If you believe the hype surrounding this winter’s Ashes, you’d be forgiven for thinking we’re about to witness the cricketing equivalent of Clash of the Titans. The world rankings, however, say otherwise. The Ashes are, after all, simply a contest between the fourth and fifth best sides in the world. That’s two average teams that cannot claim to be world-beaters by any stretch of the imagination.
In 2005 it was different. The Aussies arrived in Blighty as the undisputed heavyweight champions of the world. England meanwhile were the bold new challengers, attempting to shift the balance of power in the international game. Unfortunately 2010’s Ashes is more Audley Harrison fighting Michael Sprott than Ali versus Frazier. The rest of the world may have a passing interest in the result, but it’s really just an irrelevant squabble between two over-competitive wannabes.
I have to admit this wasn’t originally going to be my angle. My intention was to look at the world rankings of the individual players and highlight a few key battles. Would England’s threadbare attack be strong enough to peg back those relentless run-machines, Hussey, Ponting and Clarke? Would Strauss and Cook have the technique to withstand an early barrage from a hungry Aussie attack? And then it struck me – if you look at the world rankings of the participants, the two teams look distinctly ordinary.
Strauss – 27th (batting) Katich – 14th (batting)
Cook – 31st Watson – 24th
Trott – 15th Ponting – 16th
Pietersen – 23rd Clarke – 13th
Collingwood – 33rd Hussey – 32nd
Bell – 28th North – 46th
Prior – 34th Haddin – 39th
Broad – 11th (bowling) Johnson – 7th (bowling)
Swann – 2nd Hauritz – 31st
Finn – 29th Siddle – 18th
Anderson – 4th Hilfenhaus – 19th
A quick look at the batting rankings shows that neither team has anything to fear. Clarke is the best batsman on either team at 13th. Trott is the highest ranked England batsman at 15th, but his teammates are mediocre at best. If you were picking world XIs based on the rankings, most of England’s batsmen would just about scrape into the fifth XI. Compare this to India, who have three batsmen in the top ten – Tendulkar (1st), Sehwag (3rd) and Laxman (8th).
The bowling attacks look a little stronger, but we must remember that most teams only pick four bowlers. Therefore Broad at 11th would just about make the world thirds. Meanwhile, nobody can tell me that Anderson is the fourth best seamer in the world. Sorry Jimmy, but no bowler nicknamed Daisy (some days-he does, some days-he doesn’t) is likely to make opposition batsmen stock up on Diocalm Ultra.
Obviously the world rankings don’t mean everything. But before we dismiss them out of hand, we must remember that do they reflect recent form – something that test batting and bowling averages do not. They also reveal that England’s batting must be the biggest concern. Most fans are pinning their hopes on Strauss, but the rankings say he’s only the 27th best batsman in the world. That’s one place below Daniel Vettori for heaven’s sake! It’s also three places lower than Shane Watson.
Fortunately however, the days of McGrath and Warne are over so maybe we can expect some help from the opposition. But if we do, and we win the Ashes, will it really be that big an achievement? After all, South Africa beat Australia away just two years ago. And if the Aussies really are declining, and England are as average as the rankings suggest, then why am I so damn excited?! It must be the prospect of the louts in Bay 13 crying into their VB.
James Morgan
England don’t necessarily have the best individuals, but it’s the team that counts. There isn’t much between the top teams in the world atm, so although neither Australia nor England can claim to be the best side in the world, an Ashes win for either side would put them on the right track.
It’s interesting that none of our batsmen are in the world’s top 10, but we are arguably a far better team that we were in the early 1990s, when Gooch was No1 in the test rankings and players like Robin Smith weren’t far behind him.
The world cricket rankings are influenced way too much by recent form. I have yet to meet anybody who claims that Trott is a better player than KP or Ponting but this is the case if the ranking are to be believed. Also, if Mike Hussey is not in the best 30 batsmen in the world then I will eat my hat. The recent ascendency of Lee Westwood to the top of the Golf rankings after many years of consistent performance coupled with Woods dip in accomplishments shows that the method behind the process is a better indication then the cricket equivalents. It seems a couple of 100s or 5 wicket hauls instantly propels players into the top 10 in the world.
What’s the point in using the World Rankings to provide evidence of the “mediocrity” of the two sides if you are then going to disagree with them when they don’t help your case ie. with James Anderson? Either you accept the rankings as accurate reflections of the strength of the teams or you don’t.
You also seem to have overlooked Doug Bollinger. 5 of the best 11 ranked bowlers in the World sounds reasonable in most people’s books. Finn’s rating can also be discounted at this time because as a newcomer it hasn’t reached it’s full potential.
We left out Bollinger because he is unlikely to play …. and we’re rather glad he isn’t to be honest. I accept your point about Anderson, but one exception doesn’t disprove the rule. The rankings are of course somewhat flawed, but surely it’s hard to disagree that neither England nor Australia are vintage sides (regardless of what one thinks of the rankings). We were just trying to make that point – with a little help from the rankings as a guide.
Obviously we would be thrilled if England retain the Ashes down under – but winning in the Aussies’ backyard is surely no longer cricket’s Mount Everest. Winning in India is probably harder right now. Thanks for your comments.