Instagram


The Cricket Paper

Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 81 to 84 of 84
  1. #81
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Runs
    7,684
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    @Pantani - Interesting. Any specific reasons (eg. performance against other top teams - Aus, SA, India) you feel SL was about rank 3 despite ranked 5 in terms of win-loss?

    Ps. Agree that India won only 2 more tests but SL lost 1 more than India despite playing 16 less tests. Hence the superior W/L of India.

  2. #82
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Venue
    Sydney
    Runs
    2,607
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Statsman that team was especially strong at home, phaintys were handed out to everyone except Australia, and Pakistan (who were thrashed in Lahore and Faisalabad instead of Colombo and Kandy)

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/343729.html
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/249193.html
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64098.html
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64058.html
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/214009.html


    I smash and grab and stash the cash in plastic bags
    With raps that have pizzazz

  3. #83
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Venue
    Sydney
    Runs
    2,607
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Statsman View Post
    @Pantani - Interesting. Any specific reasons (eg. performance against other top teams - Aus, SA, India) you feel SL was about rank 3 despite ranked 5 in terms of win-loss?

    Ps. Agree that India won only 2 more tests but SL lost 1 more than India despite playing 16 less tests. Hence the superior W/L of India.
    Rank 5 is misleading because the gap between 3 and 5 is really small. I think England were definitely weaker than India and SL, and I think the venue mattered for seperating India and SL. In India, India were definitely better. In Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka were definitely better. Looking at performance country by country:

    India were better than SL in: India, Australia, England, South Africa, and West Indies.

    Sri Lanka were better than India in: Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, New Zealand and Pakistan

    Both teams have identical records in Zimbabwe between 2002-08. So, I think we can conclude from the data that NZ aside, SL were better performers within the subcontinent while India were better outside the subcontinent. I also think it's fair to say that there was not a massive deal seperating the two teams, and that they were equal third behind Australia and South Africa.

    Sri Lankan wins in that period generally needed Murali and the bowlers to show up, if they didn't, the batting was not good enough to save the match. This is why it was mostly win or lose, with few draws. Either the batsmen did great and the bowlers backed them up, or the batsmen failed and the bowlers saved them; but if the bowlers failed there was no way back more often than not. India had better batsmen, so when India's bowlers failed they could still save the match thanks to world class batsmen from 1 - 6.


    I smash and grab and stash the cash in plastic bags
    With raps that have pizzazz

  4. #84
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Runs
    1,859
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    agree that sri lanka side of the mid 00s was very strong, if it was around now it would maybe be the best in the world


    How odd I can have all this inside me and to you it's just words.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •