angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
I don't think the advantages for England and Australia are through playing each other in the most precise sense, but by being the better teams when other countries joined the competition. Just as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are the weaker teams now, it was once true for India and Pakistan. All established teams have an inherent advantage against frontier teams.How about series wins and drawn matches? If you come up against a side that has won, for example, 15 straight matches, doesn't a draw count for something?
What are these figures meant to show? You can't really make a conclusion based on the actions of players spanning over a 100 years.
Finally, don't forget that Australia and England had been playing cricket against each other for a long time before other countries entered the picture. A better analysis would normalize the amount of games each team plays against each team as you obviously have a better understanding of a team if you keep playing them.
I think we can all agree it's not hugely relevant to anything, but things like this come from a desire to ask what was it like before?