India: Deserved of No. 1?

[aussie]

First of all, India werent the top side 3 years ago and no one's claimed it for then. Its precisely what they've done in those 3 years that makes it count.

How can admit IND weren't a top side 3 years ago, but then claim what they have done in the last 3 years counts in them being ranked # 1 now?.

(And BTW, the core of the team that got to #1 and includes Sehwag,Fab4, Zaheer,Harbhajan,Kumble have beaten McWarne in their prime).

These two didn't play in the 2001, plus Khan was trash then.

But how is this relevant to my point?. IND still lost to weakened WI team a year later in 2002, so im too sure where you are going with this..

Also when you define prowess to be demonstrated over a long period of time (3 years in case of this particular ranking system) - being immune to retirements and of injuries to players is not a bug, it's a very strong feature.

It's a team ranking. Players will retire and will get hurt, having a deep bench to fill those shoes temporarily and permanently is very much a part of overall strength.

This is true you can use AUS between 95-2006/07 for eg. When Taylor & the Waugh bros retired, AUS had immediate test quality replacement for those cats. The strenght in depth made AUS the best.

Same thing with the West Indies for 20 years, they seemingly where growing quality fast bowlers on trees.

But it was totally different situation to after 06/07 when AUS toured IND 08. A dynasty ended for AUS.

(India too has had it's share of retirements of stalwarts and injuries to very key players in this time frame).

Just Kumble & Ganguly. Mishra is very good replacement i'd say (although replacing Kumble INDs greatest ever matchwinner will probably be an impossible feat in the near future) & Yuvraj for Ganguly is ok. That cant compare to what AUS lost in 2007.

IND real issue will come when Dravid/Tendy/Laxman goes.

Heck being able to keep your players in good health is a major factor too, if your replacements are not to the same standard.

Thats besides the point in 2007 in English conditions a full strenght ENG team (especially bowling wise) certainly would have not have lost to IND. Especially given that a full-strenght ENG won in IND 06.

Thats why i said IND winning in ENG 07 & gaining points then for beating the superior ENG team who were seriously weakened. Needed to be taken into proper context, but the ranking system didn't do that - it just gave IND full points.

 

[jeevan]

How can admit IND weren't a top side 3 years ago, but then claim what they have done in the last 3 years counts in them being ranked # 1 now?.

.

India have been gradually improving since ~ 2002. What has accelerated in the last 3 years or so, are a couple of concrete things: The openers now consistently provide good starts. First it was Sehwag-Chopra, then Jaffer-Karthik and now Sehwag-Gambhir. That had been missing for a long time. Then, especially with Zaheer Khan back and a pack of seamers - Ishant, Sreesanth, RP, Irfan, Munaf - India can finally field a 'good enough' pace attack that does well in Jo-burg, at Lords, in Perth, even in NZ.

Add the openers to the Fab4 middle order and the seamers to Kumble/Harbhajan and how do you not have a winning team in the last 3 years that matter for the present ranking?

When Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman retire (~2 years from now, all 3 are doing quite well right now), and if M Vijay/Badri/Pujara/Raina/Yuvraj/whoever dont step up - then India wont be a contender. Simple as.

p.s. I personally think you're quite mistaken about history judging this Indian team. Sehwag,Gambhir,Dravid,Tendulkar,Ganguly,Laxman,Dhoni,Kumble,Harbhajan,Zaheer,one of Ishant/Sree/Munaf is a very balanced team that will be remembered for a long time for it.

 

[aussie]

No clear leader in the five-day game | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Neither India nor South Africa display signs of being the dominant force that West Indies and then Australia were over the last 30 years. India are at least a genuine allrounder and a fearsome fast bowler away from that lofty aspiration, and by the time those requirements are filled, their current batting riches may have waned. South Africa are also unlikely to experience a concerted period of supremacy.

Ahhhhh

 

[Cruxdude]

No clear leader in the five-day game | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Ahhhhh

We are still a nose ahead

 

[vic_orthdox]

Who do India play next in Test cricket, btw?

 

[Shri]

Who do India play next in Test cricket, btw?

The spartans.

Bangladesh iirc.

 

[Shri]

No clear leader in the five-day game | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com



Ahhhhh

Thanks for confirming what most of the members in the thread have been saying repeatedly.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Thanks for confirming what most of the members in the thread have been saying repeatedly.

Funny how the "no clear leader" posts are always aimed at those who claim India are #1 (which incidentally is supported only by this thing called the official rankings),but not at those who claim SA are #1 (which is supported by the official lala land rankings).

Anyway, its Ian Chappell. Its not like he's been woefully wrong before. His assessment of Sachin being over the hill was spot on..

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Who if not India ? There isn't a lot between Australia, South Africa and India but India have a slightly stronger case. Australia have now lost to South Africa at home, England away, India away and were given a run for their money by West Indies at home. South Africa lost to Australia at home and are just about matching England at home. India lost to Australia away albeit in very controversial fashion, beat England home and away, and New Zealand away and have thumped Sri Lanka at home. It is funny how the rankings become a farce only when India is number 1

 

[Shri]

Even if the results are discounted, India has the most number of established players in the side compared to other sides atm. I don't know if it puts them ahead of the others, but certainly something to think about.

 

[pasag]

Since when does dominance equal number 1? There's no dominant sides at the moment, doesn't mean there can't be a best side in the world.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Since when does dominance equal number 1? There's no dominant sides at the moment, doesn't mean there can't be a best side in the world.

AWTA. If people are waiting for a team like the WI of 80s or Aus of the last two decades or so, they'll have to wait for a long time.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Australia might slip further in the coming year. Pakistan and New Zealand won't be easy for Australia at this point.

 

[irfan]

Who if not India ? There isn't a lot between Australia, South Africa and India but India have a slightly stronger case. Australia have now lost to South Africa at home, England away, India away and were given a run for their money by West Indies at home. South Africa lost to Australia at home and are just about matching England at home. India lost to Australia away albeit in very controversial fashion, beat England home and away, and New Zealand away and have thumped Sri Lanka at home. It is funny how the rankings become a farce only when India is number 1

AWTA. It's all fine and dandy when either Australia or SA is numero uno but as soon as India scale Everest, the formula that is used to calculate the rankings is somehow dubious because how can India be #1, they don't have a great bowling attack

Agreed India aren't a dominant or clear #1, but they are certainly deserving of it based on recent perfomances

 

[honestbharani]

AWTA. It's all fine and dandy when either Australia or SA is numero uno but as soon as India scale Everest, the formula that is used to calculate the rankings is somehow dubious because how can India be #1, they don't have a great bowling attack

Agreed India aren't a dominant or clear #1, but they are certainly deserving of it based on recent perfomances

Let the whiners whine, I say... We had the other thread to celebrate the achievement and discuss how India can stay there and the rights and wrongs with our team...

 

[G.I.Joe]

Since when does dominance equal number 1? There's no dominant sides at the moment, doesn't mean there can't be a best side in the world.

Its been repeated plenty of times, and aussie still can't get this simple concept into his dense head.

 

[GIMH]

Since when does dominance equal number 1? There's no dominant sides at the moment, doesn't mean there can't be a best side in the world.

This is the key point for me, so simple yet so true

 

[DingDong]

why r u guys wasting ur time arguing with aussie?? u guys are no 1 atm. just enjoy it while it lasts ok.

 

[aussie]

Since when does dominance equal number 1? There's no dominant sides at the moment, doesn't mean there can't be a best side in the world

Well there isn't ATM. Its remains even between IND/AUS/SA.

A good example of what you are saying here historically was early betwen 95/96 after AUS had beaten windies in 95 (similar to SA beating AUS in 08/09). For the one year AUS where herald the best in the world based on that series win, but the weren't a dominant force as yet. It was still a bit even between AUS/SA/PAK.

Its been repeated plenty of times, and aussie still can't get this simple concept into his dense head.

Haha you are the one dense head, since nothing Ian Chappell said there nor Boycott prior is what you people have been saying. But rather is what i have been saying..

Neither India nor South Africa display signs of being the dominant force that West Indies and then Australia were over the last 30 years. India are at least a genuine allrounder and a fearsome fast bowler away from that lofty aspiration, and by the time those requirements are filled, their current batting riches may have waned. South Africa are also unlikely to experience a concerted period of supremacy.

This simple portion is what i have saying all along. Yall are the ones arguing that India deserve to be # 1 based on the flawed ranking system without any debates or question.


Dont be getting all be defensive now than Chappell has given his opinion on the matter...

Funny how the "no clear leader" posts are always aimed at those who claim India are #1 (which incidentally is supported only by this thing called the official rankings),but not at those who claim SA are #1 (which is supported by the official lala land rankings).

Because it was fairly obvious that SA deserved the number # 1 status based on there performance after they won in AUS. They should have been ranked # 1 that series, the ranking system was flawed for them also, since they didn't officially recieve the # 1 ranking until August this year when AUS lost the Ashes.

 

[Shri]

aussie, have you seen the movie "12 monkeys"? The one that had Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt.