Australia now ranked 4th in the world- Ouch

.......behind South Africa, Sri Lanka, and India. I'm not even sure the Windies fell that quickly post 1995. to be fair, it's now extremely tight at the top. Good for test cricket.

ICC rankings are meaningless.

Next.

They are correct in showing there's not much to choose between most of the major sides though. I think any of the top eight has a chance of beating any other side at home, it's certainly true of the top six at least.

beamer wrote:They are correct in showing there's not much to choose between most of the major sides though. I think any of the top eight has a chance of beating any other side at home, it's certainly true of the top six at least.

Really?

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:They are correct in showing there's not much to choose between most of the major sides though. I think any of the top eight has a chance of beating any other side at home, it's certainly true of the top six at least.

Really?

Well, maybe including NZ and WI is pushing it a bit, though England did lose in the Caribbean this year, I can't see SA or India for example losing there.

But as for the other six, I can't think of a potential series between any two sides where the home side wouldn't have a decent chance.

England win a series and remain in 5th place. Ouch.

Yorkie Jill wrote:England win a series and remain in 5th place. Ouch.

I can live with it.

To be fair we were lucky to be 5th before this, given how the last couple of years have gone. I guess it just moves us a bit closer to the top four and gives us a bit more breathing space over Pakistan, WI and NZ (not that Pakistan's ranking can be very meaningful, given the amount of Test cricket they've played in recent years).

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!

still think they're stronger than SL who are still weak away from home. they just beat pak and WI at home - most teams would do that. id have it:

ind/sa
aus
sl
eng
pak
wi/nz

Yorkie Jill wrote:England win a series and remain in 5th place. Ouch.

Yes, but we've got the Ashes so it doesn't mater where we or any other side is ranked. We've won the only one that counts.

Important as the Ashes may be for all sorts of reasons (historical, and to an often absurd degree psychological), this SHOUDL be a basis for pushing on.

How often have we said and heard that before.

The Saffy tour will be a good sign if the squad is still improving, or starts to ebb away again.


I agree most ratings of international standings are bunk. That is mainly "individual self-esteem projected on to a national team, squared".

1. SA
2. Aus
3. India/SL

On the basis, that SA and Aus are the only two sides that could potentially win test series anywhere in the world. I.e they have more chance of drawing/winning in India or SL than the other way around IMO.

the ind-sl series later this year should be interesting

I think India are clearly ahead of Aus now. Sri Lanka are getting a good team together, as well.

Ash wrote:still think they're stronger than SL who are still weak away from home. they just beat pak and WI at home - most teams would do that. id have it:

ind/sa
aus
sl
eng
pak
wi/nz

I see Karti is back.

Vaughan about Eng's chances to become best team in world,

"I now hope England can build a team capable of beating Australia in Australia in two years' time and become the best side in the world," Vaughan, England's 2005 Ashes winning captain, wrote in his column for The Daily Telegraph.

Doesn't it sound a bit far fetched atm? Despite this fantastic Ashes win, Eng still have some issues over their team selection.

For all his exploits in Oval test, Broad to me still looks very one dimensional bowler.

Flintoff has gone for good.

Anderson, well you can't bet on him to deliver the goods consistently though he bowled very well in this series.

Swann, he bowled well throughout the series without much luck apart from Oval. I hope Indian spinners learn something from him. The way he got the ball to turn and bounce was very unEnglish.

As for their batting, without KP their middle order is still very suspect though Trott seems a very welcome inclusion. And don't forget the huge hole in the lower middle order left by Flintoff's retirement.

Bell and Collingwood are already bit suspect.

And no way, SL is world no.2 test team.

Aus and Ind are anyday better than them in most conditions.

I cannot remember when England was the dominant team in world cricket...India certainly has never been...in the past 50 years only the oz, saffies and the windies

Horrie, England were widely considered the dominant team throughout the 50's. You must have been around 48 years old back then, so surely you can remember.

of course...it was early on in my dotage...2009-50 years =1959...we had several overrated NSW players in the team those days (inc the koala of his time - RN Harvey)
'
england was not considered the dominant team by us...even tho you had fiery fred

And Statham and Tyson, and Laker and Lock.

A bit better than Jimmy, Draco, Harmi and Swanneeeeee!!!!!

tony lock was a chucker tho and england ill treated jimmy laker...Statham was the McGrath of his day in terms of consistent line and length
'
Tyson burnt out

I'd put it :

SA/Ind/Aus/SL

Eng/Pak

WI/NZ

Those top four teams are a massive bag-o-shite for someone professing to be the best in the world. Probably the worst number 1 team there has been in decades. They've got massive deficiences.

Brass Monkey wrote:I'd put it :

SA/Ind/Aus/SL

Eng/Pak

WI/NZ

Those top four teams are a massive bag-o-shite for someone professing to be the best in the world. Probably the worst number 1 team there has been in decades. They've got massive deficiences.

Agreed. I wouldn't put it past us to beat any of them at home.