It's shame that Australia is no 1 test side

[gakgupta]

Look at the performance in SL....it's Okie to loose the game but the way it's loosing is a shame

Probably the worst Australian test side in 20 years

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[Ankit_sharma03]

Wont be there for long, at this point no team would remain at top for long

[velu]

rewind 2 years back

 

[Forever Indian]

They will soon be brought to ground!

[Adi_91]

This is pathetic performance against a much depleted SL side. Doesn't deserve the #1 ranking.

[Bleed-Blue]

Their batsmen pile up big runs on flat aussie pitches, but struggle anywhere else.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Bleed-Blue

[gakgupta]

Their batsmen pile up big runs on flat aussie pitches, but struggle anywhere else.

All u need is little bit of swing or little bit of spin .....n u see a collapse...

Wort of all, they blame the pitch

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[Ankit_sharma03]

5 hours ago, Bleed-Blue said:

Their batsmen pile up big runs on flat aussie pitches, but struggle anywhere else.

Something Their Ex players blamed sub continent players once for having gr8 records. I dont see hayden coming out n crying how once voges avg around bradman. 

[sscomp32]

Ball starts moving = Aussies start dancing. 

This day last year  

 

[Bigg Brother]

What is the meaning of piling 500 runs consistently at home when you cant play out even a day outside home.

This australian team has many loopholes and Warner,Smith and Starc's performance is masking it.

[gakgupta]

What is the meaning of piling 500 runs consistently at home when you cant play out even a day outside home.

This australian team has many loopholes and Warner,Smith and Starc's performance is masking it.

Warner is no good....

His 41 and 42 came run a ball which means he is not comfortable playing on these pitches

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[express bowling]

If an  Asian batsman fails in even one tour outside Asia, then his pedigree as an international batsman is challenged.

 

Will the pedigree of Warner, Smith, Voges etc. be questioned by the Aussies and English after this SL series ?

[Ankit_sharma03]

 

Aussies are the worst travelling side in Asia, 4-0 coming up against India to next year.

Any series in UAE, it ll be great fun to see that 6% avg going more loww

Edited August 6, 2016 by Ankit_sharma03

[express bowling]

20 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

Aussies are the worst travelling side in Asia, 4-0 coming up against India to next year.

Any series in UAE, it ll be great fun to see that 6% avg going more loww

 

Those stats would be more meaningful if  Menon had left out the tours to Bangladesh.

[G_B_]

Does any team deserve to be number 1 atm? The answer is no.

 

After the great Aussie team from say 1996 to 2009 there was a period under G Smith say 2013 to 2015 or about 3-4 years when SA deserved to be number 1.

 

 

 

 

[nevada]

9 hours ago, G_B_ said:

Does any team deserve to be number 1 atm? The answer is no.

 

After the great Aussie team from say 1996 to 2009 there was a period under G Smith say 2013 to 2015 or about 3-4 years when SA deserved to be number 1.

 

 

 

 

England also did well for a while. They beat Aus in their own backyard and also beat us in India.

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, nevada said:

England also did well for a while. They beat Aus in their own backyard and also beat us in India.

In last 5 years, England have lost away series in Australia and UAE only. They lost home series against SA.

 

SA lost away series only in India. Lost home series against Eng and Aus.

 

This is good enough for no 1 team.

[Trichromatic]

9 hours ago, G_B_ said:

Does any team deserve to be number 1 atm? The answer is no.

 

After the great Aussie team from say 1996 to 2009 there was a period under G Smith say 2013 to 2015 or about 3-4 years when SA deserved to be number 1.

 

 

 

 

Why not eng? They have done well almost everywhere. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Vibhash

[moniker]

I don't understand this concept of "deserving" to be number 1. The rankings are the outcome of an algorithm. The algorithm sees that Australia collected more points than any other team over the past four years, ranks them number 1. What's the big deal?

Rankings don't mean the top team has had a badass invincible run, where it stomped all over the other teams. It just means it did just enough to better the other teams over the four year period. The calculations show that the other teams have been crappier and couldn't manage to collect as many points, so why shouldn't Australia "deserve" to be number 1?

[Deleted_User_1]

Looks like almost all teams HTBs at this point