Who's the true number one Test side?

That's why I am so confused by the Durban scenario. In fact it was basically one bad session that cost is series against Aus, England and India.

Such is the joy of Test cricket, taips. In a hard fought match, it is often that one bad session that nails you to the wall. Aus have been guilty of it numerous times, in good times (the Warne era) and in bad (before and after the Warne era).

It's just odd that just 3 sessions in 10 test matches have had such a disportionate effect

And despite that we have only lost one series since 2006.

So the moral of the story is, why schedule tests in Durban when stuff all turn up and they're alternative venues around the country?

Red wrote:So the moral of the story is, why schedule tests in Durban when stuff all turn up and they're alternative venues around the country?

Well if you elver read my posts instead of assuming you know what I am going to say, you might have noticed that I have been advocating that for some years.

SA are a good side, but their win % is still a lot worse than England's. We can all blame Durban sobby-styles but it doesn't change the fact that ATM they're jumped up show-ponies because they find it difficult to play winning cricket.

South Africa seem to be stronger in the Sub Continent than England and Australia. But at home, they are also the most fragile of the three teams.

Pakistan are much improved, but let's see them in England, South Africa, and Australia before they're talked about as a potential number 1.

Brass Monkey wrote:SA are a good side, but their win % is still a lot worse than England's. We can all blame Durban sobby-styles but it doesn't change the fact that ATM they're jumped up show-ponies because they find it difficult to play winning cricket.

But SA's losing % is probably lower.

Henry wrote:South Africa seem to be stronger in the Sub Continent than England and Australia. But at home, they are also the most fragile of the three teams.

Pakistan are much improved, but let's see them in England, South Africa, and Australia before they're talked about as a potential number 1.

Really, I would say SA have lost less at home than Eng & Aus over the last 5 years.

Since 2001, England's only series loss at home has been against India in 2007, back when India could actually play decent cricket away from home.

You might want to re check your results, particularly as you are arguing against a saffie....

Henry wrote:Since 2001, England's only series loss at home has been against India in 2007, back when India could actually play decent cricket away from home.

Really Trev, how's the hangover?

Didn't SA win their last series in England?

taipan wrote:
But SA's losing % is probably lower.

Very true. I mean, not in the sense of it being true. But true enough.

Since the start of 2009:

Eng 34 Tests. 20 wins. 6 losses.

SA 21 Tests. 9 wins. 6 losses.

England win% 58
England loss% 17

SA win% 42
SA loss% 28

Aus have a better win% than you.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
But SA's losing % is probably lower.

Very true. I mean, not in the sense of it being true. But true enough.

Since the start of 2009:

Eng 34 Tests. 20 wins. 6 losses.

SA 21 Tests. 9 wins. 6 losses.

England win% 58
England loss% 17

SA win% 42
SA loss% 28

Aus have a better win% than you.

Well was thinking in terms of the last 5 years, but fair enough.

Aye, five years.... can't wait to see Pollock, Hall and Boje versus Freddie, Collingwood and the like. Good indication as to who is the best team now.

Nothing like selective stats hey Dan. By that reasoning SA win in England last time round can be expunged. No wonder Trev forgot about it.

BTW if you read the thread, nowhere have I claimed we are no 1. Even when we were no 1, I never claimed that.

Interesting how many more tests England seems to play.

Re. Pakistan for them to become #1 their batting would have to become classier and without the jailbirds, they'd have to develop some quality pacemen. They can't expect Ajmal and Rehman to be winning them tests in England, Australia and SA for instance.

taipan wrote:Nothing like selective stats hey Dan. By that reasoning SA win in England last time round can be expunged. No wonder Trev forgot about it.

BTW if you read the thread, nowhere have I claimed we are no 1. Even when we were no 1, I never claimed that.

Selective stats? It's the last three years cricket. Five years is half someone's career. The make up of at least one of the two sides is completely different.

You were desperately clamouring to try and expunge four defeats with your 'D-D-Durban' thing. 'Oooh some sessions cost us matches'. You know, some sessions just very, very recently cost England some matches. That's the point. It was your roundabout way of saying SA are number one. And they probably are. But the results are pointing elsewhere.

Red wrote:Interesting how many more tests England seems to play.

Re. Pakistan for them to become #1 their batting would have to become classier and without the jailbirds, they'd have to develop some quality pacemen. They can't expect Ajmal and Rehman to be winning them tests in England, Australia and SA for instance.

Aus have played 35 in that period. Good win% of 51. Awful loss% of 31. 11 Tests lost in that period.

As for Pakistan, Gul is servicable... a little erratic, but still a 33 average. Junaid looks good IMO, he was surplus to requirements in this Test really but he's only young and has all the tools. Cheema isn't the worst either.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:Nothing like selective stats hey Dan. By that reasoning SA win in England last time round can be expunged. No wonder Trev forgot about it.

BTW if you read the thread, nowhere have I claimed we are no 1. Even when we were no 1, I never claimed that.

Selective stats? It's the last three years cricket. Five years is half someone's career. The make up of at least one of the two sides is completely different.

You were desperately clamouring to try and expunge four defeats with your 'D-D-Durban' thing. 'Oooh some sessions cost us matches'. You know, some sessions just very, very recently cost England some matches. That's the point. It was your roundabout way of saying SA are number one. And they probably are. But the results are pointing elsewhere.

Dan, I know you are pissed off about yesterday, I feel your claim. Never have I claimed SA are the dominant world team. Elsewhere you were waffling on about the truth.

Basically my comments about Durban is that we suffer inexplicable collapses there, and that is why we are NOT the dominant team.

In seem to recall you, yourself, saying that England were lucky to escape that series with a draw..

Yeah, of course I'm pissed off about yesterday but I'm not sure what that's got to do with this conversation.

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Eng deserve to still be #1
Its a toss up between Aust & SA as to #2

Aye, one ordinary away series does not a failure make a side. India, on the other hand.

SAf on paper should be streets in front as no. 1 but we all know paper form and actual performance aren't always synchronised for the Yarps.

SA's record is compromised by 4 bad matches, all in Durban. Otherwise we have been pretty solid all around the world.

As I would expect, taips. They are the side I am always amazed that we do well against (although we occasionally fall in a heap versus). As I said, on paper, they are the guns of world cricket.

That's why I am so confused by the Durban scenario. In fact it was basically one bad session that cost is series against Aus, England and India.

Such is the joy of Test cricket, taips. In a hard fought match, it is often that one bad session that nails you to the wall. Aus have been guilty of it numerous times, in good times (the Warne era) and in bad (before and after the Warne era).

It's just odd that just 3 sessions in 10 test matches have had such a disportionate effect

And despite that we have only lost one series since 2006

SA are a good side, but their win % is still a lot worse than England's. We can all blame Durban sobby-styles but it doesn't change the fact that ATM they're jumped up show-ponies because they find it difficult to play winning cricket.

But SA's losing % is probably lower.

Very true. I mean, not in the sense of it being true. But true enough.

Since the start of 2009:

Eng 34 Tests. 20 wins. 6 losses.

SA 21 Tests. 9 wins. 6 losses.

England win% 58
England loss% 17

SA win% 42
SA loss% 28

Aus have a better win% than you

Well was thinking in terms of the last 5 years, but fair enough.

To me that's a mixture of

And all geared to steering people to calling SA the #1 side.

Well if that's what you want to think carry on.

If you disagree with my comments about our record being compromised by the poor results in Durban so be it.

You might also recall that before India in England we both agreed Eng, SA and India were much of a muchness. India have become crap since then but IMHO nothing much has changed between the other two, unless you subscribe to red's views of England being the overwhelming favorites against SA.

SA are favourites in my eyes. Never had I said any different. I said this:

Brass Monkey wrote:SA are a good side, but their win % is still a lot worse than England's. We can all blame Durban sobby-styles but it doesn't change the fact that ATM they're jumped up show-ponies because they find it difficult to play winning cricket.

Which was proven to be true.

Then I said:

Brass Monkey wrote:
You were desperately clamouring to try and expunge four defeats with your 'D-D-Durban' thing. 'Oooh some sessions cost us matches'. You know, some sessions just very, very recently cost England some matches. That's the point. It was your roundabout way of saying SA are number one. And they probably are. But the results are pointing elsewhere.

Which again was proven to be true.

And which only really has served to reaffirm the original point of :

skully wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Eng deserve to still be #1
Its a toss up between Aust & SA as to #2

Aye, one ordinary away series does not a failure make a side. India, on the other hand.

SAf on paper should be streets in front as no. 1 but we all know paper form and actual performance aren't always synchronised for the Yarps.

Which started this whole malarkey. Maybe you should say something now about if Durban was Cape Town or how if Megan Fox had a penis she'd be a sexy tranny.

Or maybe if had even claimed SA was no 1

So subscribing to red's views or not?