Who is the worse number 1 side to rise to the top of the rankings during last year?

[silentstriker]

India clearly. England have been beaten in a single series and still have positives to come out of their loss (the bowling). India have been beaten in two straight series, have little to no positives coming out of the last series in particular, and have had internal strife following the loss.

What internal strife?

Also as mentioned, India were number 1 but still underdogs. England werent.


That's an interesting question: when was the last time a series favorite ended up getting whitewashed?

 

[benchmark00]

It'll probably be something along the lines of, "I've played more cricket at a higher level than you guys, therefore I know best, and I say that England are worse than India. Therefore, England are worse than India."

Actually I voted England because I knew their supporters couldn't handle not having their knob polished so to speak, and would get this exact response.

England fans are fine until you let them know their team will always be mediocre.

Guess you just fell into the trap

 

[Spikey]

And I don't believe for a second that the Aussie lineup would have scored this little vs Pakistan. Don't buy it at all.

Watson: Pretty **** against spin
Warner: Pretty **** against spin
Whoever is at 3: Probably pretty **** against spin
Ponting: yeah decent enough
Clarke: Best player of spin in the world obv
Hussey: Literally either brilliant or horrible against spin
Haddin: Well I guess he would at least get down the crease


They wouldn't've been as bad with the bat as England, but only because of Clarke. The flip side of it is that the Aussie bowlers wouldn't've been as good with the ball as England.

England still the team I'd take ahead of anyone else in world cricket. they obviously have a weakness to spin. but that's the only weakness they have and every other team in world cricket currently have more weaknesses (and most of them have a weakness to spin bowling)

 

[silentstriker]

Didnt u just say that this Aussie team would win in the subcontinent?

 

[silentstriker]

err or was it spark? I get you two confused like flem and athlai.

 

[honestbharani]

spot the multi

 

[Spark]

Didnt u just say that this Aussie team would win in the subcontinent?

I said I'd be reasonably confident we could win in India. We've already won in SL recently, but I think Pakistan would probably have the edge in the UAE (but the fact we have a middle order worthy of its name means it would at least be a contest)

 

[Spikey]

I didn't. We won in SL, obv, butit's a big step up, bowling wise, from SL to Pak. Aus can beat any team in the world if they fire, but you know, hugely inconsistent

 

[silentstriker]

I said I'd be reasonably confident we could win in India. We've already won in SL recently, but I think Pakistan would probably have the edge in the UAE (but the fact we have a middle order worthy of its name means it would at least be a contest)

If you could win in India there's no way you'd lose 3-0 to Pakistan. So you'd have to be better than England.


Ftr I don't see either England or Australia winning in India but that's a different story.

 

[Jono]

India have been beaten in two straight series, have little to no positives coming out of the last series in particular

 

[honestbharani]

We actually used to be good at winning cricket games before you started posting that pic, tbh.

 

[Jono]

Probably true.

 

[Spark]

If you could win in India there's no way you'd lose 3-0 to Pakistan. So you'd have to be better than England.


Ftr I don't see either England or Australia winning in India but that's a different story.

To be honest my confidence in India is as much based on the fact that sans their batsmen in form (which they aren't), I think India are a poor cricket team. In all respects. Their fielding is bog-standard and their bowlers find it incredibly difficult to build pressure.

 

[honestbharani]

To be honest my confidence in India is as much based on the fact that sans their batsmen in form (which they aren't), I think India are a poor cricket team. In all respects. Their fielding is bog-standard and their bowlers find it incredibly difficult to build pressure.

nah. I think you underrate how our harmless spinners suddenly turn good in those conditions. You are probably expecting flat decks but our batters are not going to be so woeful either.


I do think Aussies can beat us coz for some reason they and RSA are always more at home in India than in the rest of the SC.

 

[Jono]

No they build pressure very well in India. They find it difficult to build pressure away from home.

They win matches based on building pressure in India.

 

[silentstriker]

To be honest my confidence in India is as much based on the fact that sans their batsmen in form (which they aren't), I think India are a poor cricket team. In all respects. Their fielding is bog-standard and their bowlers find it incredibly difficult to build pressure.

Sure. They are. Poor Indian teams still mostly win at home. As I said I dont see either england or Australia beating India right now. We shall see when it's time to tour but I'd be pretty comfortable for a series victory against either right now.

Required a pretty special aus team plus some great Indian ****ups (and Nagpur pissing off the bcci in purpose by creating a greentop) to beat India last time. Hey great thing about sports is that it's a show me business and we will find out.

But as worried as I'm about India overseas, not really worried about losing at home. TBF the only team that worries me at home is actually South Africa.

 

[Cevno]

England still the team I'd take ahead of anyone else in world cricket. they obviously have a weakness to spin. but that's the only weakness they have and every other team in world cricket currently have more weaknesses (and most of them have a weakness to spin bowling)

South Africa?

 

[Ruckus]

They wouldn't've been as bad with the bat as England, but only because of Clarke. The flip side of it is that the Aussie bowlers wouldn't've been as good with the ball as England.

I dunno about that, especially if Harris was playing. Was really impressed with how well Hilf and Siddle bowled when the wicket was flat during the India series, and Harris was absolutely top class in flat Sri Lankan conditions.

The bowling isn't the big difference between England and Aus imo, it's the batting which still makes England the superior team (and fairly comfortably). Although I do actually think we could perform better in the SC, because of the middle order we have. Overall though, England might not have any superstars with the bat but at least they have 6 out their top 7 who are very experienced, competent and settled in test cricket. We on the other hand have probably at least 3 of our top 7 (or as many as 5, depending on how skeptical you want to be) who have pretty big question marks over them. So much uncertainty isn't going to be able to compete consistently with a team as relatively stable as England's.

 

[Spark]

I couldn't see Lyon + ____ being as good as Swann/Panesar. I'd be very surprised if Harris averaged 20-odd as Broad did.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I doubt we'd play two spinners anyway though, it just isn't our strength. I wouldn't be suprised at all though if Harris averaged 20-odd. The closest thing to compare is Sri Lanka, and he averaged 14-odd there, far better than any other bowler from either team.