Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

All seems a bit jumbled.

India are top but there's six teams within a few points away. India haven't done anything relevant overseas in years whilst the Test number 5 team have just beaten the Test number 3 team comprehensively away from home without their best batsman or bowler.

Didn't they win in WI, Sri lanka in recent time, oh yeah india results in WI, Sri lanka, Bangladesh or if they play in UAE doesn't count but England, SA, Australia result count everywhere.

In general, Subcontinental teams marquee results are winning outside Subcontinental conditions for example England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Conversely the non Subcontinental team real achievements are winning in Subcontinent. In general, if you win away from places that are similar to your own conditions. England have it a bit easier than the Subcontinental teams because they can achievements in conditions similar to how the play normally for historic reasons.

Let's face it, out of those listed only winning in the UAE would be a real achievement for India given above.

I've never taken much notice of the rankings. As for South Africa beating Australia. It's sport, and a slightly weaker winning isn't much of a shock.

Making_Splinters wrote:In general, Subcontinental teams marquee results are winning outside Subcontinental conditions for example England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Conversely the non Subcontinental team real achievements are winning in Subcontinent. In general, if you win away from places that are similar to your own conditions. England have it a bit easier than the Subcontinental teams because they can achievements in conditions similar to how the play normally for historic reasons.

Let's face it, out of those listed only winning in the UAE would be a real achievement for India given above.

ok get your point but doubt England winning in the subcontinent is a key achivement.
dobell wrote 2 days ago that majority of the English fans/board/media etc would be happy if they won against SA at home and the Ashes winter and india defeat will most likely be forgotten.
So they don't exactly treat winning in asia as a marquee result and suspect winning in SA last winter and any future Ashes wins will be treated as a superior result.

bhaveshgor wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:In general, Subcontinental teams marquee results are winning outside Subcontinental conditions for example England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Conversely the non Subcontinental team real achievements are winning in Subcontinent. In general, if you win away from places that are similar to your own conditions. England have it a bit easier than the Subcontinental teams because they can achievements in conditions similar to how the play normally for historic reasons.

Let's face it, out of those listed only winning in the UAE would be a real achievement for India given above.

ok get your point but doubt England winning in the subcontinent is a key achivement.
dobell wrote 2 days ago that majority of the English fans/board/media etc would be happy if they won against SA at home and the Ashes winter and india defeat will most likely be forgotten.
So they don't exactly treat winning in asia as a marquee result and suspect winning in SA last winter and any future Ashes wins will be treated as a superior result.

Completely disagree, the win in India in 2012 was the biggest achievement this side has achieved under Cook, far above the win in South Africa. Dobell, like most of us, expect England to get battered in the upcoming series, so there is little wonder why it is not being viewed as a realistic achievement. The Ashes are always held in high esteem simply because of the history behind them, even at home where we haven't lost for over a decade.

If you're looking at it from a rivalry stand point then winning in South Africa and the Ashes in Australia would be the top of the tree for England. In terms of a pure cricketing feat then winning in the UAE and India would be the hardest to achieve.

The same goes for the Sub Continental side, while winning in India would be huge for them, going to Australia and winning would be a much higher achievement for all of them, or indeed South Africa. England would be a way below that since both India and Sri Lanka have won there in recent times. Comparatively for the West Indies, and series win against any top ranked team would be all the same for them.

Would agree with that Splinter.
just found it odd comment from dobell two days before the tour, he didn't really need to write it either considering ECB/Broad etc were bigging up the series now.
Also didn't really think there much of a rivalry between England and SA, I know they got the iconic status in 2006 or around then but they still haven't played a 5 match series or played every 4 yrs.
plus doesn't have the historical aspect to it either since in technical terms SA started Test in 1990s.
it does have the competitive aspect to it and very great to watch, can't actually remember one poor or awful series, if anything the recent one came close.
Although it does beg the question if SA vs england will be a regular occurrence after this summer.
after this summer England not scheduled to play SA again till they announce the new ftp and they won't announce that until all board agree on a new system for Test cricket.

For me England winning in india should be regarded as the best achievement ever by cook or any england team ever, considering they actually beat india at their own game in india and not only that they actually batted and bowled better as well.
just let this sink Ashwin averaged 55 in that series and he averages low 20 in india/asia.
that is a bowler that causes mayhem in Asia/india and in the same pitches he lost it, couldn't take wickets quickly enough or cheaply enough against a side that was still fragile against spin, in some helpful surfaces or similar deck he bowled in most of his career in india.

England were so great in that series, people didn't even give them credit they deserved considering all the talk and intrigue was on india how they actually lost and got thrashed by england in india.

pretty weird series though considering not sure England actually celebrated the victory much, went straight to NZ and when Australia toured in the summer, remember loads of negativity in the press about the boring England, not great to watch and then the team got disbanded in the winter.

I'd still say that winning the Ashes in 2005 would probably go down as the biggest moment in English cricketing history of the modern age, drawing with the Windies in the early 90s was a pretty special moment as well, remember they still had Marshall combined with Ambrose and Walsh, and Viv though it was probably his last tour and he was fading by then. Beating Pakistan in Pakistan in 2000 was up there and the win in the early 80s wasn't bad. The 81 Ashes of course, 2004 in South Africa was a good one as well and under rated in my opinion. Those of us of a slightly older generation might think back to Ashes in 71. Might even throw the 2011 Ashes win in there.

India was a big achievement, but I wouldn't say it was the be all and end all of English cricket.

I usually say that after the 2005 Ashes, the 2-1 loss to WI in 1990 was England's best series.

Pity the current top two aren't going to play each other any time soon.