST RANKINGS. Yes Pak won against England and England drew against India, doesn't mean that Pak are better than India. They have to show their consistency over a period of time at home and away to be considered better.

 

[jadeey]

Or New Zealand's cricket problems?

Ouch

 

[Unattainableguy]

So in 2004 Pakistan were struggling batting wise, it has only been a year and half since their batting has performed, mostly at home. I will give them some time before declaring themselves as No. 2. And yest SL are aweful and Pakistan is still struggling. That's why I asked that you should wait before declaring yourself as NO. 2 and India as no. 8


Check out the ICC TEST RANKINGS. Yes Pak won against England and England drew against India, doesn't mean that Pak are better than India. They have to show their consistency over a period of time at home and away to be considered better.

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.

 

[kvemuri]

Don't forget Kenya

I don't think Kenya play test cricket yet, otherwise the ranking system here would've put us behind them too

 

[silentstriker]

Ouch

Haha, sorry . I couldn't resist.

 

[silentstriker]

God this is such an appalling argument that it's pointless addressing any of it directly. If SA had played India at home SA would have won. If SA had played SL at home they'd have won. The only differences in favour of India are that they won in Pakistan, it's doubtful whether SA could match that, but it is also a doubt that India could draw in NZ or win in WI. If SA had been lucky to face teams with massively influencial injuries like India did (against England and Australia) SA would have likely emulated India's draws against those teams - they might well have even won and they'd have had the improved rating to go with it.

Basically what I'm saying is if SA and India played one series home and away against every other team tomorrow SA would win or draw more series than India (only marginally mind).

Woulda Coulda Shouda. The fact is that India did (draw series), while SA didn't. Its not India's fault that English had so many injuries.

You can't rank teams on what you think will happen if they played each other, you have to go on what actually happened.

Well, since this is your personal list, I suppose you could...but I find that kind of pointless.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Why do some people have such a problem with India?

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.

 

[sirjeremy11]

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 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.