No 1 side is still India by far. This test is far from over.
By far? your a comedian.. are you see whats happening in this series?? I agree with the original post good points..
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Rashid is no number 6 though and six batters is doing us well.
I would bring in Taylor IF Morgan does struggle.
In a year or so, Ben Stokes should be a shoe in. Scores big runs and a very decent medium fast bowler to boot.
Redindian, are you watching the same match?.
England could get another 100 runs, setting them 480 to win.
If they get them they will deserve it. New ball is the key probably the first 25-30 overs. If after this time India are 100-3 England will win, Jimmy Anderson, Swann & Broad have enough time to get tho se 10 wickets, Fletcher is very negative & won't even attempt to go for the win.
England are the most professional outfi t on earth. But lack fla ir
If England lack flair and are easily beating the so called best test team.It dont say much for the best test team does it?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
'2-1 would leave India as the best Test side in the world"...
In the official table, perhaps. But we know figures don't tell the full story. My betting is India will win at Edgbaston but it depends if they can get their bowling steadied
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
How is it subjective if you have just BEATEN the supposed number 1 in the world? If this was boxing then it would be England that are champions.
This 'test table' is arguable at best, its not the only measure of a team. Better by far to wait till the official team Championship in 2013.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The table has it's pros and cons, but it is the best way to gauge who's best in a game like cricket.
It's a shame we're not getting 5 tests, too much time devoted to ODIs.
In my opinion, you should play 5 tests against a top team, and 3 against a lower ranked team. Or, conversely, play 4 tests against everyone. The table is based on series wins, not individual match results. So a team playing a 3 match series can win the first match then play to no loose the next 2, thus making it harder for the other side to stage a comeback.
Oh, it's a can of worms...
'so what happens if England beat India, but then go ont to lose to Bangladesh..do Bangladesh become the worlds best cricketing nation??'
I guess that yes, they would - it can happen in World cricket. You are only as good as your last game.
Why does the table not lie? If we beat India 2-1 then, for you, India would still be the best would they? I guess that i'd have to differ on that.
"How is it subjective if you have just BEATEN the supposed number 1 in the world? If this was boxing then it would be England that are champions.
This 'test table' is arguable at best, its not the only measure of a team. Better by far to wait till the official team Championship in 2013."
This is not boxing. The table is a record of the last few years.
'This is not boxing. The table is a record of the last few years."
Duh, yes I know its not boxing. But the tables hardly indicative of current ability is it? Lets put it another way - supposing India go on a series win after this? Not sure who they are playing but suppose they win it 5-0 or something against poor opposition, and England just draw their next series (against stronger opposition). Is it really FAIR that England would be sitting below them in the rankings?
I guess you would say not. My argument was that I believe England to be the BEST team in the world on current form, statistics and how the team can perform over the next few years. Don't forget, India will lose many of their players shortly to retirement.
"'This is not boxing. The table is a record of the last few years."
Duh, yes I know its not boxing. But the tables hardly indicative of current ability is it? "
So why did you refer to boxing? A league table is used in sports like football, cricket, rugby, etc, and is a way of showing who is best over a period of time.
In your scenario, "Is it fair that...", well, that's have league tales work. Is it fair that a team beat Man Utd last year but are ranked lower than them? Yes, because that's how the league tables works - it is a cumulation of ALL the results.
'In your scenario, "Is it fair that...", well, that's have league tales work. Is it fair that a team beat Man Utd last year but are ranked lower than them? Yes, because that's how the league tables works - it is a cumulation of ALL the results..'
_-------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect, its not the same situation. We have teams here playing each other at different times for different durations (this is a 4 Test series for example, wheras we played Australia in 5 tests). Sometimes test tours are abandoned (as in the case of Pakistan)
How can you POSSIBLY compare this to a football league table, where everyone plays each other at home and away ? its just NOT the same! At least in boxing the result lies on who you played (fought) last not how many times you have played, when you last played etc etc. I believe that England play more test cricket than anyone else, should we be penalised for that? Its farcical!
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Best test side in the World now?
Page 1 of 1
posted on 1/8/11
No 1 side is still India by far. This test is far from over.
posted on 1/8/11
By far? your a comedian.. are you see whats happening in this series?? I agree with the original post good points..
posted on 1/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/11
Rashid is no number 6 though and six batters is doing us well.
I would bring in Taylor IF Morgan does struggle.
posted on 1/8/11
In a year or so, Ben Stokes should be a shoe in. Scores big runs and a very decent medium fast bowler to boot.
Redindian, are you watching the same match?.
posted on 1/8/11
England could get another 100 runs, setting them 480 to win.
If they get them they will deserve it. New ball is the key probably the first 25-30 overs. If after this time India are 100-3 England will win, Jimmy Anderson, Swann & Broad have enough time to get tho se 10 wickets, Fletcher is very negative & won't even attempt to go for the win.
posted on 1/8/11
England are the most professional outfi t on earth. But lack fla ir
posted on 1/8/11
If England lack flair and are easily beating the so called best test team.It dont say much for the best test team does it?
posted on 1/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/11
'2-1 would leave India as the best Test side in the world"...
In the official table, perhaps. But we know figures don't tell the full story. My betting is India will win at Edgbaston but it depends if they can get their bowling steadied
posted on 1/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/11
How is it subjective if you have just BEATEN the supposed number 1 in the world? If this was boxing then it would be England that are champions.
This 'test table' is arguable at best, its not the only measure of a team. Better by far to wait till the official team Championship in 2013.
posted on 1/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/11
The table has it's pros and cons, but it is the best way to gauge who's best in a game like cricket.
It's a shame we're not getting 5 tests, too much time devoted to ODIs.
In my opinion, you should play 5 tests against a top team, and 3 against a lower ranked team. Or, conversely, play 4 tests against everyone. The table is based on series wins, not individual match results. So a team playing a 3 match series can win the first match then play to no loose the next 2, thus making it harder for the other side to stage a comeback.
Oh, it's a can of worms...
posted on 1/8/11
'so what happens if England beat India, but then go ont to lose to Bangladesh..do Bangladesh become the worlds best cricketing nation??'
I guess that yes, they would - it can happen in World cricket. You are only as good as your last game.
Why does the table not lie? If we beat India 2-1 then, for you, India would still be the best would they? I guess that i'd have to differ on that.
posted on 1/8/11
"How is it subjective if you have just BEATEN the supposed number 1 in the world? If this was boxing then it would be England that are champions.
This 'test table' is arguable at best, its not the only measure of a team. Better by far to wait till the official team Championship in 2013."
This is not boxing. The table is a record of the last few years.
posted on 1/8/11
'This is not boxing. The table is a record of the last few years."
Duh, yes I know its not boxing. But the tables hardly indicative of current ability is it? Lets put it another way - supposing India go on a series win after this? Not sure who they are playing but suppose they win it 5-0 or something against poor opposition, and England just draw their next series (against stronger opposition). Is it really FAIR that England would be sitting below them in the rankings?
I guess you would say not. My argument was that I believe England to be the BEST team in the world on current form, statistics and how the team can perform over the next few years. Don't forget, India will lose many of their players shortly to retirement.
posted on 1/8/11
"'This is not boxing. The table is a record of the last few years."
Duh, yes I know its not boxing. But the tables hardly indicative of current ability is it? "
So why did you refer to boxing? A league table is used in sports like football, cricket, rugby, etc, and is a way of showing who is best over a period of time.
In your scenario, "Is it fair that...", well, that's have league tales work. Is it fair that a team beat Man Utd last year but are ranked lower than them? Yes, because that's how the league tables works - it is a cumulation of ALL the results.
posted on 1/8/11
'In your scenario, "Is it fair that...", well, that's have league tales work. Is it fair that a team beat Man Utd last year but are ranked lower than them? Yes, because that's how the league tables works - it is a cumulation of ALL the results..'
_-------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect, its not the same situation. We have teams here playing each other at different times for different durations (this is a 4 Test series for example, wheras we played Australia in 5 tests). Sometimes test tours are abandoned (as in the case of Pakistan)
How can you POSSIBLY compare this to a football league table, where everyone plays each other at home and away ? its just NOT the same! At least in boxing the result lies on who you played (fought) last not how many times you have played, when you last played etc etc. I believe that England play more test cricket than anyone else, should we be penalised for that? Its farcical!
Page 1 of 1