Who's number 2 ?

[Josh]

There is a BIG difference between England's loss at the hands of Pakistan and Australia's at the hand of England.

Australia's loss in the Ashes came after having won 14 of the previous 16 series (the other two being drawn.

Englands loss came after having won 8 of the previous 16 series, (4 of the wins against minnows Bangladesh-3 and Zimbabwe 1) lost 4 and drawn 4.

Australia's loss was an aberration for them as was Englands win in the Ashes.

To compare that with Englands loss to Pakistan is not accurate.

Why not??

Teams can change in a couple of years, dramatically, such as England's changes from the previous Ashes series to the next one. Australia's was very much the same, but England's was different, posed a different and foreign challenge for the Australians. England's side was much stronger than their previous one, and Australia probably didn't view them as such and paid the price.

Then, Englands tour of Pakistan, Pakistan's side has undergone substantial changes in recent times, too. So I reckon the time and the number of previous series won is irrelevant and the acutal quality and make-up of the sides is something better to judge on.

 

[SJS]

Why not??

Teams can change in a couple of years, dramatically, such as England's changes from the previous Ashes series to the next one. Australia's was very much the same, but England's was different, posed a different and foreign challenge for the Australians. England's side was much stronger than their previous one, and Australia probably didn't view them as such and paid the price.

Then, Englands tour of Pakistan, Pakistan's side has undergone substantial changes in recent times, too. So I reckon the time and the number of previous series won is irrelevant and the acutal quality and make-up of the sides is something better to judge on.

I quoted the earlier stats not to show that England cant be better than Australia but just to show why Australia's loss was a bigger surprise.

You can use any other criteria, including , I suspect odds offered at the beginning of the series and you will probably find that Australia's loss was less expected than England's.

 

[Josh]

I quoted the earlier stats not to show that England cant be better than Australia but just to show why Australia's loss was a bigger surprise.

You can use any other criteria, including , I suspect odds offered at the beginning of the series and you will probably find that Australia's loss was less expected than England's.

Yes, of course. Sorry I think I misinterpreted.

 

[SJS]

Yes, of course. Sorry I think I misinterpreted.

Thats okay. Its the "josh" I suppose

 

[SJS]

I am assuming you are an Indian by origin. I could be wrong. So I should explain. "Josh" in Hindi means, zeal or passion

 

[superkingdave]

There is a BIG difference between England's loss at the hands of Pakistan and Australia's at the hand of England.

Australia's loss in the Ashes came after having won 14 of the previous 16 series (the other two being drawn.

Englands loss came after having won 8 of the previous 16 series, (4 of the wins against minnows Bangladesh-3 and Zimbabwe 1) lost 4 and drawn 4.

Australia's loss was an aberration for them as was Englands win in the Ashes.

To compare that with Englands loss to Pakistan is not accurate.

whilst i agree with what you are saying - we've actually only player Bangladesh in 2 series in history.

Aus(L), India(L), NZ(D), SL(W), Ind(D), Aus(L), Zim(W), SA(D), Ban(W), SL(L), WI(W), NZ(W), WI(W), SA(W), Ban(W), Aus(W)

 

[wpdavid]

Not that I place too much store by the ICC's rankings, but won't we lose our official no. 2 status if India beat us in the new year?

I think I probably agree with the gist of the article, we might be no. 2, but there's clearer water between us & Oz than between us & India (?) or whoever are no. 3.

Being a pessimist by nature I sometimes think that The Ashes may have been our peak rather than a camp on the way to the summit. Hope I'm wrong tho.

It shouldn't have been. Whereas the 2000 & 2001 wins against WI, Pak & SL definitely were the peak for the 90's generation, this side should have a fair bit of mileage yet and, in several cases, should improve. I suppose whether they will improve depends how badly they want to. The loss in Pakistan should have been a wakeup call, but we'll just have to see if anyone was listening, especially amongst the batsmen. I'm hoping that this series will have the same effect on Vaughan & co as the 1999 loss to NZ did to Hussain in terms of making his side a whole lot more difficult to beat.

I also think a crucial factor is how we develop Anderson, Tremlett & Plunkett. I don't think we can afford to keep having one of them a permanent 12th man in the English summer and basically missing half a season's bowling. If we bring these on a we should, then the good times should continue after Hoggie's too old and Harmy's decided to retire to the Ashington Working Man's Club.

 

[Pothas]

England aren't number two. India are better, and Pakistan are as well, as they will prove by beating England in England after stomping 'em in Pakistan.

England will easily beat Pakistan in England. They have played very poorley in this series and i know there isnt much optimism for the Indian tour as a result. However they are clearly stil the 2nd best team in the world

 

[Fusion]

England will easily beat Pakistan in England.

And you are basing this on what exactly? Certainly not the most accurate measuring stick: a head-to-head matchup between the two teams.

 

[ClownSymonds]

England will easily beat Pakistan in England. They have played very poorley in this series and i know there isnt much optimism for the Indian tour as a result. However they are clearly stil the 2nd best team in the world

Pakistan won the series against England in England both in '92 and '96, and drew in 2001. Inzamam, Yousuf, and Younis Khan all performed. Now Pakistan have a bolstered bowling attack with the rise of Rana and Kaneria, and England's batting actually looks weaker now than it did then. I don't anticipate Rana or Shoaib stepping on any balls, either. Also, the crowd might not be so much on England's side, considering the large Pakistani and Indian (yes, the Indians support Pakistan over England) population over there. Pakistan should go in as favorites as long as they beat India before that.

As for England being the number 2 team - they certainly don't seem like it at the moment. They did, but that really was a terrible performance. I think the spot is up for grabs now.

 

[ClownSymonds]

And you are basing this on what exactly? Certainly not the most accurate measuring stick: a head-to-head matchup between the two teams.

See my last post.

A two-legged head-to-head match-up like this is the best indicator of which team is the better of two.

 

[Fusion]

See my last post.

A two-legged head-to-head match-up like this is the best indicator of which team is the better of two.

Clown,
I was actually replying to Pothas. I concur with your assessment (though I don't think that the converse it true either: that Pakistan will "easily" beat Eng in Eng. I believe it will be a very tough series, but Pakistan will come out on top based on current form).

 

[Scaly piscine]

Clown,
I was actually replying to Pothas. I concur with your assessment (though I don't think that the converse it true either: that Pakistan will "easily" beat Eng in Eng. I believe it will be a very tough series, but Pakistan will come out on top based on current form).

Current form doesn't last 8 months, if you look at performances over the last 2 years England are still miles ahead even including England's last Test series.

 

[sqwerty]

If England's bowlers can perform the way they did against Australia I can't see how Pakistan will beat them in England.

In a way England were on a hiding to nothing in Pakistan. After all the build up and focus they placed on the ashes it was little wonder they were hungover in Pakistan.

If Australia's batsmen struggled the way they did in England I can't see Pakistan doing much better.

I could easily see Inzy doing nothing in England just like he does when he comes to Australia. I went to the supertest and we were laughing at how ordinary he looked. Admittedly he only faced about 3 balls for 2 dismissals and admittedly we, as Aussies have never seen the best of him but I'm sure he'd struggle against the England attack the Aussies faced if they perform as they did.

Then who's going to get the runs? There's not much else other than Yousef, Younis and Butt cheeks.

 

[Fusion]

Current form doesn't last 8 months, if you look at performances over the last 2 years England are still miles ahead even including England's last Test series.

But current form IS a better indicator of what might transpire than a hypothesis that states "Eng will beat Pakistan easily" because Pakistan will not be able to adopt to conditions and English seamers will rip apart Pakistan's lineup with reverse swing. As Clown pointed out, Pakistan have beaten England in England before. Ofcourse that was in the past, but you are also mentioning England's form from the past. Why don't you wait until the Eng/India series is over before saying that England are miles ahead of Pakistan? I think Eng are still due to face some hardships in India. I guess when it comes to me, I'll take the recent results between Pak v/s Eng and state that Pakistan will not be a pushover when they tour England.

 

[Barney Rubble]

If England's bowlers can perform the way they did against Australia I can't see how Pakistan will beat them in England.

In a way England were on a hiding to nothing in Pakistan. After all the build up and focus they placed on the ashes it was little wonder they were hungover in Pakistan.

If Australia's batsmen struggled the way they did in England I can't see Pakistan doing much better.

I could easily see Inzy doing nothing in England just like he does when he comes to Australia. I went to the supertest and we were laughing at how ordinary he looked. Admittedly he only faced about 3 balls for 2 dismissals and admittedly we, as Aussies have never seen the best of him but I'm sure he'd struggle against the England attack the Aussies faced if they perform as they did.

Then who's going to get the runs? There's not much else other than Yousef, Younis and Butt cheeks.

One deciding factor next year - the English pace attack on English pitches. If there's a Test at Headingley and I was Salman Butt I'd be (as well as wishing I had a better name) bricking it. By then Simon Jones could be just about the most deadly bowler around if he keeps improving like he has.

 

[ClownSymonds]

One deciding factor next year - the English pace attack on English pitches. If there's a Test at Headingley and I was Salman Butt I'd be (as well as wishing I had a better name) bricking it. By then Simon Jones could be just about the most deadly bowler around if he keeps improving like he has.

What about the Pakistani pace attack on English pitches? Rana had a great stint with Sussex this past season, and proved that he can do it at Test level in Pakistan. He can swing the ball more than any English bowler, both ways. Then there's Shoaib Akhtar. I dare say that Rana and Shoaib are better than Gillespie, Kasprowicz, and Lee. Also, England probably won't be playing with the same drive they had against Australia. As for Butt - if he sorts out his driving outside off problem, he'll be great.

 

[R_D]

England will easily beat Pakistan in England. They have played very poorley in this series and i know there isnt much optimism for the Indian tour as a result. However they are clearly stil the 2nd best team in the world

lol, so how does that make England clearly the 2nd best team?
IF they can't win in sub-continent than they are no better than India or Pak for that matter.
There's no clear #2 in the world at the moment Pak, England and Ind and maybe i'll add SA to that list seem to be contenders for 2nd place team. But no one's done enough to be called clear #2 side in the world.

 

[Josh]

I am assuming you are an Indian by origin. I could be wrong. So I should explain. "Josh" in Hindi means, zeal or passion

Hah you are very wrong. I'm an Australian/American

 

[SJS]

Hah you are very wrong. I'm an Australian/American

So now you have another interpretation to your name