The 2nd best?

[neutralguy]

NZ and pakistan.Pakistan competed well with Australia with there depleted bowling attack without shoiab,sami and shabbir.

I think thats an excuse mate.Australia would have still beaten them with full strength pakistan side, but only the margin of defeat possibly would have been much lower.

 

[neutralguy]

Forget what happened in the 1990's or even 2 years ago, its irrelevent really.

You say that pakistans unpredictabilty is what makes them dangerous..i would disagree, its their unpredictability that is their downfall. They are a obviously very talented team, as they have always had, but they are always one game from disintegration....NZ are a much more reliable team IMO.

yeah Pakistan did compete in Australia, but so did WI as well..in fact there is a case to be made for the WI's to be ranked right up there with Pakistan, based on recent performance

regarding Afridi..sure on his day, when things go his way, he can be dangerous, but generally, he knoocks a boundary or two with a six in the middle and gets out..and on the whole he is pretty innocuous(sp?) with the ball

Re: razzaq..well he is a better bat than Afridi..but again, he is a bit hit and miss...and his bowling has quickly gone down the poo chute...he isnt half the bowler he was say 5 years ago.

I am sure Pakistan will get better, but it will only show if they become more consistant, which quite frankly has never been a Pakistan strong point

Absolutely true. the previous quote also had mentioned that any team would like to have afridi in their side barring australia.I beg to differ in this.Afridi clicks 1 in 4 matches and no side would want such inconsistent performer.And he can take wickets only against india.Not much against other teams.Except india, afridi is a weak link against any team.

 

[neutralguy]

How is f***ing Pakistan or New Zealand both better then Sri Lanka. Last time i checked that we played series aganist Pakistan in the last 18 months and won them both (Asia Cup and Paktel Cup). We smashed the South Africa 5 nil, in the last 12 mouths and out of all the three teams we were the closest to Australia, we took two games off them. Pakistan took one game and New Zealand took no games aganist them (5 nil ring a bell). New Zealand and England beat us in one game each. You can't really say that New Zealand are better then us cus they won one game.

If u look at the Win and Loss record for 18 months and 12 months u will see that Sri Lanka is better:
18 Months -
SRL (W 21, L 8)
NZL (W 20, L 18, NR 3)
PAK (W 25, L 21)
12 Months -
SRL (W 18, L 5)
NZL (W 10, L 7)
PAK (W 15, L 11)

Then if u look at Series Results then you'll see the same result. i didn't include Videcom Cup, the NZ/SL series and SL/ENG series as they were all rain effected, as well as the series NZ/BAN and SL/ZIM. These are from the last 18 months:
SRL (W 3, L 2)
NZL (W 3, L 3, D 1)
PAK (W 1, L 7)

Sri Lanka are clearly the second best side in ODI we have only lost to Australia in the last 18 months. In that time we have beat Pakistan twice, India and South Africa (well we smashed them) The only thing that New Zealand have over us is that they beat West Indies and England, but that get canselled out by the fact that they won as many games as they lost. We have hardly lost any games in the last 18 months and the only series we have lost was the Champions Throphy and the Australia Series.

Now do u still think that Sri Lanka are still behind New Zealand and in particular Pakistan???

fait stats mate.My opinion is england are second best in tests and srilanka are second best in one-days.There has always been some suspicion regarding srilanka outside subcontinent.But otherwise they seem to be a pretty consistent team.

 

[neutralguy]

I'd back England to win against SL outside the sub-continent 75% of the time.

I'd back england to win against srilanka outside sub continent 90% of the time.Eben india will beat them 80% of the time.

 

[Zinzan]

i find it hard to believe that a team that goes undefeated for an entire year, and beats SA in SA can be put at the same level as a team that couldnt beat a pakistan side with a second string bowling attack at home. how long are people going to drool over indias performances in 2 series, one of which was also against a 2nd string australian bowling attack.

Pakistan aren't quite as bad as you make out TEC. I agree that England should be considered 2nd best test side. But only marginally over India.

The proof will be in the pudding come the Ashes. England need to at least be competitive against Australia if you consider India are the only test side to compete with them in the last couple of years (even if Aust were without Warne and Mcgrath in 2003).

If England get Mauled 4-0 or 5-0, the argument for them weakens

 

[tooextracool]

Pakistan aren't quite as bad as you make out TEC. I agree that England should be considered 2nd best test side. But only marginally over India.

you can tell me all about how pakistan overperformed or what not, point is that theres no way you can explain to me how the 2nd best test side(joint or not) was incapable of beating a side that included a 2nd string bowling attack- sami, kaneria, afridi, rana whoever it was, of which only one is test class. nor is their batting particularly brilliant either.

The proof will be in the pudding come the Ashes. England need to at least be competitive against Australia if you consider India are the only test side to compete with them in the last couple of years (even if Aust were without Warne and Mcgrath in 2003).

If England get Mauled 4-0 or 5-0, the argument for them weakens

performances against one side arent the be all and end all. if a side is incapable of beating even the worst of sides away from home, and only competes against teams at home, there is absolutely no reason to rate them above a side that doesnt perform against australia but performs against everyone else.
even the SA side of the 90s was clearly the 2nd best test side in the world, irrespective of the fact that india peformed better against australia than they did. of course this doesnt mean that i expect england to get hammered, my prediction would be more like a 3-1 victory for australia, assuming full fitness and players performances over the past year or so.

 

[psxpro]

2nd best test team - 1)england
2)india
3)sri lanka

2nd best odi team - 1)england
2)india
3)south africa

Hahaha you must be dumb.
India even lost an odi to bangladesh.
India are are a average odi team.

NZ is 2nd, Srilanka 3rd.

 

[Gangster]

i find it hard to believe that a team that goes undefeated for an entire year, and beats SA in SA can be put at the same level as a team that couldnt beat a pakistan side with a second string bowling attack at home. how long are people going to drool over indias performances in 2 series, one of which was also against a 2nd string australian bowling attack.

Because beating South Africa in South Africa is a huge accomplishment nowadays huh? And me and ten friends could beat New Zealand in a test match nowadays. So who else did England beat in this magic undefeated year?

 

[Gangster]

you can tell me all about how pakistan overperformed or what not, point is that theres no way you can explain to me how the 2nd best test side(joint or not) was incapable of beating a side that included a 2nd string bowling attack- sami, kaneria, afridi, rana whoever it was, of which only one is test class. nor is their batting particularly brilliant either.



performances against one side arent the be all and end all. if a side is incapable of beating even the worst of sides away from home, and only competes against teams at home, there is absolutely no reason to rate them above a side that doesnt perform against australia but performs against everyone else.
even the SA side of the 90s was clearly the 2nd best test side in the world, irrespective of the fact that india peformed better against australia than they did. of course this doesnt mean that i expect england to get hammered, my prediction would be more like a 3-1 victory for australia, assuming full fitness and players performances over the past year or so.

India dominated the 1st test and if not for a surprisingly placid and flat batting track would have won. The 2nd test India did win. The 3rd test was an embarrassing chokejob admittedly. But India, despite tying the series 1-1 result-wise, won 2-1 performance-wise.

 

[Gangster]

Hahaha you must be dumb.
India even lost an odi to bangladesh.
India are are a average odi team.

NZ is 2nd, Srilanka 3rd.

India played a bunch of rookies against Bangladesh.

 

[Neil Pickup]

India played a bunch of rookies against Bangladesh.

Sehwag, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Sriram, Kaif, Mongia, Dhoni, Agarkar, Sharma, Khan, Kartik

Several hundred ODIs between those rookies...

 

[Neil Pickup]

India dominated the 1st test and if not for a surprisingly placid and flat batting track would have won. The 2nd test India did win. The 3rd test was an embarrassing chokejob admittedly. But India, despite tying the series 1-1 result-wise, won 2-1 performance-wise.

Missing the point of Test cricket there - it's about winning games in five days, and the first Test wasn't won because India were unable to knock over the Pakistani lower order on day five....

 

[tooextracool]

Because beating South Africa in South Africa is a huge accomplishment nowadays huh?

so how many other teams have accomplished this feat then?
oh wait, theyve all been embarassed.

And me and ten friends could beat New Zealand in a test match nowadays. So who else did England beat in this magic undefeated year?

oh really? you and 10 friends is it?
so explain to me then what happened to india in both the home series and away series against NZ? or for that matter how NZ came out undefeated in SL?
and go ahead and show me how many teams have whitewashed NZ anywhere in the world off late.

 

[tooextracool]

India dominated the 1st test and if not for a surprisingly placid and flat batting track would have won. The 2nd test India did win. The 3rd test was an embarrassing chokejob admittedly. But India, despite tying the series 1-1 result-wise, won 2-1 performance-wise.

your point is? the result stands at 1-1, it doesnt matter who had the better of whom in which test, because none of that matters in test cricket except the results. the fact that they choked in the last test was simply a sign of how good a team they really are.

 

[chaminda_00]

I'd back England to win against SL outside the sub-continent 75% of the time.

You do have a point to an extend their but look at matches after 1996 (since we stop being a minnow) we have won 5 out of 16 matches aganist England outside Asia, which is a 30% record. But as i said earlier the no way we will improve as a team away from home unless we get given more matches way from home. You can't improve in conditions that don't favour your game unless you practise on those conditions. Do u think that Australia would of improved their play in the sub-continent if it was for the fact that they didn't play as many games as they did there recently.

Little side note in Asia we have a 100% record aganist u guys during the same time, only 5 games but.

 

[Deja moo]

how long are people going to drool over indias performances in 2 series, one of which was also against a 2nd string australian bowling attack.

India too had a second string bowling attack.

 

[tooextracool]

India too had a second string bowling attack.

except that indias second string attack is just about as rubbish as their first string attack.

 

[Deja moo]

except that indias second string attack is just about as rubbish as their first string attack.

So its Indias fault that Australia could only serve up a rubbish attack once they lost McGrath to injury ?

 

[tooextracool]

So its Indias fault that Australia could only serve up a rubbish attack once they lost McGrath to injury ?

yes because like it or not, the quality of a team is assessed by frontline players, not by the quality of their back ups.

 

[Deja moo]

yes because like it or not, the quality of a team is assessed by frontline players, not by the quality of their back ups.

Erm..no.

Theres a reason countries send squads on tours, not merely a team of eleven players. If a frontline player is unable to play, the backups are supposed to fill the gap as best as they can.