India: Deserved of No. 1?

[GotSpin]

But except for South Africa, its equal isnt it.
Australia have also not beaten India other than at home
Sri Lanka have also not beaten India other than at home

Only South Africa have managed to draw a series in India!

Neither of those sides have claim to be no1 apart from South Africa though

 

[Black_Warrior]

well atleast it does not put the 3 teams below it, above it
As for SA, as I said, had they won the home series against Aus, there would be no question..but they didnt..and that complicates matters!

 

[GotSpin]

I just want Australia back to No.1 where they belong

 

[Black_Warrior]

^ that might be a while though...I was watching bits of the Aus-WI series...the bowling attack will have to improve for that to happen!

 

[GotSpin]

^ that might be a while though...I was watching bits of the Aus-WI series...the bowling attack will have to improve for that to happen!

Thank god for our domestic structure atleast. No need to worry about completely falling off the perch.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I wouldn't really have a problem with India being No.1 as I consider it a statistical anomaly given that this hasn't even been their best season and last year they lost to both Sri Lanka and Australia away. But I must say I am annoyed on how big a deal is being made of it, especially considering when SA were No.1 nobody seemed to think it was that big of an achievement for them.

Nobody should be considered No.1 on the back of a run of victorious home series IMO. You need to prove yourself both home and away for a long period of time before that title means anything. SA had an unbeaten streak of 12 series home and away, India havent accomplished anything close to that .

Probably because of the small matter of them losing 0-6 to the team they displaced from the #1 spot. The ICC had to overhaul their entire ranking algorithm to avoid slip ups like that in the future.

 

[MrIncredible]

Rsa>India>Oz>>the rest; very simple.

 

[Cruxdude]

Rsa>India>Oz>>the rest; very simple.

If England manage to win this test series this might be changing a bit. Should be an entertaining series.

 

[jboss]

Or of course the other option is for you just to ignore the thread & allow others who do wish to engage in debate to continue

I doubt that would be an option for him and may be over his head.

 

[jboss]

Hey jboss. Just to clarify something for me. You're living in South Africa but you're Indian or of Indian heritage?

I don't see why my race is important to you unless you wish to use it as a rascist attack versus me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My tuppence worth is that there isn't a clear #1 as there has been for the past decade or more and we're entering a kind of interregnum period where any of the top three can have fair cases made for them.

Also, with my partiotic hat on, I'd say England under Strauss and Flower aren't too far away either. Allan Donald did claim recently (and presumably without irony) we were ahead of his own country in the bowling stakes. I'm not exactly confident of success on our current tour, but not unconfident either.

Exciting times ahead.

 

[MrIncredible]

If England manage to win this test series this might be changing a bit. Should be an entertaining series.

no doubt

 

[Burgey]

The system's been around for ages, and under that system india are deserved number one. It's close atm between a few sides (mostly them and SA imo) but I can't see any reason why they don'e deserve it.

 

[jeevan]

Needs to be far more focus on away series wins against top Test nations.

Though i acknowledge India hasn't had the chance of an away series in South Africa in three years and that they have a marvelous home record (and always have), there's clearly something wrong when the the No.1 ranked team hasn't defeated the three teams below it other than at home.

Apologies for the personal attacks btw.

You really need to be consistent with your own critera, sir. Last time SA played SL in SL, they were blown away. 2-0 in a 2 match series. At least India wins one game away and loses away series 2-1. (Only once in last 5 years have they not won a game in a series, the result was 1-0 on that occasion).

 

[jeevan]

I wouldn't really have a problem with India being No.1 as I consider it a statistical anomaly given that this hasn't even been their best season and last year they lost to both Sri Lanka and Australia away. But I must say I am annoyed on how big a deal is being made of it, especially considering when SA were No.1 nobody seemed to think it was that big of an achievement for them.

Nobody should be considered No.1 on the back of a run of victorious home series IMO. You need to prove yourself both home and away for a long period of time before that title means anything. SA had an unbeaten streak of 12 series home and away, India havent accomplished anything close to that .

You've asserted this once before and you're mistaken. SA lost the most recent home series to Australia, but in the 12 home series prior to that, they lost twice. Including a 0-3 whitewash in 3 matches at home to Australia.

Anything close? Last time India lost a series by more than 1 game was seven years ago (the bugaboo series in NZ which went 0-2). In the last five years, the only time India failed to win a game in a series was when it lost 0-1 (to Pak in Pak in a 3 test series). ( In that same period it has won 2-0 six times.)

This ranking was hardly achieved overnight.

p.s. And but for Sydney, India would've drawn series in Australia twice in a row when Aus were clearly #1.

 

[jeevan]

I reckon. Talk about precious English, Australian & NZ fans...I was crucified by some Indian posters on the other thread for suggesting that whilst they maybe ranked no.1, they don't have a 'great' bowling attack. Extremely precious.

Actually what you said was that tests must be going through a weak era because this Indian bowling attack was so weak.

By this if you meant that the batting was of especially poor quality in this era and/or the pitches were very bowler friendly then perhaps you might be right in your assesment of Indian bowling.

Because to win tests your bowling needs to take twenty wickets. (And then and only then the equation of your batting relative to their bowling and their batting relative to your bowling comes into play). If the batsmen are good or pitches are flat, it's very hard to take 20.

And taking 20 wickets, they have. From NZ to WI and every country in between. At least once every series, bar one time in five years. Don't get fooled by there being no bowling superstars. It still is a team sport.

 

[Zinzan]

Actually what you said was that tests must be going through a weak era

I went on to explain myself clearly I you care to read past that particularly post

because this Indian bowling attack was so weak.

At no stage did I say their bowling was 'weak', please don't misquote me. I said they don't have a 'great' bowling attack & went on to say that IMO it would be the weakest bowling attack of any of the previous No.1 sides since the ICC have ranked teams.

 

[Sir Alex]

I went on to explain myself clearly I you care to read past that particularly post



At no stage did I say their bowling was 'weak', please don't misquote me. I said they don't have a 'great' bowling attack & went on to say that IMO it would be the weakest bowling attack of any of the previous No.1 sides since the ICC have ranked teams.

Zinzan12, I agree with you that this is perhaps the weakest bowling attack for a no.1 side but you should not forget that this is also the best batting attack for a no.1 side. And these arguments merely say they might not be as good as previous no.1s but that doesnt mean that they don't have a case to be no.1 now. Nobody is saying they are good as Australia circa 99-05. That team happens once in 25 years.

 

[Zinzan]

Zinzan12, I agree with you that this is perhaps the weakest bowling attack for a no.1 side but you should not forget that this is also the best batting attack for a no.1 side.

Granted, they have an extremely strong batting lineup (apart from Yuvraj of course ) but I'd need to analyze recent performances in more detail before I commit to them being a better batting side than Aust circa 99-03. I will say this, I certainly wouldn't be looking purely at their batting averages alone, because as I said earlier, I usually take about 6-8 runs of their batter's averages in the same way I subtract 3-6 runs off their bowler's averages.

I'll come back to you on that question on strongest batting lineup since 2001

 

[honestbharani]

I wouldn't really have a problem with India being No.1 as I consider it a statistical anomaly given that this hasn't even been their best season and last year they lost to both Sri Lanka and Australia away. But I must say I am annoyed on how big a deal is being made of it, especially considering when SA were No.1 nobody seemed to think it was that big of an achievement for them.

Nobody should be considered No.1 on the back of a run of victorious home series IMO. You need to prove yourself both home and away for a long period of time before that title means anything. SA had an unbeaten streak of 12 series home and away, India havent accomplished anything close to that .

What if no team in the world is proving anything away from home and on top of that are also getting beaten at home?


You are speaking as if it is only what you do away from home that matters.. How can a team be no.1 if they cant even beat the lesser ranked sides in their own backyard and actually lose to them?


No.1 simply indicates the best at the current time.. If no team is clearly doing well away AND home, it is obvious that the team with the better record (regardless of home or away) will be ranked higher and that is what has happened in this case...