When India were number 1, it was widely accepted that they were not truly number 1 having not really won too much outside the subcontinent.
Now that the tables have turned and England are number 1, if we were to apply the same logic, are England truly number 1 not having won anything in the subcontinent for as long as I can remember?
They'll thrive in conditions favouring them but a hint of spin and they crumble like a pack of cards. Only one team can really claim to be the best at the moment and that's South Africa who can perform on fast, bouncy tracks as well as in the subcontinent.
Are England worthy of being #1?
posted on 16/2/12
You cannot play in the entire subcontinent. Conditions in Eng/SA are similar (SA is your home away from home anyway) so it's not really something to brag about that you can win in SA.
posted on 16/2/12
And what about Australia, and it's not bragging, it's pointing out facts, if SA are so good how come they didn;t beat us at home in their backyard
posted on 16/2/12
England are "work in progress" for the time being..... Better to judge them after lanka, Saffers and India series
posted on 16/2/12
Ive given you a 5* as a welcome back gesture of goodwill
posted on 16/2/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/2/12
Ive given you a 5* as a welcome back gesture of goodwill
===========================
Welcome back cricket-fan
posted on 16/2/12
Only one team can really claim to be the best at the moment and that's South Africa who can perform on fast, bouncy tracks as well as in the subcontinent
_______________________________________
If saffers beat england in the summer, they wont need to claim it, they'd have the number 1 spot, and rightly so
posted on 16/2/12
shankar?
posted on 16/2/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/2/12
Dernbach is a moron. He's friendly when it suits him but when the goings get tough, so do his morals.
He's nothing but a hypocritical ****.