Kamran Abbasi is a big idiot

[Fiery]

Quite frankly I couldn't give a flying **** about the rankings, it was much better when we had a proper Championship

Your disregard of the ICC rankings is quite stupid really Richard, and I know you're not a stupid guy. I spent 25 years at home trying to come up with a better one, but I'm quite confident that the guys with statistics degrees are right.

 

[HowsThat]

SA are quite patently a better Test side than Pak - they have finally started beating countries other than WI again, FFS.

Maybe a better OD side but certainly not a better test side, as the ranking appropriately suggest. SA defeated an very depleted Pakistan side 2-1 in test on their own backyard, hardly great achievement. Moreover SA struggled to beat India 2-1 in the test series, Indians were victims of umpiring decisions, and had Indians had better luck SA would have actually lost the series.

Bottom line is that SA are a great OD side but a very mediocre Test side.

 

[Richard]

Now hang on a second...

Its probably another team that should be in second correct, however how you can be so sure of England's standing against other teams is debatable...

I mean wow England won the last few games of the ODI series over here , so what? i find it really hard for you to be judging otehr teams so immediately when if you recall just before that good form England gained, they were getting bowled out for measely scores by both the Kiwi's and us. Furthermore

You were thumped at HOME 5-0 By Sri Lanka (quite comprehensively i might add) and if i recall correctly murali wasnt even playing in some of the ODI's!!??? And then a draw in the tests??
Psscht

anyway my point is besides Australia and South Africa its debatable when judging the other teams against each other

P.S You wanna talk about strange rankings.. why is England still second in Test matches? Boggles the mind

Err, what? Where the hell did I say England were anywhere but 8th in ODIs? You talk as if I did.

As for why are we still in 2nd place in Tests... that's probably because we performed exceptionally in 2004 and 2005.

 

[Richard]

Your disregard of the ICC rankings is quite stupid really Richard, and I know you're not a stupid guy. I spent 25 years at home trying to come up with a better one, but I'm quite confident that the guys with statistics degrees are right.

Matthew Engel came-up with a better one in 5 minutes! The old Wisden World Championship (with 1 or 2 adjustments) - count only the latest series between each team, home and away, no one-off Tests, 2 points for a series win, 1 for a draw!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that (other than that South Africa went top for a month or two - wowee, Coventry City topped the Premiership once in August, should we start changing the points system there?) and some stupid pratt at I$C$C decided we needed a ridiculously complicated system devised by a top international mathematician!

 

[Richard]

Maybe a better OD side but certainly not a better test side, as the ranking appropriately suggest. SA defeated an very depleted Pakistan side 2-1 in test on their own backyard, hardly great achievement. Moreover SA struggled to beat India 2-1 in the test series, Indians were victims of umpiring decisions, and had Indians had better luck SA would have actually lost the series.

Bottom line is that SA are a great OD side but a very mediocre Test side.

And who's to say the Indians deserved any luck? SA had enough misfortune themselves, but they still won the series.

SA beat both India and Pakistan, simple as, and both were throughly deserved, hard-fought victories.

To suggest Pakistan are better when they've done next to nothing for the best part of 5 or 6 years is ludicrous.

 

[Richard]

How exactly are South Africa a patently better test team than Pakistan ?

See above.

 

[adharcric]

And who's to say the Indians deserved any luck? SA had enough misfortune themselves, but they still won the series.

In terms of luck, India had it far worse. That is a fact.

 

[nightprowler10]

To suggest Pakistan are better when they've done next to nothing for the best part of 5 or 6 years is ludicrous.

What?

 

[Fusion]

To suggest Pakistan are better when they've done next to nothing for the best part of 5 or 6 years is ludicrous.

Let's see now. In the last 6 years, beat South Africa, India, SL, England, and WI. Yup, that's next to nothing.

 

[Richard]

Beating WI at home is certainly next to nothing.

If you look carefully, most of those are compressed into one small period - 2005\06 - and virtually nothing else has been achieved of note in the last 5 or 6 years. The home victory over SA is about the only thing, and even that could've been a draw with a bit more play.

 

[Richard]

In terms of luck, India had it far worse. That is a fact.

It is?

 

[adharcric]

It is?

Yep.

 

[Richard]

Well, then: examples of such?

 

[IndianByHeart]

Beating WI at home is certainly next to nothing.

If you look carefully, most of those are compressed into one small period - 2005\06 - and virtually nothing else has been achieved of note in the last 5 or 6 years. The home victory over SA is about the only thing, and even that could've been a draw with a bit more play.

Wrong. The home series victory over Eng was more important. And if Pak Sa series could have been drawn, then had luck favored India, India should have won the series against SA in SA.

SA remains a weak test team as their ranking appropriately suggest.

 

[honestbharani]

Go through the India in South AFrica thread, Rich. SS actually kept count, I think. And I thought it was rather fair.

 

[Richard]

Thread's far too long to go through ... is there a final tally anywhere?

 

[Richard]

Wrong. The home series victory over Eng was more important.

Than what?