Test Team World Rankings

[Teja.]

no one is saying we've done anything on the road other than in nz. Why are you stating the same thing we are stating?

I have no problems with someone thinking south africa are the #1 team. I also have no problems with someone saying india are the #1 team. I don't have a problem if someone says they can't split them either.

I do have a problem with someone saying that there can be no #1 team because neither team is as good as australia 2000-2005 or the west indies 80s team.

AWTA

z

 

[taipan1]

Beaten England, same as your lot. Also beat them at home, unlike you.

Beat Australia at home.. when was the last time you managed that?

Ah... now I understand why you're so fixated on what India did away from home.

The usual obfuscation.

Not particularly perturbed at what India do away from home. Just pointing out that the plethora of home tests has skewed the rankings.

 

[taipan1]

I do have a problem with someone saying that there can be no #1 team because neither team is as good as Australia 2000-2005 or the West Indies 80s team.

Which I have never said.

Just pointing out the rankings are a total joke.

 

[aussie]

Haha no. He's saying that there is a difference between being the undisputed #1, and just being #1.

An undisputed #1 is someone like Federer back from 2004-2006. He was the best player in the world, without a shadow of a doubt.

However Hewitt was #1 back in 2002. He wasn't miles better than Agassi, Safin, Haas, Henman etc. But he was still #1.

He wasn't an undisputed great like Sampras before him, or Bjorn Borg before that. But he was still the best player in the world at a point when tennis was very even.

The same can be said of test cricket right now.

I dont on what basis tennis players are rated befored they are viewd as undisputed # 1 or just being # 1.


But in cricket the basis to acclaim being # 1, is to prove you can win againts all countries home & away consistently. Which those great teams did, thus by doing this you will inevitably become the undisputed # 1.

In test history to date, outside of those undisputed # 1 periods of those great teams. All periods outside of that has been where any team can be consiered just the # 1, it always been close contest between a few teams as it is now.

 

[Jono]

Which I have never said.

Just pointing out the rankings are a total joke.

Yeah look I don't mind people that think the rankings aren't the best. I disagree but fair enough.

India haven't had a plethora of tests at home though. They've had a plethora of tests on the sub-continent. They drew with SL 1-1.

 

[Shri]

The usual obfuscation.

Not particularly perturbed at what India do away from home. Just pointing out that the plethora of home tests has skewed the rankings.

So what IS your view? That SA are #1 atm? Fair enough. SA or Ind are not no.1 because both the teams are not as good as the legendary Aus team of the recent past? Then we have a problem, thats what we are arguing about here.

 

[vcs]

The usual obfuscation.

Not particularly perturbed at what India do away from home. Just pointing out that the plethora of home tests has skewed the rankings.

Sorry, jumped the gun a bit there. Fair enough, we have played a lot on the subcontinent in recent times. However, that's just a quirk of how the schedules work out and doesn't make the rankings a "total joke".

 

[Shri]

I dont on what basis tennis players are rated befored they are viewd as undisputed # 1 or just being # 1.


But in cricket the basis to acclaim being # 1, is to prove you can win againts all countries home & away consistently. Which those great teams did, thus by doing this you will inevitably become the undisputed # 1.

In test history to date, outside of those undisputed # 1 periods of those great teams. All periods outside of that has been where any team can be consiered just the # 1, it always been close contest between a few teams as it is now.

If there is a contest going on people will keep taking the lead and others will fall back, like in a race. India are ahead atm and are rightfully called no.1 based on rankings that are calculated in the best possible way atm.

 

[taipan1]

I dont on what basis tennis players are rated befored they are viewd as undisputed # 1 or just being # 1.


But in cricket the basis to acclaim being # 1, is to prove you can win againts all countries home & away consistently. Which those great teams did, thus by doing this you will inevitably become the undisputed # 1.

In test history to date, outside of those undisputed # 1 periods of those great teams. All periods outside of that has been where any team can be consiered just the # 1, it always been close contest between a few teams as it is now.

The mark of all the great tems mentioned was great bowlers.

The English team mentioned had Laker, Lock, Tyson, Statham.

WI of the 60's had Hall, Griffiths, Sobers.

And then all the quickies in the 80's.

Aus had McGrath and Warne.

 

[G.I.Joe]

SA should have beaten England and Australia at home. It's not that SA haven't had the opportunity of climbing to the top by winning at home. They just came up short, and that's why they aren't #1 right now. They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Jono]

But in cricket the basis to acclaim being # 1, is to prove you can win againts all countries home & away consistently.

That has never been the definition of #1 in cricket. Ever. #1 is based on whatever period you are in.

Anyway now I'm done because we're not even having a cricket discussion here, but a language debate which is highly silly.

 

[aussie]

I have no problems with someone thinking South Africa are the #1 team. I also have no problems with someone saying India are the #1 team. I don't have a problem if someone says they can't split them either..

It would equally wrong to call SA # 1 team now even. Even if SA beat IND as i expect in the new year. Things will still remain even. It will just prove my point that in this post AUS 95-2006/07 # 1 decline. All of AUS/SA/IND are good enough to beat each other @ home with their full strenght sides - but aren't that good enough to win in each others turf. Since SA did fail to beat IND @ home twice in 2008 & 2010 & AUS @ home 08/09.

 

[taipan1]

So what IS your view? That SA are #1 atm? Fair enough. SA or Ind are not no.1 because both the teams are not as good as the legendary Aus team of the recent past? Then we have a problem, thats what we are arguing about here.

Dis i say SA are number !? Did I mention the Aus team?

 

[G.I.Joe]

That has never been the definition of #1 in cricket. Ever. #1 is based on whatever period you are in.

Anyway now I'm done because we're not even having a cricket discussion here, but a language debate which is highly silly.

What debate? Its one man trying to nag people into believing that the number "1" doesn't exist.

 

[taipan1]

Since SA did fail to bet IND @ home twice in 2008 & 2010 & AUS @ home 08/09.

Interesting twist. SA failed to beat India in India, and that downgrades them?

Some might say, India failing to win at home might count for more.

 

[Shri]

Dis i say SA are number !? Did I mention the Aus team?

Looks like you did not read what the argument was about then. And your lack of explanation made me assume you were talking about what I was thinking. Be clear next time. Thanks.

 

[vcs]

Interesting twist. SA failed to beat India in India, and that downgrades them?

Some might say, India failing to win at home might count for more.

Yes, it does. Frankly, in the current era, any of the top 5 teams failing to beat anyone else as home is a disappointing result. Losing is even worse.

 

[taipan1]

Sorry, jumped the gun a bit there. Fair enough, we have played a lot on the subcontinent in recent times. However, that's just a quirk of how the schedules work out and doesn't make the rankings a "total joke".

With all due respect India have suddenly started squeezing crappy 2 test series, at home, into their schedule.

 

[Shri]

What debate? Its one man trying to nag people into believing that the number "1" doesn't exist.

1 is a myth.

 

[aussie]

If there is a contest going on people will keep taking the lead and others will fall back, like in a race. India are ahead atm and are rightfully called no.1 based on rankings that are calculated in the best possible way atm.

Yes its a race. 9 men (9 test playing nations) in this 800 m run. AUS/IND/SA are the leading the pack, with all three running very close to each othe. But the race is not completed yet, since we can only have 1 winner at the end when they reach the finish line.