The Battle for Number 2 (no pun intended)

[marc71178]

If you keep losing 2-0, then you can leave all the talk about being competitive.

You were the one who brought up the competitive thing up though.

Now when it's been shown to be wrong you decide it's irrelevant!

 

[Matt79]

england are number two at the moment - they've actually beaten Australia in a test series. Otherwise, all the top contenders (eng., ind., and pakistan) win at home and lose away. Have ind or pak beaten south africa at home recently?

As for averages etc., before giving their batsmen too hard a time for not averaging fifty+, remember how often england has to face up and play australia - much more regularly than pakistan or india. mcgrath, warne, etc have a way of dragging down your average - ask smith.

England 2 (but need to turn it around quickly to prove their ashes squad didn't just play the series of their lives)
India 3 (and rising with Ganguly gone and dhoni and patel coming in)
Pakistan 4

 

[aussie]

Not that i'm trying to degrade India & Pakistan or anything. But it seems odd that a lot of people would mention them as having a real chance to become second best in the world if England slip up in the coming year, and no when mentions South Africa who has i said before at full-strenght on paper have the 2nd best side in world

SA have a seam attack that is pretty good as anyone around the world at the moment & their batting is pretty solid if not as aggressive as most sides & after struggling a bit after the 2003 WC, they are getting it together so watch out for them..

 

[silentstriker]

England 2 (but need to turn it around quickly to prove their ashes squad didn't just play the series of their lives)
India 3 (and rising with Ganguly gone and dhoni and patel coming in)
Pakistan 4

Isn't that a bit harsh considering they just beat the #2 and #3 on your list by 2-0 and 1-0 respectively?

 

[silentstriker]

Not that i'm trying to degrade India & Pakistan or anything. But it seems odd that a lot of people would mention them as having a real chance to become second best in the world if England slip up in the coming year, and no when mentions South Africa who has i said before at full-strenght on paper have the 2nd best side in world

SA have a seam attack that is pretty good as anyone around the world at the moment & their batting is pretty solid if not as aggressive as most sides & after struggling a bit after the 2003 WC, they are getting it together so watch out for them..

Well, thats the problem for them. They may have the second best team on paper, but that's all it is. India should have an absolutely dominant batting order on paper, but we all know how that works out outside the subcontinent. But, they did tie India 1-1 in an away series. So, I would put them as right behind the trio of India/Pakistan/England. They too can catch up, but they need to do a little bit more than the other three.

 

[aussie]

Well, thats the problem for them. They may have the second best team on paper, but that's all it is. India should have an absolutely dominant batting order on paper, but we all know how that works out outside the subcontinent. But, they did tie India 1-1 in an away series. So, I would put them as right behind the trio of India/Pakistan/England. They too can catch up, but they need to do a little bit more than the other three.

well their results since at least their home series vs England (when for me they started their revival) haven't showed any big series win againts any major side. But they impressed a great deal down in australia even though they lost 2-0 & are building back the kind of test side that made them so successful between 1999 - 2004, so for me i would rate their chances of being #2 again right up their with all of them.

 

[silentstriker]

well their results since at least their home series vs England (when for me they started their revival) haven't showed any big series win againts any major side. But they impressed a great deal down in australia even though they lost 2-0 & are building back the kind of test side that made them so successful between 1999 - 2004, so for me i would rate their chances of being #2 again right up their with all of them.

Right, but you can't give them an equal chance, or say that 'right up there' with the rest, if they keep losing series....

They may be a team thats building, and eventually may challenge for the #2 spot...but you are speaking purely from a potential standpoint and not from any results. All the other countries on that list either have won recently, or are in the process of winning a series. And in the case of Pakistan, they have beaten the other two contenders quite handily. So, I don't see how you can rate SA as having an equal shot.

Now, if they manage to beat Australia in the current series....well then you may have a point.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And where did I say it was clear?
We were number 2 way before the Ashes

We were number 2 way before the Ashes. We may not have been clear number 2, but we were number 2.

In fact I'd say we were clear anyway because India's away record was always bad whereas our away record was also good.

 

[Matt79]

Pakistan need to not fall to pieces QUITE so regularly, esp. away from home, as they currently do before I'll put them ahead of india or england. On their day, they'll beat anyone, inc. maybe australia. But I'd back england to win more games than they lose against pakistan.

Wins at home prove something, but not nearly as much actually winning away in alien conditions.

Looking at what each team needs to become worldbeaters, aside from fitness of key personnel -
England - a spinner and keeper worthy of the name
India - a quality middle order bat to replace ganguly and tendaulkar
pakistan - mental toughness

I think mental toughness might be the hardest to find.

 

[Tom Halsey]

That's what happens when you don't win a test match after the Ashes.

And it was only idiots like Boycott that claimed England were the world champions. Everyone else said they had a great team but had to prove themselves in Asia to actually seriously challenge Australia for #1 spot.

I mean, would England beat Sri Lanka away?

No-one with any sense said we were 1.

I don't expect England to do well in Asia any time soon.

But in all other areas IMO we're far superior to India and Pakistan, and more Tests take place outside of Asia than inside it.

 

[viktor]

We were number 2 way before the Ashes. We may not have been clear number 2, but we were number 2.

In fact I'd say we were clear anyway because India's away record was always bad whereas our away record was also good.

You implied in one post that you clearly #2. Then 2-3 posts later you asked, where you said such a thing. I pointed out where you did. Refer post#s 26-30 of this thread.
Now, answer my question: do you suffer from amnesia or do you make up arguements as you go along?

 

[kvemuri]

I somehow cannot call England as #2, not right now and not anytime soon. It is still too close to call for me. None of the teams have really seized the initiative, which I expected India to do post 2001, Pakistan to do since Woolmer took over and England to do since the Ashes... None of the sides have actually done it.

I agree with that assessment too. All three teams have shown flashes of brilliance and then mediocrity, none of them have shown a consistency like the Australians to be called anything. #2 is still a long shot for each unless they can show consistency to win both home and away, against the Giants and the Minnows. Until that time none of them are #2 or even close.

 

[Swervy]

Maybe not third class (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), but definatly second class. How many batsman average 50 in the English side (compared to India, Australia, etc)? They don't have to have as many good batsman to be competitive as their pace attack at full strength is the best in the world (they do need a world class spinner though), but they do need at least one Dravid-like influence in the middle order.

In any case:

1) Australia
2) Pakistan
3) India/England

We will know within the next year, who is really who.

re: batting

In the last 25 tests
When batting
India average 41.0 runs per wicket (in team first innings 43.6)
Australia average 40.9 runs per wicket (in team first innings 39.3)
England average 39.6 runs per wicket (in teams first innings 41.5)
Pakistan average 37.0 per wicket (in teams first innings 37.7)

So England average a mere 1.6 runs per wicket less than India do when batting in the last 25 tests, and bearing in mind England have played in South Africa and vs Australia(5 tests) in that time, I think that stacks pretty well for England to be honest.

England do not have a third rate batting team at all, however they do have a young team that fails to really go on to score the really big runs that a team like Australia does. Talent wise, the England batting line up has the ability to play as well as pretty much anyone on its day.

Fair enough , They do need a Dravid type figure. and really, its a good job for India Dravid is there, because without him, the Indian batting line up looks fragile!!!!

 

[Fusion]

Currently, I'd rate it Pakistan, India, England. I think England can't claim to be number 2, if they lose to both Pak and India. Now on the other hand, if Pak lose in England this summer, then we have another story (which is probably that there's no clear 2nd!).

 

[Sanz]

Fair enough , They do need a Dravid type figure. and really, its a good job for India Dravid is there, because without him, the Indian batting line up looks fragile!!!!

Without Dravid Indian batting is as predictable as Bangladesh, despite the presence of big shots like Tendulkar, Laxman, Sehwag, Yuvraj etc. Dravid makes them look much better they actually have been in last few years(with the possible exception of Sehwag).

 

[Matt79]

When stating that England losing the recent series' shows they are a worse team than India or Pakistan, remember the impact of England losing both Vaughan and Treshothick (my spelling has deserted me). How good a team would India be with Dravid and Sehwag out? Or Pakistan if Inzi is out.

If you want to argue that Pakistan and India are currently having a better injury run, that's a different argument

 

[Tom Halsey]

Now, answer my question: do you suffer from amnesia or do you make up arguements as you go along?

Show me where I've been making it up as I've gone along?

 

[silentstriker]

When stating that England losing the recent series' shows they are a worse team than India or Pakistan, remember the impact of England losing both Vaughan and Treshothick (my spelling has deserted me). How good a team would India be with Dravid and Sehwag out? Or Pakistan if Inzi is out.

If you want to argue that Pakistan and India are currently having a better injury run, that's a different argument

If's and but's.....

Injuries are never an excuse. India can only play the team that England fields. If India lose with Sehwag and Dravid out, then that loss counts just as much as if they were in it. Its not India's fault that England's main players are out. Maybe its because I am an American, but if anyone here remotely blames injuries for anything, they immediatly get crucified. Results are the only thing that counts, regardless of the circumstances.

"Breathing first, winning next."

-Steinbrenner

 

[Sanz]

When stating that England losing the recent series' shows they are a worse team than India or Pakistan, remember the impact of England losing both Vaughan and Treshothick (my spelling has deserted me). How good a team would India be with Dravid and Sehwag out? Or Pakistan if Inzi is out.

And you conveniently forgot that Mcgrath was injured for the majority of the series and that Vaughan and Tresco both were there in Pakistan. Give credit where it is due. Its not like Vaughan/trescothick were going to break Bradman's record.

If you want to argue that Pakistan and India are currently having a better injury run, that's a different argument

That's right, England were having better injury run during Ashes.

 

[Matt79]

sure - injuries shouldn't be a long term excuse, its part of being a good team to make sure they don't happen (I'm amazed every Australian summer at the procession of injuries opposition bowlers succumb to). That said if this is a meaningful discussion it has to be over a slightly longer period, not a snapshot of this very minute. I think England is a better team than the other two - however, the loss of their captain and vicecaptain and probably two best bats obviously has an impact. Whether or not its the done thing to use it as an excuse, its a fact. If over the next few months, England consistently is unable to field their best team, then I'll agree that they aren't as good as they are now. I'm certainly not seeking to inflate England, as an Aussie, I generally haven't rated many recent English sides!