Which team is currently the best, in 2023?

[Coronis]

good grief you people have spent 26 pages bickering about which of the 3 evil teams is the most broadly competent.

the answer is that they all must be destroyed.

Too bad NZ already peaked, who do you think will be their next challenger?

 

[Bahnz]

I think India also offers a much wider array of conditions than you get in Australia, or really anywhere these days. Some wickets are fast and bouncy, some turgid and low, some rip big, some are highways. Australian pitches have all been some mild variation of the MCG highway for the past decade. Thankfully they’re bringing a smidge of bounce back to the new WACA, but the SCG is still not so spiny, MCG is mega runsville, Adelaide still looks pretty and plays boring, Hobart hardly ever gets a game etc. Australia should try and get their test pitches more like the ones that were used for the T20 World Cup. Those MCG pitches were awesome.

 

[ma1978]

The fact of the matter is to be better than India, you have to beat India, something neither a England or Australia have been able to for 5 years over multiple series.

 

[Bahnz]

Too bad NZ already peaked, who do you think will be their next challenger?

NZ cricket post WTC

 

[anil1405]

The fact of the matter is to be better than India, you have to beat India, something neither a England or Australia have been able to for 5 years over multiple series.

This is a point some posters are missing. When 2-3 teams are on a similar scale, how they fair against one another determines who is better than the other.

 

[ma1978]

This is a point some posters are missing. When 2-3 teams are on a similar scale, how they fair against one another determines who is better than the other.

it’s all just pointless hypotheticals otherwise.

this is not a debate until England beats India somewhere, somehow. And even then, they at least need to tie them at home.

 

[Sunil1z]

If performance against top ranked side doesn’t matter , then was SA the best in 1995-99 period?

 

[subshakerz]

The fact of the matter is to be better than India, you have to beat India, something neither a England or Australia have been able to for 5 years over multiple series.

2018 England.

 

[Bahnz]

This is a point some posters are missing. When 2-3 teams are on a similar scale, how they fair against one another determines who is better than the other.

It’s also fair to note though that there aren’t just 2 or 3 teams playing cricket and that so long as India continue to not so much as slip up but fall down a flight of stairs whilst breaking both legs against teams like NZ and SA, some of us will continue to raise a sceptical eyebrow to protestations of their ascendancy.

This is doubly true while England are busy wading through all comers like Arnie through the cop station in Terminator 1.

 

[anil1405]

It’s also fair to note though that there aren’t just 2 or 3 teams playing cricket and that so long as India continue to not so much as slip up but fall down a flight of stairs whilst breaking both legs against teams like NZ and SA, some of us will continue to raise a sceptical eyebrow to protestations of their ascendancy.

Which is fair except that India didn't really capitulate against SA. They gave a good fight.

 

[Sunil1z]

It’s also fair to note though that there aren’t just 2 or 3 teams playing cricket and that so long as India continue to not so much as slip up but fall down a flight of stairs whilst breaking both legs against teams like NZ and SA, some of us will continue to raise a sceptical eyebrow to protestations of their ascendancy.

Which is completely fair point . But England have won grand total of 1 Test out of 19 Test IN IND and Aus in last 10 years . So as long as we keep doing better than them in NZ/SA than they are doing in IND/AUS , we would be better than them .

 

[Godard]

All things considered, it would be much productive to have this conversation after the Ind Aus series, Eng-NZ series and WTC final(and maybe the Ashes as well).

 

[subshakerz]

It’s also fair to note though that there aren’t just 2 or 3 teams playing cricket and that so long as India continue to not so much as slip up but fall down a flight of stairs whilst breaking both legs against teams like NZ and SA, some of us will continue to raise a sceptical eyebrow to protestations of their ascendancy.

Pretty much this.

I would rate a team of goodish level across conditions better than one that is excellent in SC and Australia but that is incapable of winning in a big chunk of world cricket where it swings.

Indian fans should just acknowledge this is a valid reason to downgrade a side even if they disagree with it.

 

[subshakerz]

All things considered, it would be much productive to have this conversation after the Ind Aus series, Eng-NZ series and WTC final(and maybe the Ashes as well).

Totally agree.

 

[Sunil1z]

Yes , Ashes will decide the clear winner to this debate .

 

[Godard]

Pretty much this.

I would rate a team of goodish level across conditions better than one that is excellent in SC and Australia but that is incapable of winning in a big chunk of world cricket where it swings.

Indian fans should just acknowledge this is a valid reason to downgrade a side even if they disagree with it.

Aus is weak in SC and hasn’t won in Eng/Sa for a long time.

 

[anil1405]

Pretty much this.

I would rate a team of goodish level across conditions better than one that is excellent in SC and Australia but that is incapable of winning in a big chunk of world cricket where it swings.

Indian fans should just acknowledge this is a valid reason to downgrade a side even if they disagree with it.

The fundamental difference here is that India gave a fight in both Eng and SA rather than just capitulating.

Some posters consider giving a fight in those conditions and coming closer to winning the series a good achievement while you don't.

 

[trundler]

30 pages of this, holy ****. I assume we've reached a consensus?

 

[OverratedSanity]

it’s all just pointless hypotheticals otherwise.

this is not a debate until England beats India somewhere, somehow. And even then, they at least need to tie them at home.

The issue I have with posts like this is that they're treating this like a championship belt conversation where India are the undisputed champs and the only way England can ever be considered better is by beating them head to head. I understand I'm in the minority here, but I personally don't think cricket should work that way. (They've also beaten India in a test only a few months ago ftr ) . England don't even tour India until 2024, so if India's form falls off a cliff and England continue beating everyone over the next year, does that still mean England have no case to be considered a better team until they beat India? It just makes no sense to me.

Obviously right now, results have been similar but there's a year to go before the head-to-head even happens.

 

[Godard]

30 pages of this, holy ****. I assume we've reached a consensus?

actually quite the opposite. Postponement