I said a few times that India was not a dominant #1 and that they had not beaten Aus in Aus and SA in SA, their bowling attack was not worthy of a top-ranked team.
You are right. The fact that they were #1 ranked team for 2 years, 8 months suggests that they must have done somethings right.
'The fact that they were #1 ranked team for 2 years, 8 months suggests that they must have done somethings right.'
They had a string of games against the lowest ranked teams and got a lucky draw in SA.
On topic, when the WI quicks retired, when the Aussie bowlers retired, hell when any generation of players retires, there will be call of 'it's not like it was when they were playing'.
The fact is England have 4 bowlers in the top 10, and 6 in the top 20 in the world. That suggests a world class attack to me. The fact that they are so good, means other good players are measured by their standards, and are made to appear worse.
England top the rankings and cricket is dying with absolutely no quality players - what a suprise
"They had a string of games against the lowest ranked teams.."
You get more points for winning series over high ranked teams. You can't become #1 by beating the "lowest" ranked teams.
India won 2 test series against Australia (2-0 and 2-0, both at home), one series vs England (1-0 at home), and one series vs SL (2-0 at home). India also drew two series vs SA during this period (1-1, 1-1 at home and on tour).
India won 2 test series against Australia (2-0 and 2-0, both at home), one series vs England (1-0 at home), and one series vs SL (2-0 at home). India also drew two series vs SA during this period (1-1, 1-1 at home and on tour).
---------------------------
Del-Mar have you noticed how many of those victories were at home and how few were 3-4 test series.
True, but then with the exception of SA, all teams have had better win/loss records at home in the past 10 years.
Here are win/loss stats on TOUR for the past 10 years:
Aus 25-12 (2.08)
SA 19-17 (1.11)
Ind 21-21 (1.00)
Eng 18-22 (0.81)
Win/loss stats at HOME for the past 10 years:
Aus 42-8 (5.25)
SL 28-6 (4.66)
Eng 42-10 (4.20)
Ind 22-6 (3.66)
SA 29-14 (2.07)
By the way, the team that played the highest number of home test matches in the past decade happens to be England (69).
SA enjoys the least advantage at home and SL the most. England does somewhat better that India at home, and somewhat less well than India on tour.
However, if we play like we did on the recent tour Down Under, we will be hard to beat on tours.
Del Mar, if you look at only the last 5 years, I wager England's stats will look much healthier. 10 years ago we were rubbish.
Given that there is a very low % of those who were playing international cricket 10 years back still playing today, that time frame is not really representative of the team's form.
HM, England's tour stats do not look better for the past 5-year period.
Tour stats for the past 5 years (W-L, W/L):
SA 11-4 (2.75)
Aus 7-7 (1.00)
Ind 11-12 (0.91)
Eng 8-11 (0.72)
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax1=30+Aug+2011;spanmin1=30+Aug+2006;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
Talking of quality batsmen. Gambhir is out of the rest of the series, which is a great news for ....... India
Sign in if you want to comment
Cricket Is Dying.
Page 4 of 4
posted on 30/8/11
I said a few times that India was not a dominant #1 and that they had not beaten Aus in Aus and SA in SA, their bowling attack was not worthy of a top-ranked team.
You are right. The fact that they were #1 ranked team for 2 years, 8 months suggests that they must have done somethings right.
posted on 30/8/11
'The fact that they were #1 ranked team for 2 years, 8 months suggests that they must have done somethings right.'
They had a string of games against the lowest ranked teams and got a lucky draw in SA.
On topic, when the WI quicks retired, when the Aussie bowlers retired, hell when any generation of players retires, there will be call of 'it's not like it was when they were playing'.
The fact is England have 4 bowlers in the top 10, and 6 in the top 20 in the world. That suggests a world class attack to me. The fact that they are so good, means other good players are measured by their standards, and are made to appear worse.
posted on 30/8/11
England top the rankings and cricket is dying with absolutely no quality players - what a suprise
posted on 30/8/11
"They had a string of games against the lowest ranked teams.."
You get more points for winning series over high ranked teams. You can't become #1 by beating the "lowest" ranked teams.
India won 2 test series against Australia (2-0 and 2-0, both at home), one series vs England (1-0 at home), and one series vs SL (2-0 at home). India also drew two series vs SA during this period (1-1, 1-1 at home and on tour).
posted on 30/8/11
India won 2 test series against Australia (2-0 and 2-0, both at home), one series vs England (1-0 at home), and one series vs SL (2-0 at home). India also drew two series vs SA during this period (1-1, 1-1 at home and on tour).
---------------------------
Del-Mar have you noticed how many of those victories were at home and how few were 3-4 test series.
posted on 30/8/11
True, but then with the exception of SA, all teams have had better win/loss records at home in the past 10 years.
posted on 30/8/11
Here are win/loss stats on TOUR for the past 10 years:
Aus 25-12 (2.08)
SA 19-17 (1.11)
Ind 21-21 (1.00)
Eng 18-22 (0.81)
posted on 30/8/11
Win/loss stats at HOME for the past 10 years:
Aus 42-8 (5.25)
SL 28-6 (4.66)
Eng 42-10 (4.20)
Ind 22-6 (3.66)
SA 29-14 (2.07)
By the way, the team that played the highest number of home test matches in the past decade happens to be England (69).
SA enjoys the least advantage at home and SL the most. England does somewhat better that India at home, and somewhat less well than India on tour.
However, if we play like we did on the recent tour Down Under, we will be hard to beat on tours.
posted on 30/8/11
Del Mar, if you look at only the last 5 years, I wager England's stats will look much healthier. 10 years ago we were rubbish.
Given that there is a very low % of those who were playing international cricket 10 years back still playing today, that time frame is not really representative of the team's form.
posted on 30/8/11
HM, England's tour stats do not look better for the past 5-year period.
Tour stats for the past 5 years (W-L, W/L):
SA 11-4 (2.75)
Aus 7-7 (1.00)
Ind 11-12 (0.91)
Eng 8-11 (0.72)
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax1=30+Aug+2011;spanmin1=30+Aug+2006;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
posted on 30/8/11
Talking of quality batsmen. Gambhir is out of the rest of the series, which is a great news for ....... India
Page 4 of 4