I think Sri Lanka is ranked higher than they should be but I don't think that will last very long. What I meant to say was that Australia are a middle of the road side and if they are 3-4 it would represent their position in International cricket at the moment.
India on the other hand, lets face it they've done everything thats asked off them. Ok they didn't beat Australia in Australia (although the result of that series is still up for some debate given the umpiring), but they beat England in England, they beat Nz in NZ, they thrashed Australia at home and they also beat England at home over the last couple of years. There is just little arguing with the fact that they should be the number 2 side(even if they are listed number 3).
Ask Matt Hayden if the umpiring was good during the series in India. When umpiring decisions go against India they scream like little girls for years on end but when the umpiring goes in favour of India they are very quiet. India is like that loud, obnoxious person in the shop who gets served first because he is the loudest. They're the Americans of the cricketing world.
India have not beaten South Africa or Australia at home. End of story. And beating New Zealand at home in a test series these days is like taking candy from a baby. Australia last test tour of NZ was 3-0. When I was a kid beating NZ at home was near impossible.
New Zealand's limp wrist attemps in the 2 test series against Australia earlier bordered on the pathetic and farcical.
And for as for your argument "India has done everything asked of it". If Australia go undefeated for the next two years will you say "Australia is number 1 because they have done everything they've been asked"? Nope. You'll say "Australia isnt number 1 because they've been playing weak teams.
Ahhh, the double standards of people.
I disagree. England's batting this series has been bordering on disgraceful and it took some equally inept bowling from Australia to keep things on an even keel during the series. England may not be a poor team at home, but in the last 3 years, they drew with an average SL side, lost to India in 2007 and lost to South Africa in 2008. They certainly aren't as impressive a side as they were at home in the earlier part of this decade.
And England's bowling wasnt much better. But they did enough to win. And it doesnt matter how badly England played at Headingly, its only 1 loss. It doesnt matter if you lose by an innings a 7462876542354528364238674523 runs. A test counts for only 1 result.
The 2-0 loss to India was flattering them, they never had a hope of winning a game that series and if there were 4 result pitches, it would have been 4-0 and everyone including the neighbors dog knows that. If you ask me, losing 3 out of the last 5 series is not a top effort, and its certainly a lot poorer than the likes of SA and India.
And if there werent 4 doctored pitches Australia would ahve done better. Or should I remind you of Ganguly's child like fits when he saw green on the 2nd test pitch in 2004 and demanded a joke pitch, calling it a dust bowl would be an insult to dust bowls, be prepared for the 3rd test. You know, when Michael Clarke took 6 wickets in an innings against the best players of spin in the world.
