Are India the second best team in the world?

[krkode]

No, for the simple fact that they have now two retirees, one on the way and their new players have hardly been tested. India had always been strong at home and had some recent success away. However, I feel they have to re-establish that with their new players now in order for that to really solidify their position. IMO S.Africa are better and I wouldn't be surprised if Sri Lanka/England beat them in India. A toss-up between India/S.Africa/England/Sri Lanka at the moment.

Basically, I agree with this last statement.

I think it's always hard to judge in cricket who the best team is - just because home and away conditions always have such a great impact.

However, it's quite clear Australia has been the best team in the last decade. That said, I don't think there has been or will ever be a second-best team in cricket... always too many variables. So whatever the rankings may say, #2, 3, 4, 5 will always be in a tussle amongst themselves and it will never really be clear who is better. And as of now, I'd say the second best teams are: India, SA, SL, England.

 

[GIMH]

I'm the biggest England fan going, gotta say I'm surprised that people still consider us one of the top sides. I think we are capable of becoming such a thing again, but really, our recent record has been medicore at best. Beaten by SA at home, lucky in many ways to win both series against the Kiwis, poor in Sri Lanka, a little unlucky not to draw the home series with India, never tested by the Windies, tonked by the crims.

Not beaten one of the other "top" sides (ie, AUS, India, SL, SA) in a series now since 2005.

All this being said, we're about to go and beat all before us, so maybe it's just foresight.

 

[krkode]

I'm the biggest England fan going, gotta say I'm surprised that people still consider us one of the top sides. I think we are capable of becoming such a thing again, but really, our recent record has been medicore at best. Beaten by SA at home, lucky in many ways to win both series against the Kiwis, poor in Sri Lanka, a little unlucky not to draw the home series with India, never tested by the Windies, tonked by the crims.

Not beaten one of the other "top" sides (ie, AUS, India, SL, SA) in a series now since 2005.

All this being said, we're about to go and beat all before us, so maybe it's just foresight.

I think they're just recognized as a team with great potential, even if they haven't lived up to it just yet.

This is unlike Pakistan, WI, and NZ who are kind of in a slump at the moment.

Speaking of potential, though, one "battle of the titans" I want to witness is Aus vs. Sri Lanka in SL... I'm really curious to know how other teams will handle Mendis. Would the Indian line-up with their current form stand up to him or is he really the next big thing!?

 

[subshakerz]

Sri Lanka doesn't really merit inclusion in this conversation, no matter how good they look on paper they have not won any series of note outside Sri Lanka since this decade started. England on the other hand have a pretty pathetic home record of late, and if you can't defend even your home base, then that says a lot about your team.

Which leaves India and South Africa. The sole supporting point for India is that they have given the world's best team a hard time of late, yet that ignores their own inconsistent performances outside of Australian series. South Africa, on the other hand, have of late either beaten or outplayed all their close competitors to the No.2 spot (including India/England), have proven consistent over a stretch of time, and have a solid captain, settled batting lineup and potentially destructive pair of fast bowlers. If they impress further against Australia this winter, this won't even be a debate.

 

[pasag]

As I said previously:

I think it depends on how we do against SA. If we lose to them at home then the rankings should be:

1. SA
2. Ind
3. Aus

However if we dont lose and beat them away:

1. Aus
2. Ind
3. SA

If India beat Pakistan and NZ away they could even be #1 really. Obviously there's very little in it and I think the short to medium term rankings very much depend on how India handle the transition and how the new players adapt on the highest stage.

 

[Precambrian]

Didnt we just beat the No.1 comprehensively?

That said, realistically, we definitely are No.2.

 

[Bees]

As I said previously:

I think it depends on how we do against SA. If we lose to them at home then the rankings should be:

1. SA
2. Ind
3. Aus

However if we dont lose and beat them away:

1. Aus
2. Ind
3. SA

If India beat Pakistan and NZ away they could even be #1 really. Obviously there's very little in it and I think the short to medium term rankings very much depend on how India handle the transition and how the new players adapt on the highest stage.

AWTA. Very interested to see how it all pans out, indeed. I think India will handle transformation quite well. I'm not entirely sure as to why, but it's a hunch - perhaps it's because most of their potential newcomers are reasonably developed.

 

[Uppercut]

Didnt we just beat the No.1 comprehensively?

That said, realistically, we definitely are No.2.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. India are certainly more well-suited to beating Australia than SA, but i'd have SA as favourites to win in a match between them and India (conditions dependent of course, but in general.) India's record over the past eight series is won 4, drawn 1, lost 3. SA's is won 7, drawn 1, lost 0. SA could argue that by winning almost every series consistently for over 2 years, what else could they have possibly done to be considered number 2? What lets them down so badly is their last performances against Australia. I'd have them edging number 2 at the moment, but i'm sure everyone can agree, the upcoming series is absolutely crucial.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, that's one way of looking at it. India are certainly more well-suited to beating Australia than SA, but i'd have SA as favourites to win in a match between them and India (conditions dependent of course, but in general.)

I'd back us to beat SA in India 8/10 times, and I reckon we'd win at least 4/10 in SA. Obviously, this is all conjecture till it happens, but head to head, I'd pick India. And there is a big difference between 0-6 and 3-2 IMO. That makes up for quite a bit.

Also, India tend to do a lot better in Australia against Australia, compared to SA, so I am not sure you can point to the conditions.

 

[silentstriker]

India's record over the past eight series is won 4, drawn 1, lost 3. SA's is won 7, drawn 1, lost 0.

That's a bit of a selective measure though isn't it? India have played Australia in Australia and at home during that time. They both won in England, they both won in WI. They both beat SL at home. India lost to SA away, which is fair enough, and SL away. And I'd back SL to beat SA in SL with Mendis and Murali definitely.

So I think we're not comparing apples to apples when you throw that stat out.

 

[silentstriker]

Very interesting that the percentage of people who actually think India are #2 went down after they beat Australia 2-0. I'll bump it up again after the England series, we'll see if it changes.

ITSTL.

 

[Prince EWS]

Very interesting that the percentage of people who actually think India are #2 went down after they beat Australia 2-0.

Maybe some people now actually think they're #1 and voted accordingly.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe some people now actually think they're #1 and voted accordingly.

Doubtful. This is actually interesting though, tracking people's opinion over time.

 

[Polo23]

South Africa has done enough in the past to still be rated #2 for mine, had India beaten Australia in Australia then definitely they'd be number one, but South Africa drew with India in India a few months back didn't they?

For mine:

1. Australia/South Africa
2. India

 

[subshakerz]

I'd back us to beat SA in India 8/10 times, and I reckon we'd win at least 4/10 in SA. Obviously, this is all conjecture till it happens, but head to head, I'd pick India. And there is a big difference between 0-6 and 3-2 IMO. That makes up for quite a bit.

Really? India lost a year ago fair and square when they toured South Africa, and South Africa toured India this year and more than held their own (would have won if not for a dodgy pitch in Nagpur). Based on that, you can tell which team has the edge in a head-to-head, and it ain't India.

 

[Precambrian]

SA would have lost had they not obtained a green pitch at Ahmedabad (IIRC). To call a spinner track "dodgy" sums up your attitude.

 

[biased indian]

Really? India lost a year ago fair and square when they toured South Africa, and South Africa toured India this year and more than held their own (would have won if not for a dodgy pitch in Nagpur). Based on that, you can tell which team has the edge in a head-to-head, and it ain't India.

Because of simillar minded people in ICC we had 4 roads in the last series ..if a team won the toss and then went on to lose on turner how can that be dodgy.thery where simply not good enough to play on that surface..if we have same kind of pitch in al the places wht is the need for touring

 

[sanga1337]

No. While they always perform well against Aus, they tend to underperform against the other nations. Can't be number 2 in the world if you don't win consistently against the other teams

 

[social]

SA are a better team than India but the No. 1 position is likely to be swapped around between 3-4 in the coming years (like the ODI rankings) unless Oz unearths a matchwinning bowler

 

[Goughy]

SA would have lost had they not obtained a green pitch at Ahmedabad (IIRC). To call a spinner track "dodgy" sums up your attitude.

And that post shows your attitude.

The pitch for the 3rd Test was clearly "dodgy".

India had to do it, all the talk leading into the Test was that India had to do it and they did do it.

A track was produced that would make batting very, very difficult to make sure a result occured.

It didnt matter to India if the lost 0-2 but it gave them a 50/50 chance of drawing the series 1-1.

It was a strategic result pitch on which the game didnt last 3 days.

It was a strategic gamble by India.

I have no issue with the tactic but given we all know what was happening in the lead up to the Test and during the Test it is silly to deny it 6 months later.