Good luck Mike.

This guy firmly believes that a team that has not won away since 2015/16, and lost twice at home since that, time has a world class attack.

Despite your batsmen piling on runs. 

When did England last lose at home? 2014? SA lost to SL, who before then? England 2015/16? India - who the heck has beaten them at home? Australia 04/05?

Yeah - this Aus attack is world class... The batting team with Voges, Smith and Warner, has dragged the team down overall to 5th.... Makes sense to me :)

Paddles, if I haven't already made my views of your analyses and the faux academic nature in which they are expressed quite clear, apologies. I thought I had.

Though possibly this misunderstanding arose because eventually I chose not to respond to the more emotionally driven parts of your posts, nor those that displayed a rather vehement and obvious antipathy to Australian cricket (which itself may have biased your opinion).

Though on you, yourself personally, as separate from your arguments, I offer no opinion. That ruins forums and would be ridiculous.

Again, you're talking to me directly and being personal with "emotion" and "faux academic". Please stop. Just stop. I don't have time for you, nor your insults. You bore me. Not "antipathy" toward Australian cricket. You. Yourself. Just stop talking to me. 

I am unwilling to be patient with people who argue as personally as yourself. You're not worth my time. If you cannot deal with the issues, and resort to ad hominem, I just won't engage further.

When you finally explain how a world class attack let Australia slip to 5th, cos their batting is say the 8th best in the world, I'll listen. But your batting is the 3rd best in the world right now. 

SA and India, even India are carried by their bowlers of late. India with the second best batting in the world of late has been carried by their bowlers. India has gone through 7 opening batsmen since the start of 2018 - and Rahane sucked before the WI tour throughout this time. They were even trying Pandya as an allrounder, who averages barely over 30 with the bat before going 4 bowlers and more batting with Vihari (they tried Rohit as a 6th batsman too cos they needed more runs). But despite the supposed Indian run shortage, as they are doing 2nd best, they're winning more games than Aus, why? Could it be their bowlers?

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India

Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jan 2018

Batting position between 1 and 2

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 7 of 7

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
PP Shaw	2018-2018	2	3	1	237	134	118.50	252	94.04	1	1	0	34	1
MA Agarwal	2018-2019	4	7	0	275	77	39.28	573	47.99	0	3	0	30	5
S Dhawan	2018-2018	6	11	0	301	107	27.36	421	71.49	1	0	0	47	3
KL Rahul	2018-2019	13	23	1	491	149	22.31	936	52.45	1	0	4	61	3
M Vijay	2018-2018	8	15	0	282	105	18.80	741	38.05	1	0	3	34	1
PA Patel	2018-2018	1	1	0	16	16	16.00	15	106.66	0	0	0	3	0
GH Vihari	2018-2018	1	2	0	21	13	10.50	111	18.91	0	0	0	1	0

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 7 of 7

First Previous

Next  Last

Go to page

Statsguru includes the following current or recent Test matches:

SA has Bavuma who totally sucks with the bat on a quota spot. Bar against your Aussie attack. Amla's decline led him to retirement already...

We know which teams are being carried by their bowlers. And which are not.

So deal with facts, not personal info about me. Or don't talk to me ever again please. I am not here for your personal assessment nor commentary about my arguments. Either respond to the argument or don't. There is no need to continuously get into ad hominem. Its frankly quite boring. 

You want to claim the Aus team is like WI - with a possibly World Class attack and limp batting. Mike and I are not buying it. WI batting is horrid. Hetmeyer has no test centuries and 1, just 1, FC century. And he is their future batting prodigy? Its pathetic. He's not even the worst batsman in their team arguably as Braitwaire has a new opening partner nearly ever test. And Mike and I are still not convinced yet of the WI attack despite Roach Holder and Gabriel that they even have a WC attack. We will admit their bowling is better than their batting, though. Easily.

For the rest of the teams ranked above Aus, NZ is being carried by its batsmen for the first time in its history as Henry Nicholls has just really surprised everyone, and CdG has gotten into the groove as a batting allrounder.  England has been carried by Anderson's bowling at home. All this is factually supported by the stats. So if you want to argue against the stats for Aus, please explain why. Cos every argument you want to present will have a question - why not Cummins? Cos we know he is bowling well, and his team mates are not. 

Not sure why you are issuing commands, Paddles? (which I'm not obliged to accept, obviously).

If you have made no pretence that your analyses and particularly the conclusions you have drawn from them have any academic qualities, then that is at least something we can agree on and I apologise. I was certainly wrong to that extent.  

Your offerings have similar problem to the various pseudo scientific/pseudo academic disciplines, where all appraisal and critique is taken as personal insult. 

It might be best if we don't converse, as there seems no wish for critique and a preference for emotional based argument more so than discussion.

Good luck with it. Guess we'll see from boxing day how rubbish we are.

Is this a last word post? I hope so. 

NZ v Aus IN AUS starts in Perth, not Boxing Day. And even if Aus win at home, you'll still be ranked below NZ if we beat England at home. Heck NZ could lose both and still be ranked ahead possibly.

Try not losing to Pakistan or SL next time :) Seriously. And NZ only lost to SA because of rain.  :) Try not losing to India at home too :P

You forgot the "na na na na na" part at the end Paddles.

Last one for a while at least, promise, entertaining as it has been.

No "na na na na na" - this is honesty.

I don't think Aussie's bowlers have performed well in years. Years. Smith has. Best in the world, but your bowlers, compared to India or SA? Get out of here.

Hazlewood has underperformed the past two years.. maintain that is mostly he does not have the pitches to best exploit his expertise. When he does we have seen in England what he can do.. regardless of the opposition. I just wanted to toss this into the mix..re your "Australia does not have a world class attack" debate. Just looked at Josh's 2019 stats and they are very encouraging. He has gone from @33 in 2018 to @24 in 2019. Strike rate is 10 points lower too. Now his next five Tests are at home on mostly flat drop ins I despair that average will jump again..

Actually I digressed with that post. Reason I came onto this thread was to inform Paddles..in case he does not already know, that Bumrah is out of the Saffer series with back stress fractures. I am not surprised given his odd bowling action.

All the bowling experts agree with you that Bumrah will be an injury risk, but most reckon it is the arm that will go because he hyper extends the elbow joint in delivery. 

Tbh, I am not sure India have much plans to play him much at home in tests. I think they will keep him in cotton wool at home, and use him as their away attack leader. He was "injured" this time last year when WI were in India. The media reports say the current injury is "minor". I bet if they were starting a test in NZ, Eng, SA, or Aus, he would be fit enough for BCCI to play then.

Resting him from home tests reduces potential injury risk, as they simply don't need him at home to win tests, even if Bangladesh tour and India produce a green seamer for them, Shami, Sharma, BK, Yadav et al will get the job done vs them. Against SA at home, it will be the Jadeja, Ashwin, Kuldeep show I expect. Shami to take the new ball with, whoever is lucky enough to get a go. 

You watch, he will miss a lot of home and Asia tests over his career. I am calling it now.

Mike will probably be the only person to like this post, but I will put it here anyway.

World Test Championship:

By now people have worked out a 2 test series is worth the same as a 5 test series. 

I have seen some Aussies on another site bemoan that this makes no sense. But it does make sense, a series is a series. Not all countries play the same tests, etc - etc it evens out. There is a maximum of 120 points every series, and in a 2 game series, that is 60 for a win, 20 each for a draw. So a drawn series can be 60-60, or 40-40. The points have been taxed.

So England Australia have drawn their series, SL and NZ theirs, now there is a problem. Australia and England are on 56 points, NZ and SL are on 60. Aus fans tell me they see that as unfair. And I agree. While Aus was arguably lucky to escape the second rained test with a draw, hey did still draw the series. England fans could claim its unfair, cos they are also effected, but were on top in that match. The notion is a 1-1, or 2-2 is better than a 0-0. Okay, so result based cricket is duely encouraged. But lets look at possible ramifications:

This scoring method has allowed rain to penalize the scoring system, because the points are not split, but taxed by a third. I only bring it up, cos while England will no doubt have more rainy days, NZ plays their main tour in March, and were twice drawn rain effected vs SA, had to beat Bangladesh in less than 3 days due to rain, and had a rain out draw vs SL. I mean a lot of NZ tests get rained out draws. Further, a 2 test series, gets an advantage when it doesn't rain and is drawn, as against a 3 test series where it does rain and ends 1 all, or 53-53. Now a 5 test with 1 rain has the advantage over a 3 test with 1 rain.

This could be a real worry for the likes of Bangladesh and NZ who schedule their season with so much rain around. 

Point of the matter is this. Rain will be a huge point scoring disadvantage to good teams if it results in draws. Rain always in tournaments - and points are split. Yes I agree. But hte full points were split. You knew every tournament EXACTLY how many points would be allocated for the entire tournament before a ball was bowled. The points were never taxed before. Draws are taxed here, whether rain induced or not... Noone knows the weather 2 years ahead, as such noone has any idea exactly how many points will be awarded in pool play. Only the maximum (and minimum).

India 1 Rohit Sharma, 2 Mayank Agarwal, 3 Cheteshwar Pujara, 4 Virat Kohli (capt), Ajinkya Rahane, 6 Hanuma Vihari, 7 Wriddhiman Saha (wk), 8 R Ashwin, 9 Ravindra Jadeja, 10 Ishant Sharma, 11 Mohammed ShamiFaf du Plessis said South Africa were thinking of playing five bowlers, which might send Quinton de Kock up to No. 6, and Theunis de Bruyn is likely to move up to No. 3.South Africa (probable XI) 1 Aiden Markram, 2 Dean Elgar, 3 Theunis de Bruyn, 4 Faf du Plessis (capt), 5 Temba Bavuma, 6 Quinton de Kock (wk), 7 Vernon Philander, 8 Keshav Maharaj, 9 Kagiso Rabada, 10 Lungi Ngidi/Anrich Nortje/Senuran Muthusamy, 11 Dane Piedt

So Rohit will get a chance at opening. While this may work wekk in India, I am sure SENA bowlers will want a piece of him early.

SA's team balance seems all wrong. They will desperately want some runs out of Vern, who has never, ever, hit a test century and only averages 24 with the bat.

I think SA will get smashed. The indian team has batting to 9, test century makers to 9! Two of the best spinners see, and Vihari to sub as a third option. 

Paddles when do the Black Caps and Pommies clash?

T20's Nov 1 to Nov 10

Tests 1 Nov 21 - Nov 25 Bay Oval
          2 Nov 29 - Dec 3 Seddon Park

This was news to me.. probably news to you all too. Makes me proud.
Perth Stadium has been named the most beautiful sports facility in the world at the UNESCO Prix Versailles architecture and design awards.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/11323568-3x2-700x467.jpg

Humiliating defeat for Pakistan at home in Lahore.

Robbed of cricket at home due to security fears, SL themselves while commiting to the tour, sent a second string side as its top players did not wish to face security risks in Pakistan.

And Pakistan, world nhumber 1 in t20 format, were thrashed. Not just beaten. But thrashed. 

 https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19504/scorecard/1198489/pakistan-vs-sri-lanka-1st-t20i-sri-lanka-in-pakistan-2019-20

Pakistan could try they were rtying a few new names, playing Sehzad and Akmal over Farkhar, Hasnain over Shinwari/Ali, but this was pretty much the team that has gottent to number 1 and retained it for the last 2 years. WHile Hafeez may be retired now, perhaps recalling Shoiab Malik who is dominating in the CPL is necessary.

Embarrassing performance by Pakistan.

Good partnership between Philander and Maharaj for South Africa against India.

 The home team is  still well on top though.

Fernando again telling the world how it is:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27907464/test-championship-flawed-best-have

or many who followed the Ashes closely, it was one of the best of all time. It featured a heart-stopping finish at Headingley on the back of Ben Stokes' majestic innings. There was also Steven Smith's sublime series-long form, and Jofra Archer's electric arrival at Lord's. That both teams won two Tests each only added to the blockbuster quality of the series.But hang on, what's this? By the end of this epic tilt, England and Australia were only each awarded 56 World Test Championship (WTC) points. That's less than the 60 points Sri Lanka and New Zealand got for playing a two-match series, winning one game apiece.Is the system rigged? Surely there has got to be a fairer way.

ALSO READ: FAQs: All you need to know about the World Test Championship

If you are not yet familiar with the WTC, let's quickly run through how it works. Each team plays six WTC series in the first cycle, and each of those series has 120 points up for grabs. That pool of points for each series is divided by the number of matches scheduled. If a series comprises four matches, for instance, each game is worth 30 points. In a two-game series (such as Sri Lanka v New Zealand) meanwhile, each Test is worth 60 points. If a match is drawn, the teams take one third of the points allocated for that Test, which is why the Ashes draw at Lord's yielded each side just eight points. No additional points are awarded for series victories - only the individual Tests score points.Why has the ICC come up with what at first glance seems an unfair system? Why were Australia and England seemingly made to work so much harder for their points? The answer to both questions is in the Test schedule.India, England and Australia generally play more Tests than the other six sides in the WTC. From now through next year, for example, England are due to play 10 Tests, while Pakistan have only five on their calendar.Perhaps more importantly, India, England and Australia play longer series - their contests against one another consist of no fewer than four Tests apiece. Compare this to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, who have never played a four- or five-match series in their combined 56 years of Test history. Or to New Zealand, for whom four of their six WTC series in the first cycle are two-match affairs only.


ALSO READ: Behind the scenes - how the World Test Championship became a reality

New Zealand's situation is especially worth dwelling on here, because Kane Williamson's side is arguably the best that has ever played for that nation (they have gone undefeated in six successive series, winning five of those, including one in the UAE), and yet, they frequently have a sparse winter schedule. Their plight strongly suggests that it is not quality that is the most important determinant of a healthy schedule, it is the size of your cricket economy. New Zealand could conceivably become the top-ranked Test side in the world (they are presently in second position), but so long as New Zealand Tests fail to appeal to broadcasters - largely because of the size of their market, and its awkward time zone - the team is unlikely to play as many Tests as India, and certainly fewer than England.Most other nations in the WTC do not suffer quite as acutely, but must nevertheless grapple with broadcasters' reluctance to see them play more Tests against sides other than England, India and Australia.

For Sri Lanka Cricket, for example, the only lucrative Test tours are home series against India and England (the board just about breaks even on Australia and Pakistan tours). Although South Africa's Test visits have produced some of the most gripping contests of the century, South Africa have not played a three-Test series on the island in 19 years. Very quickly, it becomes clear that the WTC's unusual points scale is a mere symptom of the inequity in the Test ecosystem.ALSO READ: The uncrowned World Test champions of the last two decadesPerhaps there are valid critiques of the championship. Virat Kohli recently called for away victories to be worth more points than home wins - though even that idea is not without serious pitfalls. But unfair as it seems for a victory to be worth 24 points in one series and 60 in another, the points system does also account for the percentage of matches teams fail to win.

If the current imbalance in the number of points awarded does prove too taxing for the bigger teams, perhaps the ICC could set up a fund that assists the poorer nations with the costs of hosting additional Tests. In exchange, it could stipulate that all WTC series must consist of no fewer than three matches, which in turn means that a Test win can yield no more than 40 points. There is actually precedent for such a scheme; in 2016, the smaller seven teams were paid US$1.25 million a year out of a "Test Match Fund", though this was soon rolled back, along with the remainder of the Big Three's 2014 changes.Ideally, however, the WTC will prove so successful that broadcasters will begin to see more value in Tests between the smaller nine nations. With substantial luck, the future cycles of the championship will organically see more three-match series. But for now, this points system is the best cricket has got. In fact, it should be no surprise that the sport's attempt to level a disparate playing field has produced such a complex device.[/quote]

Always tells the truth, albeit subtly.

Very informative post, thanks Paddles. I think it sounds like a pretty good system, and not that complex really. Although there is equity already built into the current model, perhaps the poorer test nations could also be awarded bonus points via a coefficient of 0.1 per match. Ie for a 2 match series, they would receive an extra 6 points, for a 3 match series, a bonus 4 points etc. This would even the playing field when a richer country is playing a poorer country in the same series. 

Nah, not all series are WTC series. NZ v Eng will not count for instance, but India and Aus will.

All tests however count for the ICC Mace, that prizemoney is awarded May 1 each year to whoever is #1. 

Ishant is 1 wicket away from just his 2nd 10 for in a match.

Is NZ the best batting team in world cricket right now given India has Jadeja at 6?

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/new-kookaburra-ball-to-be-trialled-in-next-two-rounds-of-marsh-sheffield-shield-cricket-australia/2019-11-27
Now this is interesting. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/series/1183518.html?view=records

I'm enjoying Pakistan V Sri Lanka in Pakistan.

Great seeing cricket in Rawalpindi again. The only surprise is why there are so few spectators in the stand behind the wicket? There are plenty side on. Shame if they are charging too much for the good seats.

Getting away from  games in the UAE is good. All the  keen spectators would not have been allowed to leave work to watch the cricket in the UAE.

Also, as well as being disgustingly hot, the UAE is also humid.

Given how much you research cricket if you think they are, the Kiwis could well be, mate.

I think India look pretty strong in batting too. I got sick of Pujara 's broad bat last year.

I was being somewhat facetious. India for this series went in with a weakened batting line up. They dropped Pant due to his poor glovework, brought back Saha who doesn't bat as well Pant, and dropped the superior batsman Vihari for Jadeja, and played an extra seam bowler - truth is - India always gives Bangladesh pitches that don't spin much and are seamer friendly and bouncy.  India can change their line up at any time, and recall Pant to 7, play Vihari at 6 - move Jadeja to 8, and easily be the best batting line up int he world. In fact, with Shaw still to return, and Rohit's success, they have way too many good batsmen. 

Even then - Jadeja - despite being a great bowler - is a more than capable batsman. He is one of the great allrounders in the making. 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19430/scorecard/1187017/india-vs-bangladesh-2nd-test-icc-world-test-championship-2019-2021

Jadeja only bowls 2 overs for the entire test. Ashwin does not bowl in the first innings at all. 

LOLLLLL

Anderson with a wide leg side strangle first ball.

Terrible delivery.

Elgar out first ball of the match!

Food for thought, TB?

South Af are 5-217 chasing English total of 438 to win. 

Very slow scoring,

South A are 5-217.