The 'number 1' ranking

Would England be the first side to attain (if indeed they even do) it without a truly great player?

No. Because Ian FOHL Bell is in the team.

Who was in the Saffie side a few years ago when the got the No 1 because of a quirk in the scheduling?

I guess Kallis could be seen as "truly great".

JGK wrote:Who was in the Saffie side a few years ago when the got the No 1 because of a quirk in the scheduling?

I guess Kallis could be seen as "truly great".

How many years are the rankings based on?

It used to be the home and away results for the previous 4 years I think.

So how does the quirk come in?

I vaguely recall it was because Australia had yet to play Bangladesh and hadn't played Zim at home and so got no points for those series whereas Saf had full points.

I just tried to look it up but couldn't find it on Wiki or the ICC site - both of which say Aust was No 1 since inception to late 09. So maybe I dreamt it.

JGK wrote:I vaguely recall it was because Australia had yet to play Bangladesh and hadn't played Zim at home and so got no points for those series whereas Saf had full points.

I just tried to look it up but couldn't find it on Wiki or the ICC site - both of which say Aust was No 1 since inception to late 09. So maybe I dreamt it.

South Africa had beaten India in India in 2000 whereas Australia had lost that series in 2001.

JGK wrote:I vaguely recall it was because Australia had yet to play Bangladesh and hadn't played Zim at home and so got no points for those series whereas Saf had full points.

I just tried to look it up but couldn't find it on Wiki or the ICC site - both of which say Aust was No 1 since inception to late 09. So maybe I dreamt it.

Nah, SA have been no 1 twice.

I remember them being ranked 1 somehow just before back to back series v Aus ( or at least a home series v Aus) then promptly getting caned. It was something to do with number of matches or series played

I'm not sure there are any boundaries to what constitutes "truly great". Or - aesthetics aside - whether one individual or other being consistently "truly great" is what the game is mainly about.

When England do well, they tend to excel as a team. Individuals, in unision or singly, take turns to win matches. Just about all of the present team - even the supposedly weaker players - have made a matchwinning contribution lately.

In 2005, it was partly a matter of "bowling in packs", and creating pressure and mistakes that way.

That's what's happenning again now though isn't it Peter?

Since last summer, most of the time the opposition batsmen have been under constant pressure from our attack.

Perhaps, although Swann has temporarily taken over Broad's previous role this year as "The Weakest Link". And Jim has had his doldrums too.

I suppose Giles was the weak link in 2005, though he was usually fairly mean if completely unpenetrative.

Kevin Pietersen might dispute the premise of this thread.

A few more years before we could make a final judgement though.

Nice to see you back Leo, even if it is to tell us that KP is The New Ramps

Leo wrote:Kevin Pietersen might dispute the premise of this thread.

A few more years before we could make a final judgement though.

WTF is Ramps?

Warnie is talking up England.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/England-hungry-for-victory-20110802

BTW, wonder if Fletcher replacing Kirsten is a factor at all.

Kirsten got out at the top. Legend.

A clever move. Nowt to do with Felch though.

taipan wrote:Kirsten got out at the top. Legend.

And is starting again in (soon to be) third place.

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:Kirsten got out at the top. Legend.

And is starting again in (soon to be) third place.

Yep, but he has the chance of building them up. India are only going in one direction.

Leo wrote:Kevin Pietersen might dispute the premise of this thread.

A few more years before we could make a final judgement though.

Really hope that Rampslove doesn't lead to Pietersenfawning. Hasn't for me anyhoo.

Haven't got the pos yet and I would still be surprised if they do.

doremi wrote:Haven't got the pos yet and I would still be surprised if they do.

What player are you talking about? I didn't know we can pos players. I'd probably still neg Bell.

England as #1, I think Fahsolahti means ...