***Official*** Sri Lanka in India

[marc71178]

There's been a similar slip from the chasing pack though - England got close in the summer but have fallen away, hence the gap has increased again and was only close for a very short time.

 

[Pratters]

There's been a similar slip from the chasing pack though - England got close in the summer but have fallen away, hence the gap has increased again and was only close for a very short time.

Yeah I understand what you are saying..

 

[Jono]

Oh you were talking about the gap between 1st and the rest. Hmm interesting point by Marc actually. Whilst Australia aren't what they were say 12-18 months ago, England have fallen off and India, Pakistan and South Africa still have a lot to prove, and all haven't beat Australia in a long time.

 

[Deja moo]

The gap between Australia and India in terms of points is far lesser than the gap between India and the WI (WI are on 73 or 78 I believe, compared to Indias 115, Australias 128) In that sense, Australia arent that far ahead.

 

[Dasa]

The gap between Australia and India in terms of points is far lesser than the gap between India and the WI (WI are on 73 or 78 I believe, compared to Indias 115, Australias 128) In that sense, Australia arent that far ahead.

I think IF India win against Pak and Eng 3-0 and Aus lose against SAf 2-0, India'll be the no.1 ranked team.

 

[SJS]

Oh you were talking about the gap between 1st and the rest. Hmm interesting point by Marc actually. Whilst Australia aren't what they were say 12-18 months ago, England have fallen off and India, Pakistan and South Africa still have a lot to prove, and all haven't beat Australia in a long time.

Lets put it this way -

Australia are looking more beatable than they have for a very very long period of time.

The fact that they may be beaten by one of 3 or 4 sides instead of a sole challenger hot on their heels doesnt change that fact.

 

[Pratters]

Lets put it this way -

Australia are looking more beatable than they have for a very very long period of time.

The fact that they may be beaten by one of 3 or 4 sides instead of a sole challenger hot on their heels doesnt change that fact.

That expresses my thought process on it very well.

 

[Jono]

Lets put it this way -

Australia are looking more beatable than they have for a very very long period of time.

The fact that they may be beaten by one of 3 or 4 sides instead of a sole challenger hot on their heels doesnt change that fact.

Very true.

 

[marc71178]

Oh you were talking about the gap between 1st and the rest. Hmm interesting point by Marc actually. Whilst Australia aren't what they were say 12-18 months ago, England have fallen off and India, Pakistan and South Africa still have a lot to prove, and all haven't beat Australia in a long time.

That was always my issue - the Aussies continue to destroy the weaker sides, but we learn nothing about their ability, whilst the other leading sides face each other and cancel themselves out, so how has the gap lessened?!

 

[marc71178]

I think IF India win against Pak and Eng 3-0 and Aus lose against SAf 2-0, India'll be the no.1 ranked team.

By the same token, a 3-0 for England with Aus not winning the WI series would've lead to England being number 1 - in other words, it ain't going to happen, so why bother talking about it?

 

[Dasa]

By the same token, a 3-0 for England with Aus not winning the WI series would've lead to England being number 1 - in other words, it ain't going to happen, so why bother talking about it?

I never said it was likely, I was just pointing out how the field has evened out somewhat. No need to jump down my throat because of that.

 

[SJS]

Someone, please unstick this sticky

 

[Neil Pickup]

Someone, please unstick this sticky

What sticky?

 

[SJS]

What sticky?

OOPS.

My mistake. I

was surprised to see it on the first page and took it for granted that it was there because it was still a sticky.

 

[Pratters]

OOPS.

My mistake. I

was surprised to see it on the first page and took it for granted that it was there because it was still a sticky.

Actually it wasnt your mistake.

Neil quickly unstickied it and made that post confusing the old man as evident.