The Cricket Society III

Mark Nicholas =/= the media.

In any case, even at their height, Australia struggled on the subcontinent. It took four attempts to win a series in India and two attempts to win in Sri Lanka, despite crucifying everyone everywhere else.

Yeah I do agree with you. There is no number 1 outstanding test team-that has dominated like Australia did. (or even in the Windies in the 70s-80s
Englang-South Africa will give us a good indication how good are the number 1 side.
And the series in India will be their biggest challenge but I am guessing they wont struggle as much, seeing how weak our Indian side have become:/

Tbh, Cricinfo named this England team as one of the five best test teams ever, in the company of the Invincibles etc. That was just before Ajmal tore Bell a new ******** and Pakistan made a mockery of a much lauded England team for the second time in 7 years. Greatness is achieving consistent series wins away from home against every other team, and England have got a long way to go. Beating the weakest Australia team in 25 years, scraping a 1-1 draw against SA, getting humiliated by a modest Pakistan and drawing with a mediocre Sri Lanka is hardly the stuff of greatness.

Yes, I did just call Pakistan modest. The openers are weak, the middle order is solid but unspectacular, the keeper (whoever plays) ranges from average to abysmal, the spinners are excellent if not legendary, and the fast bowling is average. In general its an average team, propped up by the spin twins and Younus Khan, not the kind you'd expect to be destroying England 3-0. In 2005, England put up a better fight against a much stronger team; (arguably) the worlds best middle and lower order, a rampant Shoaib, and Kaneria at his peak.

So yeah, Cricinfo's analysis/articles are usually weak/average. I remember reading that some of their selection panel wouldn't put Inzamam in their all time Pak XI. Screw Baresi and Maldini.

Another comparison between Australia and England. Thoughts?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-west-indies-2012/content/current/story/566645.html

Pathetic man. Anderson is overrated, I don't care what anybody says. Broad is something else (in a good way) and so is Bresnan actually.

That is fair enough but even then, who have you beaten at home and away? A WI team which are rebuilding, a poor Indian side last year, a Bangladesh side, plus an Australia team who was not very good. Until you beat a very good team you can't really be considered a great team. We will see how you do against SA, but atm it's not true.

Its hilarious how every single team England go on to crush is then described as 'the weakest in bla bla bla'. That Aus team they beat, drew in SA and beat Ind 4-0. Up till when Ind came here they were the number one ranked team in the world. They played SA AWAY at SA couldn't beat them...

Why don't you think Anderson is good? Its not what the rankings and statistics in the last 18 months say...

I don't think anyone really think he's as good as McGrath - thats just retarded - but he is certainly up there with Steyn at the moment.

Why don't you think Anderson is good? Its not what the rankings and statistics in the last 18 months say...

I don't think anyone really think he's as good as McGrath - thats just retarded - but he is certainly up there with Steyn at the moment.

Its hilarious how every single team England go on to crush is then described as 'the weakest in bla bla bla'. That Aus team they beat, drew in SA and beat Ind 4-0. Up till when Ind came here they were the number one ranked team in the world. They played SA AWAY at SA couldn't beat them...

This English team is one of the best ever teams to play in England.

Everyone knew that India are poor away from home, I am not making excuses. England played amazingly well but you have got to admit that the India team that came was not excellent. We lost Zaheer Khan on the first day, Gambhir was ill during the first match I think and Sehwag only came in the third test match. Also the Selectors were stupid to play Raina when they know that he is not very good against the short ball, when there are other capable youngsters available.

The Australia team they beat were not great also, they were rebuilding.

We will see how good England really is against SA and India in India.

He hasn't done nothing special for me. People keep saying he bowled amazing in the Ashes. He didn't bowl that well, it wasn't anything extraordinary. I wouldn't say he's up there with Steyn at all, Steyn could possibly go on to be the greatest bowler of all time. Says a lot about the current state of bowlers if he's up there.

Funny that, I thought they got crushed by Pakistan. Haha.

Steyn, Morkel and Philander are a step above Amir, Asif and Gul, and those three caused England no end of problems, the awful Pakistani fielding didn't help either. So I expect the trio, as well as Amla to star in a series win for SA. Smith, Boucher and Tahir could be weak points.

Morkel is overated. Philander is enjoying a typical (if more successful than normal) bowlers honeymoon before the batsman figure them out. He isn't exactly setting the county championship on fire so far - currently he's 48th in the list of averages this season.

Amir and Asif were better bowlers than either of them.

Excuses, excuses. If India are consistently poor away from home or can't cope if a key player breaks down, then they're hardly staking their claim to be called a great team.

The Australian team that was so weak it went on to win in SL and draw in SA immediately afterwards? Give over. The Aussie team is not the one of the early 2000s, but it is still one of the stronger teams in the world at the moment, particularly at home.

Is this the same SA that England have already played away not so long ago and drew? The only challenges left for England are to win on the subcontinent, particularly in India (which took the great 90s/00s Aussie team 4 attempts to do) and win in Pakistan away (which many of the 80s Windies team consider to be the crown of their record breaking run)