England Dominate the ICC Test Player Rankings

The new ICC Rankings following the test series make great reading for any England fan.

Batting - We now have 4 players in the top 10.

Cook and Bell are joint 3rd
Trott is 4th
KP is 8th

Sensational performances from Enlands batsmen!

Bowling - We have 5 players in the top 11.

Anderson is 2nd
Swann is 3rd
Broad is 5th
Tremlett is 10th
Bresnan is 11th

Well done to them, very much deserved.

Proud to be English

Cricket is a team game.

Certainly something you don't see much. Long may they stay in the top 10 Rankings.

Smile wrote:Cricket is a team game.

Not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. Surely good players go some way toward making a good team?

Very well done to the England guys, fantastic individual (and team!!) performances of late.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Smile wrote:Cricket is a team game.

Not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. Surely good players go some way toward making a good team?

Very well done to the England guys, fantastic individual (and team!!) performances of late.

I'm not a fan of individual rankings.

Whilst being a team game, batting is a very individual thing primarily (obviously there are partnerships and communication that help), and likewise with bowling - it's no good having plenty of encouragement and great fielding if the bowler isn't skilled enough to get the batsman to hit it to them.

I think individual rankings are a nice way of recognising the achievements of the players, but obviously more credence is given to the team Test rankings.

Smile wrote:Cricket is a team game.

Actually, cricket is a curious mix of team and individual contests (i.e. the batsman against the bowler, the latter of who is backed up by his team mates), so considering the individual excellence of a batsman or bowler does have some relevance. The interesting thing in this discussion is just how many of the individuals in the England team are currently so highly rated - four out of 6 front line batsmen and all our top line bowlers figure highly in these ratings. Indicates a great strength in depth for the team.

Fists of Fury wrote:Whilst being a team game, batting is a very individual thing primarily (obviously there are partnerships and communication that help), and likewise with bowling - it's no good having plenty of encouragement and great fielding if the bowler isn't skilled enough to get the batsman to hit it to them.

I think individual rankings are a nice way of recognising the achievements of the players, but obviously more credence is given to the team Test rankings.

Most can tell who the best players are without looking at a ranking system.

the rankings are very good

Surely the fact that the top 20s are stuffed full of England players shows that it is a team game? Rather than relying on a couple of individuals, the team as a whole has grown into a collection of some of the world's best players - this is shown by the collective rises of our batsmen and bowlers in the rankings.

m@tt wrote:Surely the fact that the top 20s are stuffed full of England players shows that it is a team game? Rather than relying on a couple of individuals, the team as a whole has grown into a collection of some of the world's best players - this is shown by the collective rises of our batsmen and bowlers in the rankings.

Very well said

m@tt wrote:Surely the fact that the top 20s are stuffed full of England players shows that it is a team game? Rather than relying on a couple of individuals, the team as a whole has grown into a collection of some of the world's best players - this is shown by the collective rises of our batsmen and bowlers in the rankings.

m@tt wrote:Surely the fact that the top 20s are stuffed full of England players shows that it is a team game? Rather than relying on a couple of individuals, the team as a whole has grown into a collection of some of the world's best players - this is shown by the collective rises of our batsmen and bowlers in the rankings.

This non-reliance on just one or two quality performers has been the greatest improvement in the England side in the last 3 or 4 years. In Australia it was all about Cook and Trott with the bat, while this series (other than Cook's 294) have been about Pieterson, Bell and the lower order. Similarly, with the ball it was Anderson and Tremlett in Aus, and now Broad and Bresnan, and the winter may be about Swann.

The second test first innings was the great example of this strength in depth - 120-odd for 8, with only Broad, Swann and Anderson to come and we get all but 100 more, to have a workable total, then the Indians are 260ish for 3(?) before being scuttled out for 280.

The rankings are good and are mainly based on form, which is why the rankings are so good.

England are a team rather than a collection of stars with some makeweights no question, but you can be just as effective the other way if your stars are good enough.
In cricket you do operate as an individual when executing skills, but its harder to bowl or bat when you cant trust the guy at the other end or the fielders...or the other unit has let you down and put you under pressure. Captaincy and field settings are part of the team game too, as is psychology which plays a huge part in tests.
England have excelled in tehse aspects, their players probably arent the greatest individual raw talents in the game but by concentrating on the team aspects and ensuring everyone contributes they are getting the best from those players.
The great Aussie sides of the 90's/early00's had a bowling attack that revolved around 2 superstars, they had no problems winning games relying on individual perfermoances from those too suplemented by some reasonable backup. India have got by for the last few years with one bowler and arguably the strongest top 5 batters in history hideing a keeper who cant catch, a completet lack of interest in fielding, a problem 6 position, and 3 county level bolwers.
Either approach works..ideally you want the superstars of India and South Africa combined with the all round depth and teamwork of India.

PSW
A bit harsh on the likes of Gillespie, Lee and Stuart Clark, all of whom were very good Test level bowlers (hell, if Dizzy had been English he'd have been a legend - great bowler in swing and seam friendly conditions). Indeed, that Aussie team had superb strength in depth in both batting and bowling. England are getting there, although we still have an issue with Strauss's form with the bat and with the #6 slot.

Similarly, the great West Indian team had superb depth. If Greenidge and Haynes didn't score big, Richards and Lloyd did. Then you had to contend with 4 fast bowlers, the poorest of was a good Test standard quick and the best couple were all time greats. This team also set the standards for fielding during their era, only really superceded by the South Africans and Australians in the 90s.

India by comparison have great batting strength but not sufficient bowling - as such, their spell at the top has not been anything like as long or as dominant as the two truly great sides. Scoring huge runs on batsman-freindly wickets helps (score board pressure), but you need the ability to bowl sides out consistently to remain at the top.

Bell will be number 1 before long.

liverbnz wrote:Bell will be number 1 before long.

Agree

Not if Cook Trott and KP have any say in the matter!

I see Prior is ahead of Strauss in the rankings. Probably fair given form of the last 12 months.

i agree