• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

India: Deserved of No. 1?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
zinzan and Aussie, if you think India DO NOT deserve to be #1 in the world, make your points.. THAT is the debate, AFAIC.. If you think they do, then why the hell are you even arguing in a thread titled "India: Deserved of No.1?"..


And yes, please do stop with the condescending name calling.. I find most of the Indian posters here much more knowledgable and fair in opinions than aussie and you... Unless you can factually PROVE why India DO NOT deserve to be #1, your arguments are nothing. All you are saying is maybe there are better sides around. Well, maybe there are, but unless India plays them there is no real way to judge anything and that is the end of that.
Well I don't know how one can factually prove that. India became No. 1 on the basis of some statistical Ranking. India certainly deserve to be there. If there is another ranking that says india is last in the table then fine.

I don't know what people are arguing here. Are they questioning the ranking system or the performance by India or something else ?
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Key historical difference with AUS & SA dominating at home is that they unlike IND (until the Ganguly era began) who for the majority of your 70+ year history have been, Tigers @ Home - ***** cats on tours. AUS & SA have won everywhere historically. So no comparison.

Secondly maybe IND recent T20 has been poor. But they got argubably the best T20 in the world, just had a bad T20 WC IMO. Still very much on of the favourites for the tournament next year in WI.
Yeah rankings should be based on from the date test cricket began right?8-)

aussie please go and check India's T20 record since their WC win in 2007. To suggest they are one of the best sides let alone favorites is a joke. You cannot deny the fact that since 2007, India's test fortunes are steadily on the rise, their ODIs mixed and T20s downward spiralling.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
On the contrary, I didn't start anything. The comments I made were in direct response to the negative reaction originally to any arguments to the contrary.

I've nothing else to say on the matter except that like Aussie, the Indian guys I work with don't get so defensive in debating it.
Yeah perhaps because they think there are better stuff to do than argue with you? No offence.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If all teams decided to prepare similar kinds of pitches, we'd have plenty of teams with good away records and less than stellar home records, and the glorious homogenization to go with it.
This would be assuming that climatic and soil conditions in every country are the same too, so if curators wanted to prepare the same pitches the world over they actually could. I think there's more at play than one country simply preparing different wickets to be stubborn (as someone else suggested).

As far as India being no.1 is concerned, I can't see the problem with it. They have some very decent cricketers and it's pretty close at the moment between a number of teams at the top. To be honest, I think Australia is the weakest out of India, SA and us as far as consistency goes. I see the other two teams as being stronger on paper too. At the moment we have too many bad sessions.
 
Last edited:

pasag

RTDAS
But it isn't so self-apparent to me that they're too much behind Lee-Clark-Johnson-any Aussie who can turn his wrists or fingers....
This bowling lineup is never going to play again and hasn't played for some time, though agree with the point. Not too much between Indian and SA bowling esp with Zaheer fit so their superior batting puts them over the edge.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
zinzan and Aussie, if you think India DO NOT deserve to be #1 in the world, make your points.. THAT is the debate, AFAIC.. If you think they do, then why the hell are you even arguing in a thread titled "India: Deserved of No.1?"..


And yes, please do stop with the condescending name calling.. I find most of the Indian posters here much more knowledgable and fair in opinions than aussie and you... Unless you can factually PROVE why India DO NOT deserve to be #1, your arguments are nothing. All you are saying is maybe there are better sides around. Well, maybe there are, but unless India plays them there is no real way to judge anything and that is the end of that.
Reasons why IND are not the outright best team in the world:

- To be best team in the world as i said. It has to be based on performances over a long period of thime. West Indies 1963-1969 & 76-1995, England 1951-1958/59, AUS 1996-2006/07.

- The ranking system all it does it allocate points based on series wins/draws. It is flawed in the sense that it doesn't cater for peripheral things like (beating a weaker superior team like when IND beat a weakend ENG 07 or AUS losing it dynasty McGrath/Warne 2006/07)

AUS where clearly the best team in the world for the last decade, you didn't need a ranking system to tell you that. But as i said before this same ranking system in 2001/02 ranked SOUTH AFRICA as the best team in the world after AUS smoked then 5-1 over 6 tests. That was madness.

All Indian being ranked number 1 means, its a testament to how far their have improved from the days they where just Tigers at home & cats on tour. Right now its even between AUS/SA/IND. There is no clear best team test team in the world right now. Simple.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah rankings should be based on from the date test cricket began right?8-).
What?

aussie please go and check India's T20 record since their WC win in 2007. To suggest they are one of the best sides let alone favorites is a joke. You cannot deny the fact that since 2007, India's test fortunes are steadily on the rise, their ODIs mixed and T20s downward spiralling.
I have not denied this, but IND went into the T20 WC this year as the favourites. The lost mainly due to bad cricket rather than any lack of ability. On paper they got the best T20 team slightly ahead of SA & their win vs SRI chasing down 200 pretty moves proves the ability in that side.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
What?



I have not denied this, but IND went into the T20 WC this year as the favourites. The lost mainly due to bad cricket rather than any lack of ability. On paper they got the best T20 team slightly ahead of SA & their win vs SRI chasing down 200 pretty moves proves the ability in that side.
One match says nothing. Since end of WC 2007, India have lost 7 matches and won 5. Your notion that India went to WC 2007 as favorites is just an opinion, the team lost 3 T20s before that and won 2.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Reasons why IND are not the outright best team in the world:

- To be best team in the world as i said. It has to be based on performances over a long period of thime. West Indies 1963-1969 & 76-1995, England 1951-1958/59, AUS 1996-2006/07.

- The ranking system all it does it allocate points based on series wins/draws. It is flawed in the sense that it doesn't cater for peripheral things like (beating a weaker superior team like when IND beat a weakend ENG 07 or AUS losing it dynasty McGrath/Warne 2006/07)

AUS where clearly the best team in the world for the last decade, you didn't need a ranking system to tell you that. But as i said before this same ranking system in 2001/02 ranked SOUTH AFRICA as the best team in the world after AUS smoked then 5-1 over 6 tests. That was madness.

All Indian being ranked number 1 means, its a testament to how far their have improved from the days they where just Tigers at home & cats on tour. Right now its even between AUS/SA/IND. There is no clear best team test team in the world right now. Simple.
Nobody is saying India is the no.1 team for the last x no. of years etc. According to ICC rankings, India are No.1 as on today. That is a fact. Yours is just an opinion.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
One match says nothing. Since end of WC 2007, India have lost 7 matches and won 5. Your notion that India went to WC 2007 as favorites is just an opinion, the team lost 3 T20s before that and won 2.
2009 T20 WC not 2007. IND & SA where the favourites for this years WC.


Nobody is saying India is the no.1 team for the last x no. of years etc. According to ICC rankings, India are No.1 as on today. That is a fact. Yours is just an opinion.
Yes & as the Boycott cricinfo interview titled it so eruditely "Dont take the rating literally"..
 

Sir Alex

Banned
2009 T20 WC not 2007. IND & SA where the favourites for this years WC.




Yes & as the Boycott cricinfo interview titled it so eruditely "Dont take the rating literally"..
No they were not except for some guys who do not follow T20 cricket that well. Their record is no way indicative of them being favorites for that cup. also do u agree with me that Indian T20 team is no way even in the top 3 as of today?
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
Reasons why IND are not the outright best team in the world:

- To be best team in the world as i said. It has to be based on performances over a long period of thime. West Indies 1963-1969 & 76-1995, England 1951-1958/59, AUS 1996-2006/07.

- The ranking system all it does it allocate points based on series wins/draws. It is flawed in the sense that it doesn't cater for peripheral things like (beating a weaker superior team like when IND beat a weakend ENG 07 or AUS losing it dynasty McGrath/Warne 2006/07)

AUS where clearly the best team in the world for the last decade, you didn't need a ranking system to tell you that. But as i said before this same ranking system in 2001/02 ranked SOUTH AFRICA as the best team in the world after AUS smoked then 5-1 over 6 tests. That was madness.

All Indian being ranked number 1 means, its a testament to how far their have improved from the days they where just Tigers at home & cats on tour. Right now its even between AUS/SA/IND. There is no clear best team test team in the world right now. Simple.

No such claim is made. There are no qualms about being roughly comparable among 3 teams over the last 2 or 3 years, perhaps a bit longer or a bit shorter.

What is claimed is the deserved ascent to the #1 ranking for whatever period it lasts (the very topic of this thread). Without reservations.

That 2 or 3 other teams might shuttle around in the next few months or years doesnt really affect this claim. (This is different from the 2007 T20I world series tournament win. That was unexpected, and fleeting even).
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Reasons why IND are not the outright best team in the world:

- To be best team in the world as i said. It has to be based on performances over a long period of thime. West Indies 1963-1969 & 76-1995, England 1951-1958/59, AUS 1996-2006/07.

- The ranking system all it does it allocate points based on series wins/draws. It is flawed in the sense that it doesn't cater for peripheral things like (beating a weaker superior team like when IND beat a weakend ENG 07 or AUS losing it dynasty McGrath/Warne 2006/07)

AUS where clearly the best team in the world for the last decade, you didn't need a ranking system to tell you that. But as i said before this same ranking system in 2001/02 ranked SOUTH AFRICA as the best team in the world after AUS smoked then 5-1 over 6 tests. That was madness.

All Indian being ranked number 1 means, its a testament to how far their have improved from the days they where just Tigers at home & cats on tour. Right now its even between AUS/SA/IND. There is no clear best team test team in the world right now. Simple.



1. The ICC rankings DO take into account performances over a period of time. Being the best in the world does not mean having to beat everyone everywhere. IT is simply enough if you produce better results than your competition. By your warped view, there would be no #1 team in the world for the years except the periods you have mentioned, which is stupid.

And to make a general point, rankings almost in any sport are simply indicators of who is doing well "currently" and who isn't. It doesn't always tell you who is easily the best. They are "form" indicators more than any decisive system.


2. The ICC rankings systems DOES reward appropriately based on the strength of the opposition that has been defeated. Only thing is, it follows the rankings to determine who is a better side, not some stupid arbitrary criteria that you have set by which Australia and Aussies are the best in the world, no matter how much and how badly they keep losing..


3. Right now, 3 teams are jostling for being the best in the world. One of them, though, is clearly regressing. The other lost at home to the team that is regressing. The third have not lost anything at home for a while now and are doing reasonably well away as well. Also they have won almost all their recent series and hence they are DESERVEDLY #1 in the world in the rankings, and by definition, the BEST of the CURRENT teams on CURRENT form for whatever period this stays...
 

Vikas Bhatt

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I think India should have won either against Aus or Sa away. We had a 1-0 lead in SA but blew it and we couldn't finish the job down under both times in 2004 & 2008 [Curse that **** Bucknor]....

I think we are like 2nd best but we have also won rubbers in Pak, NZ, WI and Eng, so I don't think we are that undeserving as well.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
But as i said before this same ranking system in 2001/02 ranked SOUTH AFRICA as the be€st team in the world after AUS smoked then 5-1 over 6 tests. That was madness.
And now, as before, you're wrong.

Still, if you keep saying it, it may make it correct eventually, or more than likely it won't.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
But as i said before this same ranking system in 2001/02 ranked SOUTH AFRICA as the best team in the world after AUS smoked then 5-1 over 6 tests..
No, isn't. Pay attention to what others say for a change.
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
And now, as before, you're wrong.

Still, if you keep saying it, it may make it correct eventually, or more than likely it won't.
G.I.Joe said:
No, isn't. Pay attention to what others say for a change.

South African win takes them to top off ICC Test Championship

cricinfo said:
Keith Lane

January 5, 2003


"A clinical and professional performance plus a proud moment," was the way Shaun Pollock summed up the feelings of the team after winning the second Castle Lager/MTN Test against Pakistan by an innings and 142 runs in Cape Town and in so doing wrapping up the series two-nil.

"It is good to win in this fashion, which means that the work we have put in over the past months has paid off", Pollock added in praising his team for the way they had batted, bowled and fielded during the last three series played.

Winning six out of six Test matches, four of them by an innings, has helped South Africa displace Australia at the top of the ICC Test Championship table.

Pakistan were completely outplayed in the series. They were out-batted, out-bowled and out-fielded by a professional team cresting the wave after recent convincing victories.

"We were very poor in our batting, bowling and fielding throughout the Test and one-day series," said Waqar Younis, "never taking the chances that were offered we performed very badly."

"We now have a fair idea of the conditions in South Africa and will have to go home, gather ourselves and return more positive for the World Cup." Waqar said.

Chances they were given, Man-of-the-match, Herschelle Gibbs gave two in his record 228, on 29 and 99, while Graeme Smith went on to make 151 after being dropped on 54.

These chances may have made a difference to the margin of victory, but it was the Pakistan batting that left the visitors in the lurch.

Apart from the young and relatively inexperienced Taufeeq Umar, making 135 and 67 and who has a great future in Test cricket, the remaining batsmen just never showed enough application or concentration. Far too many batsmen got themselves out after reaching thirties and forties when big scores were expected from them.

Inzamam-ul-Haq and Yousuf Youhana arrived in South Africa with tremendous reputations, but left with their images severely tarnished. The work horses of the Pakistan middle order had failed miserably and the team suffered accordingly. Batting on a pitch that was made to order for the batsmen, no excuse can be given for the inability to bat for long periods.

The bowling was also of a poor standard, never fully coming to grips with the South African conditions. They bowled down the wrong channels and at times were far too short. Saqlain Mushtaq ended the series with the best average amongst the Pakistan bowlers - 52.00 - but showed a definite lack of penetration.

In the last seven Test matches Pakistan have lost five, three by an innings, which does not bode well for either their bowlers or their batsmen.

South Africa in comparison were magnificent in both disciplines. Scoring nearly a 1,000 runs and taking all 40 wickets in the two Tests put them miles ahead of their opponents.

Man-of-the-Series, Makhaya Ntini, after taking 12 wickets against Sri Lanka, improved on that taking 13 wickets in the two Tests. Always a threat with his length and pace, he gave all the Pakistan batsmen a torrid time at the wicket. "I have enjoyed it and feel wonderful that everything is coming together, to bowl with Polly (Shaun Pollock) has been a dream throughout my career," Ntini beamed on collecting his award.

Mornatau Hayward and Shaun Pollock were just as menacing, making vital breakthroughs when things seemed to be slipping away.

Gibbs, Smith, Gary Kirsten, Jacques Kallis, Boeta Dippenaar, Neil McKenzie, Mark Boucher and Pollock all featured with the bat. Records were set, and personal milestones were made with each batsman spending valuable time at the crease and building confidence.

The only negative for South Africa being the amount of verbal abuse that is forthcoming from some of the bowlers. Television cameras zoom into bowlers on their follow through making it fairly easy to lip read what is being said. A bit of sledging is all part of the game, but surely some of the players are overdoing it, especially when you win by an innings.
Plus a random forum article during 2003 How About A World Cup For the best Test Team?

Key quote:

1 said:
Currently, despite its best efforts, the system of ranking for Test matches is clearly flawed; the South Africans, (suitably humbled by Australia, with the latter having virtually massacred every other team) are ranked ahead of Australia, which is evidently a travesty of justice. I have a few recommendations to make to have a World Test Championship...
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
You wouldn't have had to waste your time gathering that stuff if you'd bothered reading others' posts properly when you're debating something with them. Its been mentioned before, I'll say it again. The ranking algorithm that made SA #1, and the ranking algorithm that made India #1 are not the same. The ICC had to overhaul it and put a new one in place after it was clear how ridiculous that was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top