Excuse me? Australia is one measly draw away from mathematically graduating to kings of the Test jungle? Is this ranking calculated with the same madcap formula they used for Adam Voges’ batting average?
Firstly, don’t get me wrong, I’ll be sticking rigidly to my ‘moonwalk shirtless while fist pumping’ victory procedure if our boys manage this feat, so draw your blinds or pick up some chronic conjunctivitis if you’re in the local area.
But me thinks that instead of dotting their Pi and carrying the decimal points, the data monkeys at the ICC have been too busy stuffing around typing ‘BOOBIES’ on the calculator with this particular equation.
As wonderful an achievement it may be, there’s something about this possible coronation for Steve Smith’s bunch that sits uncomfortably like an angry jalapeno pizza that’s been washed back with a triple-shot latte.
With all due respect to Australia: Version 2016, the regal title of ‘number one’ conjures images more like the thundering West Indians from yore, Steve Waugh’s Galacticos, or the uber consistent yet trophy-resistant contemporary South African sides, not Mitchell Marsh.
But I must partially concede. In Australia’s defence, they’ve been gradually trending upwards under Smith’s new regime, so this formulaic quirk is hardly the Telstra of catastrophic technological brain-farts.
Fair cop – Smith’s troops are in the middle of a ten-game undefeated streak which includes victories against stiff opposition not including India, South Africa, England or anything that moves laterally. So credit where its due.
In addition, they’ve just gutsed out a gripping Test match win in the Shaky Isles too, those gruelling and unfamiliar climes where Australia hasn’t lost since the Clinton administration kicked off.
But even with these era-defining triumphs, you still can’t escape the fact that ascension to becoming cream of the creams will feel more hollow than a vegetarian sausage roll.
So who do we blame for this humiliating algebraic glitch?
While many will directly point the finger at popular choice Richard Illingworth, Australia’s undue rise to the top is actually the fault of a modern Test landscape that is a wash cycle of the humdrum.
Put simply, it is their turn at the top of the churn. Not long ago drowning, they’ve risen temporarily for a glorious lung full of winner’s oxygen as their equally moderate opponents take in water around them.
So in good news for all non-Australians, it shouldn’t be too long until the top dogs are eventually sucked back in to the whitewash. Keep faith, because it’s as close as the next turbulent transitional period or overseas tour.
While some clowns may see this period of equalisation as ‘exciting’ and ‘healthy for the game’, I reckon cricket sucks without a browbeating hero trouncing everything in its path. So I’m calling on the ICC to get real.
Time to replace the championship mace with a lifejacket sporting the face of Steven Bradbury and re-name the number one position for what it is: the 15 minutes for the best of a bad bunch.
Nevertheless. If it’s any consolation, Australia won’t be the worst number one to grace this earth if they manage to win or draw in Christchurch.
Must I remind you that we’re all guilty of facilitating the Macarena to global renown?
That human beings – some with which you may have fraternised – have made inappropriate financial contributions towards caterwauling like Mambo Number Five?
This is what happens when you leave humans in charge of determining a pecking order, so perhaps we should embrace any formula endorsed by the ICC. Maybe we should forget this is an organisation that wholeheartedly believes in Duckworth/Lewis and just go with it.
Whatever happens, I maintain my stance. Smith’s team will only have truly returned ‘back where they belong’ when they can avoid toe-curling shame on a spinning track, or endure a apocalypse-free Ashes in England.
Until then, they’re just another Los Del Rio or Lou Bega.
Viren Mohan
Roar Rookie
India can't win key series away from home? Heck, India can barely win a test away from home. Not counting last year's series win against Sri Lanka, the only significant overseas test victory we had was in Lord's a couple of years ago. That too came about thanks to one session of English brain implosion on the last day.
Don Freo
Guest
Lleyton was #1 for 2 yèars. That was well deserved.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Number one right now is for the taking because there are no great teams. South Africa is in decline, England couldn't even beat the West Indies in the Carribean or New Zealand at home, India's away record (like Australia's) is poor, and Australia are vulnerable in most conditions. The game is at a low ebb, with mediocre sides all near the top. Its pretty much just luck of the cut-off date who gets the prize money. In a way, that's good. It means things should be competitive (although, individual series rarely are). Unfortunately it seems to be because of a general decline rather than a group of nations rising to meet a challenge. And still the lesser nations are way, way behind and - apart perhaps from Bangladesh - slipping further back.
Redsback
Guest
Rafter, a deserved no. 1 in a strong field. I think you might have been referring to Lleyton.
Redsback
Guest
Nailed it. If Australia wins, it will still be the best team. In fairness, there were virtually no decent teams to challenge Steve Waugh and his men either. There is a reason they won 16 straight. England were average, Pakistan too (even at home), Sri Lanka were pretty weak, WI woeful. The only decent competition came from SA and India (only in India). New Zealand is a decent team, so credit where it is due if we win it there. If we do that, I would expect that we would have the strongest record on the road of any team at the moment and our record at home is sensational. They may not be our strogest ever, but I would suggest the field is much more even than 10 years ago. England, SA, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand (even if we beat them) are all opponents that could give us trouble outside of Australia. I honestly think it would have been interesting to see how Australia would have handled Bangladesh as well.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Ha ha Don, but that logic also means they're formidable away from home.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Not to mention Muster and Rios, Brian.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
People keep saying that Australia is obsessed with pace but the bowlers they pick hardly stand up to that. Haze is mainly mid 130s can push up to early 140s, Sids is mid to high 120s but he keeps getting picked for very good reasons. Bird is only just quicker than Sids but is in the frame. Marsh is mostly in the 130 -140 range but can push higher if his rhythm is good. This 140s thing is a myth, regardless of what the coaches and selectors spout in interviews.
Tom Cahill
Guest
Don I enjoyed that one. Talking about the South Africans, look out for 20 year-end Kagiso Rabada as their top pace prospect - he shouldered the bulk of the work against England in the 4 match test series that recently finished with 22 wickets at 21.9. Quentin de Kock is also looking the goods, he's scored 10 ODI centuries at a younger age than Kohli, so he's a seriously talented player for them. As it stands I'd say Australia is better placed to regenerate though.
fp11
Guest
I agree. M. Marsh is greatness in making. If we live long enough we'll remember him as one of the greatest all-rounders EVER.
Don Freo
Guest
Pakistan is the only team to have not won a series at home in recent times. They can't be that good.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
Yep. India sits atop the rankings but has won only 2 out of its past 7 test series (dating back to 2013/14). That run included losses to Australia, England, NZ and South Africa. So it says more about their performances than it does about Australia, really.
Amy
Guest
The Aussies are obsessed with pace - a lot of their bowlers start out by trying to bowl as fast as they possibly can. Maybe it's because the pitches don't offer much assistance and the Kookaburra ball doesn't swing for long, so pace it key. It's almost like a young bowler who bowls at 135-140ks won't get selected for home matches. The faster you bowl the more strain you place on your body. It's not rocket science. The pitches in Australia are becoming even less bowler friendly which means there's an even higher premium on pace. England's fastest bowlers have always had injury problems too - Gough, Simon Jones, Flintoff - and they were all big men too which made it harder on their bodies. The ideal body shape for bowling is lean and athletic. Patto is carrying too much timber, as did Watto
Another Pom in Oz
Guest
Great stuff, Dane...
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Maybe the ICC could save themselves a bit of cash and just knock off the A-Leagues "Dunny Seat" trophy...... Because what Dane is saying, is that International Cricket Is in the Toilet!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It really just comes down to the fact that no team is ripping it up at the moment. With the exception of Pakistan, who we've barely played recently, every team that Australia has been hammered by in an away series has been hammered by Australia when they've come here. So all that cancels itself out as far as the chance of those teams claiming anything over Australia. Sure Australia lost the Ashes in England 3-1. But the previous series in Australia, Australia won 5-0. Sure we lost 4-0 to India last time, but we beat them 2-0 at home recently and the previous time in Australia beat them 4-0. South Africa have just dropped off a cliff, and the last time Australia played them Australia was the victor. Australia has just followed up beating NZ at home with a convincing win in the first test away. So none of the other teams deserve to be #1 any more than Australia does. We are in a point of time where there simply isn't a clear #1 and the mace is likely to be earning serious frequent flyer miles as it travels around the world waiting for the time when a team can consistently put it together. There is a lot about the way the Australian team is starting to shape up to think they could well be that team. If India can unearth a couple of good test quicks they could certainly be there, England have started to look better, you have to think that South Africa have the talent to eventually turn things around. So we may have flux for a while where no team stands out and maintains the #1 spot for a significant time, but potentially we could also see any of a number of teams with the potential to do that.
Bob Sims
Guest
Haha. A lot of truth in what you say, but you can only beat what's put in front of you, as the saying goes. And of course, the same formula is applied to all sides. Good feeling about this team but a tougher road ahead.
Paul D
Roar Guru
"Australia’s undue rise to the top is actually the fault of a modern Test landscape that is a wash cycle of the humdrum. Put simply, it is their turn at the top of the churn. Not long ago drowning, they’ve risen temporarily for a glorious lung full of winner’s oxygen as their equally moderate opponents take in water around them. So in good news for all non-Australians, it shouldn’t be too long until the top dogs are eventually sucked back in to the whitewash. Keep faith, because it’s as close as the next turbulent transitional period or overseas tour. While some clowns may see this period of equalisation as ‘exciting’ and ‘healthy for the game’, I reckon cricket sucks without a browbeating hero trouncing everything in its path. So I’m calling on the ICC to get real. Time to replace the championship mace with a lifejacket sporting the face of Steven Bradbury and re-name the number one position for what it is: the 15 minutes for the best of a bad bunch. " This is glorious stuff. Nailed it.
SP
Guest
Well, someone has to be number 1 so why not Australia? Granted, they are not as good a side as previous ones but they are slightly ahead of the rest of the pack. England and India, the other contenders have both visited here recently and won zip, as did the Black Caps and WI. Australia managed to win 2 tests in England convincingly - 405 runs and an innings and 80 odd runs. England also drew away in the West Indies and drew at home to NZ
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Recently a lot has been written about the No 1 ranking in Test cricket. Newspaper sport pages are even devoting big headlines to it. Why? Does anyone really care about who might be temporarily ranked No 1? From the late 1970s to the early 1990s, the top team in the world was obviously the West Indies. Later, we had a period of Australian dominance. But I don't remember a lot of fuss about who had claimed top spot, or who was regarded as occupying second or third place. Apparently Australia will rise to the top of the pile if it wins the current "series" against the Black Caps in New Zealand. That's nice, I suppose.