On the spot Test rankings

Based on how I'd expect results to go if the teams were to play each other right now, all other things being equal...

1) South Africa
2) India
3) Australia
4) Pakistan
5) New Zealand
6) Sri Lanka
7) England
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

Perhaps that is even a bit generous to England, a showdown with WI would be quite comical at this moment in time.

Would be funny if we didn't make the Test championship (if it still goes ahead!)

England are better than Nzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

That was before England's confidence was completely crushed though. Whereas NZ are a team who have recently proved they can make big scores, despite a few gaps in their top order, and bowl sides out. They're a similar sort of team to Australia, just without the express pace and a bit less quality in the batting.

[quote="beamer"][quote="Gary 111"]

beamer wrote:They're a similar sort of team to Australia, just without the express pace and a bit less quality in the batting.

As in a worse team?

If Australia didn't have Harris or Johnson and less quality in the batting we'd probably do alright against them.

I'm not sure we'd beat any serious cricket team if asked to do so immediately after this. There's a number of players who were considered top class a year ago whose careers will probably never recover. Comparing England with this time last year, the names may be the same but the spirit's gone. I think to say they would beat WI and Bangladesh at the moment is probably being generous.

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

Errrr . . . same team, same players, same year (2013) - Australians.
England won!
3 - nil.

Guess the series score right now?!

Merlin wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

Errrr . . . same team, same players, same year (2013) - Australians.
England won!
3 - nil.

Guess the series score right now?!

4.6 - nil?

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

Static thinking, Gaz.

beamer wrote:I'm not sure we'd beat any serious cricket team if asked to do so immediately after this. There's a number of players who were considered top class a year ago whose careers will probably never recover. Comparing England with this time last year, the names may be the same but the spirit's gone. I think to say they would beat WI and Bangladesh at the moment is probably being generous.

Correct in its trend (dynamic thinking), tho maybe going slightly overboard at the end: satyric despair vitiating the argument.

PeterCS wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

Static thinking, Gaz.

If you can't see the difference in quality between Harris and Johnson and Boult and Southee then you're beyond hope Pete.

They would still be far too good for our top five. They showed their potential a year ago and have moved up a level since, whereas our batsmen have dropped several.

Prior earned us a 0-0 in NZ, don't forget... he's not even in the team any more!

Stokes is though. Broad and Anderson would take wickets for fun like they did last Summer.

Gary 111 wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:Snoozonia would thrash us at the moment, Southee and Boult would have our top order on toast.

We played them at the moment (in the last year). Same teams, same players. England won.

Static thinking, Gaz.

If you can't see the difference in quality between Harris and Johnson and Boult and Southee then you're beyond hope Pete.

You could add a crocked Vettori (or whoever replaced him) v Lyon ... but that's not the point. It's about morale, performance and learning capabilities of teams. England's at first very edgy and doubtful, then only towards the end more confident victories over a competitive but eventually vanquished NZ only a few months ago are certainly not the way we find these two teams a few months later.

(Besides, NZ's batting is presently about as good as Australia's! )

We would presently still need Stokes to turn it on against the land of his birth!

Gary 111 wrote:

If you can't see the difference in quality between Harris and Johnson and Boult and Southee then you're beyond hope Pete.

Not a question of comparing Rhino/Mitch to the South/Bolt combo Gazza - it's more the rabid and rapid decline of the English batting that rings alarms and thus causes one to think that . . . yeah, England would be pushovers for even the Snoozers.

Look at the quality of Harris and Johnson's bowling. Ably supported by Lyon, Siddle and Watson - we've been well beaten.

I would be very confident in Nzzzzzzzzzzz had been touring Aus for 5 Tests they would have lost 5-0 too. Just would have been less fans.

Merlin wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

If you can't see the difference in quality between Harris and Johnson and Boult and Southee then you're beyond hope Pete.

Not a question of comparing Rhino/Mitch to the South/Bolt combo Gazza - it's more the rabid and rapid decline of the English batting that rings alarms and thus causes one to think that . . . yeah, England would be pushovers for even the Snoozers.

Well, fortunately, Pete, Merlin, NZ are touring England next year so we can see if you're right.

I'll happily bet £100 that NZ won't win the series. Hell, i'll even bet £1000 if you want. Any takers....?

They might have lost 5-0 against this inspired Aussie attack, but would have surely put up more of a fight than England have, despite having less quality on paper. They're a team on the up and growing in confidence.

beamer wrote:They might have lost 5-0 against this inspired Aussie attack, but would have surely put up more of a fight than England have, despite having less quality on paper. They're a team on the up and growing in confidence.

They might put up more of a fight, but bearing in mind Anderson and Broad bowled them all out for less than 70 I tend to think Harris and Johnson in this form would have steamrollered them.

Any team in world cricket would struggle facing this quality of bowling. It'll be fascinating seeing South Africa play them. I hope Johnson and Harris stay fit for that series (and SA have some firepower of their own to fight back).

Well, SA should be at least able to match their firepower with Steyn, Philander and Morkel, although with no spinner and no Kallis they need to find a second string to their attack. Both batting orders still have holes to fill, Australia probably more so. Australia have to bowl consistently as well as they have done in this series to have a chance - AB, Amla and Smith won't fold like the England top order.

Regarding England v NZ - the odds are probably in favour of England regrouping in time to beat them next year. If we had to play them tomorrow though it would be a different story.

beamer wrote:

Regarding England v NZ - the odds are probably in favour of England regrouping in time to beat them next year. If we had to play them tomorrow though it would be a different story.

Yeah, but the whole point of Test series is we wouldn't have to play them tomorrow. There's at least 2 months between series so England wouldn't arrive shattered they would be refreshed and our superior squad depth to them means we could call up an Onions or Compton if someone was struggling.

Last Summer in England all the NZ batsmen bar Taylor averaged less than 21, and they were the best they had.

The rankings I set out were based on the concept of the teams playing each other tomorrow though, with any home advantage taken out of the equation.

I think some of these England players are beyond being refreshed anyway, we're watching a few careers effectively end, some of these players won't contribute anything material at Test level again.

beamer wrote:The rankings I set out were based on the concept of the teams playing each other tomorrow though, with any home advantage taken out of the equation.

I think some of these England players are beyond being refreshed anyway, we're watching a few careers effectively end, some of these players won't contribute anything material at Test level again.

How could they play tomorrow. Australia will bat most of today so England will still be playing here.

No, however miserable this series is England are still better than New Zealand.

Not sure if I fancy us against India though. Should be a tight series.