The 'number 1' ranking

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

Which would be more surprising: England maintaining this two-Test lead and becoming the number one ranked side, or India winning one of the next two Tests (and not losing one of them)?

PeterCS wrote:England as #1, I think Fahsolahti means ...

Ah. Shame. I'd have given all my posses to Sales.

That's cool though.

Doris, how many do you think India will win then - one or two? If one, which Test? Which'll be the draw.

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

It's hard to define 'truly great' until a player is into his early to mid 30s. We might look back and think England have 3 or 4.

We've got a 26 year old opener with 18 Test Centuries and over 5,500 runs
A number 3 averaging a shade under 60
A number 4 who averages 50 with a strike rate of over 62 (that strike rate is only exceeded by a handful of specialist batsman in Test cricket)
A keeper who averages over 45 with the bat
A couple of all rounders - one who averages 38 with the bat and 25 with the ball (slightly unreal I know) and the other with the knack of producing crucial 5-fors and playing Sobersesque cameos
Our spinner is the best in the world, catches like a dream and bats better than most
And a swing bowler who is going to end up with more test wickets than any Englishman since Botham

And that's not even mentioning that Ian Bell is in the form of his life....

Depends also if you reserve 'great' for a handful of players - Lara, Warne, Tendulkar, or are players on the mezzanine level like Kumble, Jayawardene, Kirsten, Gooch and Hayden classed as great?

Well the last lot were top class test players but not greats - I mean a BCL,SKW,IVA,SRT.

England certainly have some top, top players but we don't have that stand out 'great' which AUS & WI had and India currently do.

How about Kallis, Walsh, Sehwag, Sir Geoffrey and Sangakkara? Great or not great?

Where does top class end and great begin?

Kallis is verging on greatness if not already. The rest fit into the top class test cricketer category for me.

Agree though, it is stupidly subjective at times. I guess it depends on universal recognition maybe...

Does anyone reckon this current England side are better than the Ashes 2005 side?

I'm thinking player by player - 2011 side has slightly better batting and keeper. 2005 has a slightly better bowling attack, mainly thanks to Fred and S.Jones. Even then I'm not sure. Something like:

Strauss > Strauss
Trescothick > Cook
Vaughan < Trott
Bell < KP
KP > Bell
Flintoff > Morgan
GJones < Prior
Giles < Swann
SJones > Anderson
Hoggard = Tremlett
Harmison = Broad

Is that about right? It's obviously quite difficult to match some of the bowlers up. And the middle order could be Bell < Bell and KP > KP. It's a toughie.

But if they were to play each other, I think you'd have to back 2011 wouldn't you? Just because of their more reliable batting and brilliant tail. It'd be a brilliant game. However if you believe 2011 would win, it suggests that current England side would beat the Aussie 2005 side, perhaps slightly more comfortably than Eng 2005 did, which does not sit right either.

It's a right old puzzler to think about.

We were discussing this on the way back on the train from Trent Bridge. I think the concensus was that England 2011 is more solid and reliable, but the England 2005 had a more enigmatic bowling attack that on its day could be capable of great things.

There are certain intangibles too, for example, Trott > Vaughan, but Vaughan's captaincy seemed to inspire the England bowlers. Current England team doesn't really have a 5th bowling option, but on the other hand in the last Test our number 10 averaged 24 - about what the 2005 team's number 7 averaged.

Also in your analysis I think you have the bowlers wrong, Anderson would have to be compared with Hoggard (swing), Tremlett with Anderson (bounce) and Broad with Jones (pace).

I would have:
Hoggard < Anderson (contraversial, but definitely in English conditions Jimmy)
Harmison = Tremlett (Harmison on his day was better, but those days became less frequent after 2004)
S. Jones > Broad (purely as a bowler - but factor in Broad's batting....)

Then your rememeber that Si Jones would not stay fit for a 5 Test Series, meaning Bad Jimmy or Colly would come in to shore up the batting. Whereas the current team have the likes of Bresnan, Finn or Panesar waiting in reserve.

Gary 111 wrote:

Hoggard < Anderson (contraversial, but definitely in English conditions Jimmy)
Harmison = Tremlett (Harmison on his day was better, but those days became less frequent after 2004)
S. Jones > Broad (purely as a bowler - but factor in Broad's batting....)

I don't think Hoggard < Anderson is controversial. Hoggy was a hell of a trier and a great servant of English cricket but he never had Jimmy's ability to conjure up a magic ball. Their records are almost identical. Now Jammeh has shown he can bowl overseas with the Kookaburra, his more varied box of tricks edges it. Also one of England's best fielders.

Harmison > Tremlett. Still too early to be judging the Goober a better bowler than a bloke with 150+ more Test wickets. Harmison never really fulfilled his potential, but people seem to disregard the fact that he was still a pretty fine bowler - just not everything we'd all hoped he would become.

Jones = Broad. Too hard to call on account of Jones' thin sample pool. Is that a term, sample pool? Well, you know what I mean.

Do you need a great player? I like the way your tail has started wagging. At times that was the key to Australia's success.

Bradman wrote:Do you need a great player? I like the way your tail has started wagging. At times that was the key to Australia's success.

England were a mighty fine team in the late 60s / early 70s under Illy - 26 Tests unbeaten, and I don't think we had an uber all time great. Boycs was Ian Belling it in the form of his life, John Snow was a fine fast bowler and Alan Knott a wonderful keeper, but not sure if they were up there with the Sobers, Lillee, Pollock superstars of that era. That team also had a tail that wagged and a determined batting line-up of hardened pros.

I vehemently f@rt on your sample pool.

Narrow statistical base.

Bres, Jandy and cook are very good english players (with the latter having the poteential to be the best pom opener since Boycs) and KP and Trott are very good imports

Jones = Broad. Too hard to call on account of Jones' thin sample pool. Is that a term, sample pool? Well, you know what I mean.

Sounds like something he'd have stored at a sperm clinic. Eew.

horace wrote:Bres, Jandy and cook are very good english players (with the latter having the poteential to be the best pom opener since Boycs) and KP and Trott are very good imports

And how is the future of Pakistani Australian batting coming along?

Dello wrote:

horace wrote:Bres, Jandy and cook are very good english players (with the latter having the poteential to be the best pom opener since Boycs) and KP and Trott are very good imports

And how is the future of Pakistani Australian batting coming along?

unspeakable of course

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

Conf of pos high.

Dello wrote:

horace wrote:Bres, Jandy and cook are very good english players (with the latter having the poteential to be the best pom opener since Boycs) and KP and Trott are very good imports

And how is the future of Pakistani Australian batting coming along?

Pretty sh!t, actually.

Gary - 

You're probably right about Vaughan > Trott. For all Trott's qualities and his godlike average, he's not really faced any great bowlers has he? They've been earnest jokers for the most part. The one time he did in SA, he failed apart from one 50. Vaughan spent most of his career facing great bowlers. Then there is captaincy of course.

Dello - 

Harmy? Really? I can't think of one really good series against a good team in his entire career. Ashes 2005 was possibly the closest and he still averaged 32. He was largely a minnow bully apart from the odd spell.

Also, a "thin sample pool". 

Whats going on with you? Seriously?That's the most crazy mixed metaphor I've ever seen. A thin pool? First the bag of washing comment, now this. What's next? Bowling like a spoon of bisto?

It's as opposed to a 'fat sample pool' you idiot.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:First the bag of washing comment, now this. What's next? Bowling like a spoon of bisto?

STOP stealing my 'brand' of 'material' you qunt. I did that one to death in the relevant thread! You f*ckfaced peperoni, lemon and spring onion risotto.

Alright, calm down. You're acting like a disgruntled weather vane.

So I mix my metaphors? Don't so be so f*cking racist. They can all get along. They can. I have a dream.

A weather vane? More like a languid chicken-fried pork chop with edamame beans and shame.

Justifiable shame. Edamame beans with chicken-fried pork? Culinary suicide.

Gordon Ramsey would call me a c*nt.

And then he'd criticise my food.