The implied logic being that the Indian team while batting plunders 60-80 undeserved runs each time it turns out, and while bowling concedes 30-60 runs more by that same criteria. Why the discrepancy? (It only makes sense if one assumes that the Indian bowling side consistently takes more wickets than their opposition).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
-
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?
- Thread starter jboss
- Start date
- Status
The Indian bowling side that got here consisted of Kumble, Harbhajan, Zaheer/RP/Irfan, Ishant/Munaf/Sreesanth. Kumble's been retired just over a year to the day, but is undeniably part of a bulk of this journey (as was Ganguly).
It has no superstars and is clearly second by a couple of miles to McGrath, Warne & associates (and no shame in that).
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, or Steyn-Ntini-Kallis-Morkel-Harris. For one, they have more variety (and not just for the sake of it) and are able to bring different weapons to bear on just about any sort of condition, where a more star studded unit of faster bowlers may seem unable to do much if conditions are not suiting them. It shows, India's won a test almost every where it played in 5 years (except just once).
Almost every one of these bowlers (and certainly Kumble, Harbhajan, Zaheer, Sreesanth) has run through the opposition and they've taken turns doing so (recent Sri Lanka series was a good example of it).
On the flip side, not having superstars has the advantage of a better shot at filling empty shoes. Example one can hope for Mishra to at least approximate some of Kumble's success (bowling differently of course) and team up with Harbhajan in a complementary manner. For a while India toyed with (in ODIs) pairing Chawla/Powar and tacking them on to a lfm/rfm (was it Pathan/RP and Sree/Munaf, dont recall exactly).
This is a strength of recent Indian cricket teams, and a more durable one as it is not based on 2 or 3 specific individuals.
Only SL appears to be capable of a similar "formula", and among the top teams SA have had the hardest time of growing different types of bowlers all of whom reach a certain standard on their own (whether it be great or very good or merely good enough).
It has no superstars and is clearly second by a couple of miles to McGrath, Warne & associates (and no shame in that).
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, or Steyn-Ntini-Kallis-Morkel-Harris. For one, they have more variety (and not just for the sake of it) and are able to bring different weapons to bear on just about any sort of condition, where a more star studded unit of faster bowlers may seem unable to do much if conditions are not suiting them. It shows, India's won a test almost every where it played in 5 years (except just once).
Almost every one of these bowlers (and certainly Kumble, Harbhajan, Zaheer, Sreesanth) has run through the opposition and they've taken turns doing so (recent Sri Lanka series was a good example of it).
On the flip side, not having superstars has the advantage of a better shot at filling empty shoes. Example one can hope for Mishra to at least approximate some of Kumble's success (bowling differently of course) and team up with Harbhajan in a complementary manner. For a while India toyed with (in ODIs) pairing Chawla/Powar and tacking them on to a lfm/rfm (was it Pathan/RP and Sree/Munaf, dont recall exactly).
This is a strength of recent Indian cricket teams, and a more durable one as it is not based on 2 or 3 specific individuals.
Only SL appears to be capable of a similar "formula", and among the top teams SA have had the hardest time of growing different types of bowlers all of whom reach a certain standard on their own (whether it be great or very good or merely good enough).
Last edited:
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
If its judging by the the standards the rating system has set, then i guess IND deserve to be ranked "statistically" as # 1 right now.
But that doesn't mean much, sine being number # 1 in the world means performances over a long period of time. Of late after AUS lost McGrath/Warne in 06/07, thus ending that era of dominace. South Africa have clearly been the best team in the world based on their performances from SRI 06 to AUS 09.
India # 1 ranking which will probably last for 5 minutes, i just a testament to fact they have come a long way from being whipping boys away from home & are a better all-round team - but are by no means a world beating team. As mentioned before Ganguly should take alot of props here more than anyone.
Only problem is see with IND is that of course the middle-order dynasty will be gone soon & their pace attack conitues to blow hot & cold.
But that doesn't mean much, sine being number # 1 in the world means performances over a long period of time. Of late after AUS lost McGrath/Warne in 06/07, thus ending that era of dominace. South Africa have clearly been the best team in the world based on their performances from SRI 06 to AUS 09.
India # 1 ranking which will probably last for 5 minutes, i just a testament to fact they have come a long way from being whipping boys away from home & are a better all-round team - but are by no means a world beating team. As mentioned before Ganguly should take alot of props here more than anyone.
Only problem is see with IND is that of course the middle-order dynasty will be gone soon & their pace attack conitues to blow hot & cold.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
We have strong replacements in Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Yuvraj, Murali Vijay. The batting line up will essentially remain the same till 2011. The bowling - we have a lot of bowlers and we tend to deliver the goods as a team despite losing out on our main bowlers like when we did when we lost Zaheer Khan. India's bowling, though not the best in the world, is highly under rated I feel.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
I suspect he's thinking more about the top order batsmen whereas the bowlers have to bowl throughout the innings.
Ofcourse yes,winning a test series against a top test team,that too by innings in both testst that won,defintely worth the numero uno place.However this place will change quite frequentl as there are not so much differences between the top teams.
At this time India deserve this position.
At this time India deserve this position.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Wrong...It has already lasted 3005+ minutes. So you are off by only 3000 minutes, just like you are about everything else you have been arguing lately.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
So how else one is ranking them then ? Obviously they were the same team before and after the 3rd test started and superman(assuming he can bat/bowl/field like the best) didn't really jump from the sky to make the Indian team. Ofcourse it is purely on the basis of the ICC ranking system that they are ranked No. 1.
If SA were clearly the best team, like you are suggesting, they would have had enough points on the board. Its not like India are being awarded points for participating in a test match.
So are you contradicting yourself ?
It seems that you have not been watching. Please take a look at the Batting Stats of the INDIA-SL series , and do let me know who did bulk of the scoring ?
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
HA I was being sarcastic sir. Poster Pratters clearly saw what i was saying. You just trying to make a mountain of a molehill..
Well of course you are going to say that after your points in Sehwag vs Anwar thread were coherently rubbished by me. I dont how that is relevant here either, some on yall on CW to touchy
You are ranked based on points allocated via series victories that all. It doesn't cater from peripheral things like decline in team due to lost of players (i.e after AUS lost McGrath,Warne, Langer in Ashes 06, they clearly ceased to be # 1 in world at that point, but the ranking still statiscally had them at the top until SA beat them in 08/09) or the fact that IND will be losing its middle-order dynasty very soon.
This same When AUS smoked SA in 2001/02 somoehow the ranking system put South Africa as the best team in the world.
I explained above how the ranking system works. So hopefully you are clear. Plus if you doubt SA weren't the form/best test team in the world from between SRI 06 to AUS 08/09 (before AUS won the return series in SA). I dont know what international cricket you where watching or following...
No. I am VERY clear. You rather have misread my post, thus confusing your own self.
Ha are you ok?. What does this have to do with the point i made that Dravid/Tendy/Laxman @ 35+ respectively will be coming to end of their careers soon?
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
That is really a flawed logic, Australia earned their no. 1 spot and for them to lose their spot some other team had to earn it. You don't loose your no.1 position because some players retired. You lost your spot when other teams start winning matches/series more than you.do.
Could be, except that tail enders are also cashing in on the runs recently.
The Indian XI that just played for e.g. has no one averaging in the single digits on batting. The next 2 most likely tail enders, Ishant and Mishra also average in the double digits. And this is far from the strongest tail India has presented in the last 5 years having fielded - iirc - Agarkar-Irfan-Kumble-Harbhajan a couple of times which would be it, and Zaheer having been #11 for a duration has 3 fifties.
Looking around at SA, NZ(Vettori at #8), Aus, Eng the Indian tail doesnt appear unique. Chris Martin & perhaps Murali are getting to be a rarer breed.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Because Australia had lost a series in India which was much lower in the rankings than South Africa was when Australia beat them. So it probably means Australia lost more points by losing to India ( which was ranked no. 6 at that time) than it gained by winning SA.
I am not saying that it is the best system, but it is the system that ICC follows and according to it India is no. 1 right now. It doesn't mean India is suddenly the best side in the world, all it means is according to the ranking it is the no. 1 side.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
They have been talking about it since 2004, I think Indian batting will do okay, our top order is more solid now that it ever was. Some of the Youngsters are looking really good.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I think India will be fine generally, but just not quite as consistent, when the three middle order batsmen retire. A big thing will be how closely together they retire. Also, the first guy who gets the opportunity needs to take that chance straight away, so that there isn't further chopping and changing.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Laxman is a good 2 years younger than Dravid and Tendulkar. Think he will last the longest. Dravid and Tendulkar will retire fairly close to each other whithin a year of each other IMO and that will be a gap impoossible to fill. We have decent batsmen though to replace them.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
No doubt in Sharma, Yuvraj, Vijay, Raina, Kohli, Tiwary, Pandey & Badrinath (not young of course). Thats some really ***y raw talent - best in the world. But as SJS was saying a thread recently, will they all really be able to step up & replace the dynamic 4. Or is it the end of an golden era in the middle-order.
Cause as i've mentioned before in otehr threads in the last 18 years where Tendy/Dravid/Azhar/Ganguly/Laxman have run the middle order. The few times other players have gotten oppurtunities like Kambli, Jadeja, Kaif, Bhardwaj, Kanitkar, Badani, Yuvraj ( to date), Amre, Ajay Sharma didn't step up at test level.
Maybe one or two will step up, but going by history. Its a tentatively uneasy phase coming up IMO.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yup, tend to agree with that statement
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I don't think we will ever have an as good middle order as we have now but I think we will do just fine. A lot of talent and the skepticism by many is highly misplaced. I have faith in the following batting line up in 2 years time -
Gambhir
Vijay
Badrinath
Sehwag
Laxman
Yuvraj
with a strong bench as well including Rohit Sharma who has a lot of talent.
Then you will have to replace Laxman in 3-4 years time and I am sure a player will come up by then possibly Rohit Sharma or Raina (who I believe will sort out his bouncer issues ultimately... he has improved in recent times).
Shri
Mr. Glass
Not to mention Mukund, Pujara and Rahane.
- Status