*Official* South Africa in Sri Lanka Thread

[marc71178]

so who should be placed above us England!!!!!!!!!!!!!

who has not managed to atleast draw the aussies

or for hammering a WI side which is surely worse than the pakistan team

Or could it be for consistently beating sides?

6 wins in a row.
9 wins in 10.
1 defeat in last 16 games.
3 defeats in last 23 games.

 

[Legglancer]

Or could it be for consistently beating sides?

6 wins in a row.
9 wins in 10.
1 defeat in last 16 games.
3 defeats in last 23 games.

Consistently beating sides ranked below you means absolutely "zilch"

 

[Neil Pickup]

Consistently beating sides ranked below you means absolutely "zilch"

It's official.

None of Australia's wins count for anything.

 

[Legglancer]

It's official.

None of Australia's wins count for anything.

Well .... Australia consistantly beats everyone below them hence they are 1# .........

 

[superkingdave]

Well .... Australia consistantly beats everyone below them hence they are 1# .........

but you've just stated that beating people below you means nothing!

 

[marc71178]

Well .... Australia consistantly beats everyone below them hence they are 1# .........

So clearly a run of 16 wins and 4 draws from 23 games is shocking, and every other team in the World are better (even though they've all lost more than 3 of their last 23 games)

 

[marc71178]

Looking at it, you just know what will happen if England win in SA.

The detractors will all have a moan and say that SA are only ranked number 6, so there's no challenge in beating them.

 

[Legglancer]

but you've just stated that beating people below you means nothing!

Well If you guys want to get into Samantics .....

 

[Langeveldt]

Looking at it, you just know what will happen if England win in SA.

The detractors will all have a moan and say that SA are only ranked number 6, so there's no challenge in beating them.

Shaun Pollock?

waster.....

 

[marc71178]

Well If you guys want to get into Samantics .....

Well if you want to make misguided posts such as that, then you have to expect the flaws in them to be spotted.

 

[Legglancer]

Well if you want to make misguided posts such as that, then you have to expect the flaws in them to be spotted.

Well Mark once again let me water it down for you ... Simply England Beating West Indies a hundread times will not make them better than India !

 

[marc71178]

And India not winning a series outside the subcontinent for 18 years will not make them a better side than England.

People continue to talk up an Indian side that is not actually performing as well on the field as they'd like to think.

Before the first West Indies series, just about everyone expected a very close series - yet when England won 3-0, West Indies were suddenly a bad side.

Before the NZ series, just about everyone expected a very close series - yet when England won 3-0, New Zealand were suddenly a bad side.

Next up is the SA series - just about everyone expects a very close series, with SA favourite.

If England win 3-0, how long will it take for people to denounce SA as a bad side?

 

[Swervy]

Well Mark once again let me water it down for you ... Simply England Beating West Indies a hundread times will not make them better than India !

which is something India havent done though is it

 

[nookie_lk]

currently India whould be dangerous in india...but in england..i think india will have a tough time with England...

 

[Hit4Six]

if india play eng in ODI's then ill give it to india but in tests it would be quite interesting to see the result...

 

[Legglancer]

And India not winning a series outside the subcontinent for 18 years will not make them a better side than England.

People continue to talk up an Indian side that is not actually performing as well on the field as they'd like to think.

Before the first West Indies series, just about everyone expected a very close series - yet when England won 3-0, West Indies were suddenly a bad side.

Before the NZ series, just about everyone expected a very close series - yet when England won 3-0, New Zealand were suddenly a bad side.

Next up is the SA series - just about everyone expects a very close series, with SA favourite.

The point I am trying to make is India Was the only team that was able to raise their game to match the aussies which on any book makes them exponentially better than england !

If England win 3-0, how long will it take for people to denounce SA as a bad side?

The point is that in the last 5 years India has been able to raise their level of play to match the Australians .... or even come close .... Which makes them exponentially better than England !

 

[Swervy]

The point is that in the last 5 years India has been able to raise their level of play to match the Australians .... or even come close .... Which makes them exponentially better than England !

results from 4 years ago are irrelevent really...and although India played very well vs Australia last year, Australia were far from at the top of their game...and yet it was still only a drawn series

have we got the right definition of 'expontentially' here...what do you mean by that.

England can only play who is infront of them, and this year they have made destroyed WI (something which India hasnt done) and have well beaten NZ (and although an injury hit NZ team, still a good team) 3-0....when was the last time India won a test vs NZ let alone a series

 

[JASON]

I guess this discussion as to whether India or England is the better Team will not be resolved until the crucial Test series coming up i.e India V Australia and SA v England.

My personal opinion is that Australia with Shane Warne and Macgill/Cameron White will be a different Team to previous teams that went to India and with their considerable batting strength are likely to either win the series 2-1 (I am not sure if its 3 Tests or 4 Tests, regardless) or in the least at least tie the series.
India likely to beat SA in India (on current form) in their 2 test series in November.

England on the other hand will struggle to beat SA in SA. Paricularly in a 5 Test series.

So at the end of all this England will still not have proven their ability to beat quality opposition overseas while India would have only lost to the best Team in the world ( or tied ) and thus will have justified the opinion of most neutral cricket followers as being the 2nd ranked team in the world.

 

[marc71178]

The point is that in the last 5 years India has been able to raise their level of play to match the Australians .... or even come close .... Which makes them exponentially better than England !

Erm, last time I checked there were more teams than Australia playing Test matches - so results against them also count.

In the Premiership last year, I believe Man Citeh took 4 points of Manure with a win and a draw, yet they only just avoided relegation because they didn't play like that against every other side.

This is a similar scenario.

 

[marc71178]

So at the end of all this England will still not have proven their ability to beat quality opposition overseas while India would have only lost to the best Team in the world ( or tied ) and thus will have justified the opinion of most neutral cricket followers as being the 2nd ranked team in the world.

So you're saying that regardless of previous results (heck England won as many Tests in Australia in the Ashes as India did) - if India lose to Aus and England lose to SA, then India are ranked higher than England?