cameron_black Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 india or england? since getting the #1 label, both teams have turned into home track bullies...
India-KXIP fan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 India had it for 20 months, England will be knocked off soon. We will definitely beat Eng and Aus at home, they cant play spin. Simple but true. Rank turners should be prepared.
Ultimate_Game Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 At least India managed to hold on to the top ranking for nearly 2 years, IIRC 20 months. We all saw what happened to England on their 1st test series after getting the #1 ranking :haha:
VRV Singh Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 It isn't about worthy/unworthy. Both teams have had a sustained spell where they've played very good cricket. Ranking is not based on comparing to great teams of the past. All this is is fun schadenfreude for Indian fans after having their faces rubbed in it earlier. No.1 is statistical. It's more fun because of the premature crowning of an ATG side :D
Magneto Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 But honestly, England had to play in alien conditions soon after they reached No.1. England would still possibly dominate teams at home the way India did. I reckon their team is still slightly better than ours, but we will have to wait and see how many Tests do they lose this year in the subcontinent.
Cricket Tragic Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 South Africa had it for about 3 months.
vvvslaxman Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 It isn't about worthy/unworthy. Both teams have had a sustained spell where they've played very good cricket. Ranking is not based on comparing to great teams of the past. All this is is fun schadenfreude for Indian fans after having their faces rubbed in it earlier. No.1 is statistical. It's more fun because of the premature crowning of an ATG side :D India never did that. But England did. That is why this is a huge reality check for them.
Pak_Forever Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 That's why no team these days can ever come remotely close to WIs of 70s and Aus of 90s. They were pretty much owning everyone regardless of local of foreign conditions.
saneindian Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Aus of 90s lost both the times it toured India and once in Sri Lanka (post 1995).
Sundar88 Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Told you guys, England can't play spin. Australia can beat India in India, they did it few years ago and almost beat us in Mohali in 2010. South Africa are also very competitive in the subcontinent. England however are very poor against spin, this is why I've been saying Australia will be back at number 1 sooner than many of you think.
VRV Singh Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I was not around for previous great teams, but times like this make you marvel at the great Aus team of the modern era :hatsoff:
Manny_Pacquiao Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 India were far better. Won in England, drew in SA, won in Nz, won in WI. Only place where England actually outperformed India was in Australia, but then India played Hayden, Gilchrist, etc. On their 2008 tour and still managed a win at Perth. Safe to say India plays far better outside subcon than England do outside England. And we cleaned up the top sides at home. Lets see if England can hang with SA's bowlers on their own seaming pitches. Even Aussies would fancy their chances with their new bowling attack India's Top players have gotten old and are well past it, yet ingerlund are supposedly at their peak with a youngish team!
adi B Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 But honestly, England had to play in alien conditions soon after they reached No.1. England would still possibly dominate teams at home the way India did. I reckon their team is still slightly better than ours, but we will have to wait and see how many Tests do they lose this year in the subcontinent. +1 but right now, no one deserves the #1, maybe saffers, but their crap home record nd royal choking ability screws them
vvvslaxman Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 +1 but right now, no one deserves the #1, maybe saffers, but their crap home record nd royal choking ability screws them They have to stop hosting matches at Kingsmead and gettig bowled out for 130 :cantstop:
daryl1985 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 India were far better. Won in England, drew in SA, won in Nz, won in WI. Only place where England actually outperformed India was in Australia, but then India played Hayden, Gilchrist, etc. On their 2008 tour and still managed a win at Perth. Safe to say India plays far better outside subcon than England do outside England. And we cleaned up the top sides at home. Lets see if England can hang with SA's bowlers on their own seaming pitches. Even Aussies would fancy their chances with their new bowling attack India's Top players have gotten old and are well past it, yet ingerlund are supposedly at their peak with a youngish team! Australia's batting line-up is weaker than England's. Forget about how they performed against India.
NeutralCat Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Australia will be back at the top soon enough, remarkable that Australia have champions in every sport they turn their hand to. For a country with a population of only 23 millions its amazing they constantly turn out champions in almost every sport.
Dhonuts Dhoni Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Australia's batting line-up is weaker than England's. Forget about how they performed against India. Only marginally, and mostly due to the standard teething problems you get when introducing a completely new top order simultaneously. Cowan and Warner will be fine, while Marsh and Haddin will get forced out for Watson and Wade. Plenty of young batsmen coming through to cover the phasing out of Ponting and Hussey, and any problems caused by having such a young batting lineup will be alleviated by our dominant bowlers. Too easy.
Old guy Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Only marginally, and mostly due to the standard teething problems you get when introducing a completely new top order simultaneously. Cowan and Warner will be fine, while Marsh and Haddin will get forced out for Watson and Wade. Plenty of young batsmen coming through to cover the phasing out of Ponting and Hussey, and any problems caused by having such a young batting lineup will be alleviated by our dominant bowlers. Too easy. nah man english batting is better then australia and u guys dont have ajmal to fool them lol
jairamesh Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Australia will be back at the top soon enough, remarkable that Australia have champions in every sport they turn their hand to. For a country with a population of only 23 millions its amazing they constantly turn out champions in almost every sport. Try $1Billion of investment in grass-root sports thru specialist sports academies. Nothing amazing, it's just that they have different priorities when it comes to sports and conveying their national identity through sporting successes. To guarantee that China finish top of the Olympics Gold Medals in Beijing, 8 years prior, they established sporting production lines across the country to sieve through top talents and train them into winners. The Soviets did it too.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now