Will South Africa be No1 Ranked Test Team?

For SA to be ranked No1 Test Team before England play again, they will need to whitewash both Austrailia and Sri Lanka. I think they have a realistic shot at this, but it will be hard to win all 5 Test matches.
But in their favour will be the moral of the Aussie team, after the amazing scene's in their 1st Test loss. Then the Sri Lankans, are not the team they once were without Muralitharan, and have not won a Test since his retirement.

To stop SA from becoming No1 Test team, i know, could be something like Sangakkara getting an double hundred or Johnson running through the SA batting line-up, so it will not be easy.

Do you think SA have a good chance of doing so????

Yeah. These days I have no faith in Sri Lanka being able to bowl a side out twice. Their batting hasn't been as good as it can be either. Sangakkara is holding that together at the moment. Sadly Jayawardene isn't in form at the minute. It's a lot easier when those two are both firing. I can certainly see South Africa being able to beat them 3-0. Australia pose the bigger threat I think, if they don't collapse again that is.

Barney92 wrote:Yeah. These days I have no faith in Sri Lanka being able to bowl a side out twice. Their batting hasn't been as good as it can be either. Sangakkara is holding that together at the moment. Sadly Jayawardene isn't in form at the minute. It's a lot easier when those two are both firing. I can certainly see South Africa being able to beat them 3-0. Australia pose the bigger threat I think, if they don't collapse again that is.

From an England fans (not losing No1) point of veiw, it is the only time ever that i have wanted the Aussie's to gain a victory, so from the selfish side of me good luck Australia and Sri Lanka.

By the way, nothing against SA though.

Unless each 2 full days ofeach Test are rained out i cant see how SL can even draw a test in SA.
Their batsmen barring Sanga are hopeless in swinging/seaming conditions.Mahela who is their next Test batsmen is horribly out of form.Dilshan is a flat track bully.Their bowling?The less said the better.I fancy Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel(if they get a chance to bat) to score centuries against that lot.
However Australia(if Mitch gets it right) can beat SA.

Personally i am not too fussed about the rankings.We hammered india at home and Australia away.
Even if SA get to No.1 i really dont think they will be considered as the true No.1 as they would have gotten there mainly by default.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Personally i am not too fussed about the rankings.We hammered india at home and Australia away.
Even if SA get to No.1 i really dont think they will be considered as the true No.1 as they would have gotten there mainly by default.

Lol, by default, if there were more SA posters on this site, you might be getting a few comments .

Again, me being selfish, the longer England can retain that No1 spot, will dertermine whether or not England can go on to become an truely world great.

We got to No.1 by hammering the No.1 side at that time.
If SA get to No.1 without beating the existing No.1 side which is England then I would call it by default.

staggers me how south africa may go number 1, when they hardly play any test matches

Yeah it is nonsense, surely they should have to beat England... instead they are picking up wins over once good teams and may get elevated above us, what a load of rubbish that'd be!

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:We got to No.1 by hammering the No.1 side at that time.
If SA get to No.1 without beating the existing No.1 side which is England then I would call it by default.

Just a scenario, WI have not toured India in nearly 10 years before the current series, say WI had won many series that they had played in that time, and had been No1 for the last 4 years of that period, does that mean they are only at No1 by default because they have not beaten India in India.

Also England have not beaten SA in a Test series for many years, are England at No1 by default.

The Test rankings are there to show the current No1 team on current form.

skyeman wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:We got to No.1 by hammering the No.1 side at that time.
If SA get to No.1 without beating the existing No.1 side which is England then I would call it by default.

Just a scenario, WI have not toured India in nearly 10 years before the current series, say WI had won many series that they had played in that time, and had been No1 for the last 4 years of that period, does that mean they are only at No1 by default because they have not beaten India in India.

Also England have not beaten SA in a Test series for many years, are England at No1 by default.

The Test rankings are there to show the current No1 team on current form.

But SA were not the No.1 team when we got to No.1
The No.1 team was India.We beat them so we are rightfully No.1

However if SA who play less than half the Tests compared to England get to No.1 by beating a terrible SL side at home then its not right IMO.I believe SA are a good test and in fact I would fancy them to beat England next summer if Steyn continues to remain at the top of the game.But until they do that,they dont deserve the No.1 spot.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

skyeman wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:We got to No.1 by hammering the No.1 side at that time.
If SA get to No.1 without beating the existing No.1 side which is England then I would call it by default.

Just a scenario, WI have not toured India in nearly 10 years before the current series, say WI had won many series that they had played in that time, and had been No1 for the last 4 years of that period, does that mean they are only at No1 by default because they have not beaten India in India.

Also England have not beaten SA in a Test series for many years, are England at No1 by default.

The Test rankings are there to show the current No1 team on current form.

But SA were not the No.1 team when we got to No.1
The No.1 team was India.We beat them so we are rightfully No.1

However if SA who play less than half the Tests compared to England get to No.1 by beating a terrible SL side at home then its not right IMO.I believe SA are a good test and in fact I would fancy them to beat England next summer if Steyn continues to remain at the top of the game.But until they do that,they dont deserve the No.1 spot.

I do see both sides of the coin, so maybe the Test ranking system and the points system needs looking at by the ICC.

Whatever happen's to both England and South Africa until they meet (eithere team could be No1 or No2). Next summer will be massive and resolve the No1 postion beyond doubt. Well - nearly (Eng in India). OMG It never ends, LOL

Fists of Fury wrote:Yeah it is nonsense, surely they should have to beat England... instead they are picking up wins over once good teams and may get elevated above us, what a load of rubbish that'd be!

isn't that sort of how england got to #1 tho

tbh this whole thread shows just how serious the ICC rankings should be taken , they are a guide to form and thats about it

unless teams are required to play a similar number of tests/series against all the other test nations within a realistic period of time then the rankings are relatively meaningless and i think far too much is made of them by fans and by the media

I hope, no offence to the Indiaan fans, that it is England and SA 1 and 2 by next summer, either way round but preferably England top, so we can see who is the best side once and for all! No debate about thr rankings if one of them beats the other.

rich1uk wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Yeah it is nonsense, surely they should have to beat England... instead they are picking up wins over once good teams and may get elevated above us, what a load of rubbish that'd be!

isn't that sort of how england got to #1 tho

tbh this whole thread shows just how serious the ICC rankings should be taken , they are a guide to form and thats about it

unless teams are required to play a similar number of tests/series against all the other test nations within a realistic period of time then the rankings are relatively meaningless and i think far too much is made of them by fans and by the media

A very good point, but it is still very nice to be No1, unlike England's position in 1999

To be honest I dont care if SA win all these 5 Tests and get to No.1
I just want us to win everytime we play.I dont care if a side overtakes us by beating other sides as long as we keep winning Test series whenever we play.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:To be honest I dont care if SA win all these 5 Tests and get to No.1
I just want us to win everytime we play.I dont care if a side overtakes us by beating other sides as long as we keep winning Test series whenever we play.

That is the main thing. Slange

Guys, if we do go to 1 it is deserved either way. We beat England in England on our last tour there, and if you want to be honest you were quite fortunate that your tailenders saved the days in two test matches when you played in SA.

The rankings work on the system it does and if a team moves to no 1 because their cycle doesn't feature a specific team at a certain junction it takes nothing away from their achievement.

That said I care little for the ranking and care more about us winning test series

well to be honest there's not much in it at the top of the rankings, and if SA whitewash both Aus and SL there can't be too many complaints really if they get to n°1. It does show that the rankings have to be taken more as a guideline than an absolute I think, as it is somewhat bizarre that England can be knocked off their perch without doing anything wrong.

What the rankings show is that currently you have three teams who are pretty close (and yes, India are still reasonably close to England, one bad series and all that), then a gap to the next two or three. Equally when Aus were dominating the rankings reflected that. It's not perfect, but it's not bd either.

Biltong, while what you say about the tail-enders resistance is true, one must also remember that in the third test (the second one England saved) they batted for more than 130 overs in the last innings, a commendable effort by any standards.

i agree that its ridiclous, that we can be knocked off no1 without even playing a game after being made no1

cricketfan90 wrote:i agree that its ridiclous, that we can be knocked off no1 without even playing a game after being made no1

I agree with you. The ranking system is a bit of a farce tbh.

The ranking system works on a basis of points earned by winning whichever combination of test series is scheduled for whichever country over a specific time.

The ranking points fall and rise continiously, therefor teams can go up in places all the time as not everyone plays according to the same schedule.

Perhaps you should not put so much importance on the rankings then.

But hopefully we do not do a whitewash of Oz and Sri Lanka then you guys won't feel robbed of the number one spot.

biltongbek wrote:The ranking system works on a basis of points earned by winning whichever combination of test series is scheduled for whichever country over a specific time.

The ranking points fall and rise continiously, therefor teams can go up in places all the time as not everyone plays according to the same schedule.

Perhaps you should not put so much importance on the rankings then.

But hopefully we do not do a whitewash of Oz and Sri Lanka then you guys won't feel robbed of the number one spot.

You are right on all points, but i for one will not feel robbed were SA to win all 5 Tests, they would rightfully be No1 according to the system currentely in place.

I just hope they don't

However for england to lose the no1 ranking without playing a game since being made no1, surely something has to be done about the ranking system, and how it is done....

Well then perhaps SA must cancel their series against Sri Lanka.

na im not saying that am i!

if SA go no1, then credit to them, im just saying that how a team can lose no1 ranking without playing a game is beyond me

Cricketfan, in nov 2009, SA lost their number 1 ranking to India, who was playing Sri Lanka at the time.

So the unfortunate truth is that these things are inevitable.

Just for some interesting facts about the ICC test rankings.

since the beginning of the test rankings in 2003 these are the average rankinngs per test side for the period.

Australia 125.3
India 110.2
South Africa 109.2
England 108.2
Sri Lanka 103.3
Pakistan 95.9
New Zealand 89.5
West Indies 77.2

As you can see, there is virtually nothing to choose between SA, India and England.

During this period since 2003.

SA played India in 13 matches, 5 wins, 5 losses, 3 draws. 7 in India, 6 in SA
SA played England in 18 matches, 6 wins, 6 losses, 6 draws. 9 in SA, 9 in England
England played India in 12 matches, 5 wins, 3 losses, 4 draws. 7 in England, 5 in India.

Just shows how close it has been.

Who was the last team to win a test series against England?

Oh.....

cricketfan90 wrote: how a team can lose no1 ranking without playing a game is beyond me

How they can retain it by not playing is beyond me.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote: how a team can lose no1 ranking without playing a game is beyond me

How they can retain it by not playing is beyond me.

they still shouldnt be able to lose without playing.....not their fault they dont have a game!

cricketfan90 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote: how a team can lose no1 ranking without playing a game is beyond me

How they can retain it by not playing is beyond me.

they still shouldnt be able to lose without playing.....not their fault they dont have a game!

Exactly the same scenario when SA lost their ranking in 2009. India overtook them before SA played another test after becoming number 1

If South Africa go on to win all the remaining 4 matches against Aus and Lanka, no reason why they shouldn't become number 1. Rankings are determined over a longish period of time and its just not the India series win that took England to the top, their efforts in the Lanka series, previous ashes, and all, contributed to that. If SA can play with intencity for 5 matches against Australia and Lanka, then the top ranking should be their's, by right.
India should be abl to gather some rating points against the WI, and the Australia series should be a good challenge then. England also will be in action by the beginning of next year, and it will be interesting to see how they'll do on the demanding tracks of the UAE, against a Pakistan side, that as usual, have found some energy out of a crisis to do thinks that not many expected them to do.

cricketfan90 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote: how a team can lose no1 ranking without playing a game is beyond me

How they can retain it by not playing is beyond me.

they still shouldnt be able to lose without playing.....not their fault they dont have a game!

Well it is, they couldve organised one. Dont forget they leapfrogged SA in the rankings by playing whne they werent.

You seem to misunderatnd the whole concept of a table and rankings anyway. This isnt the test championship, thats going to be contested by the top two teams ( although delayed now). The test rankings are effectivly a league table. Its quite possible to be top without ever having beaten some sides.

If England from now on refussed to play anyone ever again would you say they should keep their ranking for all time? Of course not. Your logic is skewed.
Its a pity they arent playing SA sooner, and a pity they didnt have a test series against India this winter. But theres a limit to how much test cricket sides can play.

Good points Peter and msp.I take my words back.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

But theres a limit to how much test cricket sides can play.

But not apparently ODIs and T20s.

Annoying isn't it, Guildford?

I think we'd all much prefer 4 or 5 Test series followed by say 2 ODI's and a single T20.

Exactly, Fists. When ODIs first started in the early '70s, they were still played competitively but regarded as an enjoyable time out from a normally gruelling test series that had just finished.

Fists of Fury wrote:Annoying isn't it, Guildford?

I think we'd all much prefer 4 or 5 Test series followed by say 2 ODI's and a single T20.

Weren't there talk that when the test championship starts all teams will play more substantial series?

I think so, until they abandoned Test Championship plans

Got to love the ICC...

either way im sure we will reagain the no1 spot against pakistan if we lose it

guildfordbat wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

But theres a limit to how much test cricket sides can play.

But not apparently ODIs and T20s.

When overates drop enough itll take 5 days to play a T20 then there will be less!

when india were bowling in the first test the overated was 15-16, i know they only had 2 quicks, but it shows that overrates dont have to be slow!

skyeman wrote:For SA to be ranked No1 Test Team before England play again, they will need to whitewash both Austrailia and Sri Lanka. I think they have a realistic shot at this, but it will be hard to win all 5 Test matches.
But in their favour will be the moral of the Aussie team, after the amazing scene's in their 1st Test loss. Then the Sri Lankans, are not the team they once were without Muralitharan, and have not won a Test since his retirement.

To stop SA from becoming No1 Test team, i know, could be something like Sangakkara getting an double hundred or Johnson running through the SA batting line-up, so it will not be easy.

Do you think SA have a good chance of doing so????

they are a stronger all condition side thatn Eng....and hence more deserving of that slot than Eng or India.

they have won and darwn series in India more regularly.

I think they may not have lost a series in India since 1997 !!

well either way, first they have to whitewash both australia and sri lanka to go no1.

NO , not for a while now, next summer will be a big, big series.

Steyn with figures of 1/98 in the second innings helped. Even the best can have an off day.

Now at least you guys need not worry about losing the number 1 ranking.

we will hold on to our rankings. South africa have dropped to 3rd behind India.