***Official*** South Africa in India 2015

[Contra]

I don't know what you are talking about there, but that's not reality. SA got to # 1 by taking it off officially from AUS when they won in AUS 2008/09. It was then incumbent on ENG & IND to actually beat them somewhere, home/away to take that ranking off them, that never happened - thus they were incorrectly placed as # 1 at various points.

Yet again a subjective interpretation of the objective ICC ranking system.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Excuse me what are you attempting to re-write history?. In 3 series SA played IND since 2007, they beat IND @ home twice in 2007 & 2013/14, while drawing that 1 series in 2011/12.

And so what if SA dropped a test vs SL? Really now, even in the ranking system as faulty as it you don't or get/loose points for winning/being defeat in a test - its just the series end result & SA got full points for winning 2-1 at home to SRI 2011/12.

When SA failed to beat AUS 2009 & ENG 2010/11 at home were simply inconsequential blimps - just as AUS of 95-2007 failed to conquer IND/SRI before 2004. That AUS win in 2009 was one series were Mitchell Johnson was bowling in god mide before Ashes 2013/14 where SA couldn't handle him. Otherwise Johnson just like AUS were below par or simply crap - as there were in the well established worst period of AUS test team performances since the mid 1980s.

ENG got lucky in the 2010/11 that SA team odly had injuries to Kallis/Steyn throughout that series & were handing on for dear life to draw two games - it wasn't a competitive 1-1 by either means. Full strength SA teams comfortably dealt with ENG over here in 2008 & 2012.

Overseas wins certainly carry more weight, especially considering how in recent years teams travel so poorly.

hahahahahaha what a load of rubbish.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'll make it simple. Mick Foley was always a transitional champion. Everyone knew he was going to drop it back to Rock/someone else very soon. That doesn't mean he wasn't the champ.

 

[aussie]

Yet again a subjective interpretation of the objective ICC ranking system.

Which is essentially my point, the objective of the ranking system to guide who is the best team in the world has always been wrong, most humoursly in the old version of the system when AUS spanked SA home/away in 2001/02 - but the system but SA @ 1 when they beat PAK in early 2003. The ICC clowns when a team reaches # 1 actually presents that team a trophy mace to legitimize it now, the optics are ridiculous - this is why the world test championship was needed.

From 1948-2002 cricket never had a ranking system & everyone had a fair idea who the best team team in the world was from Bradman invincibles, ENG 51-58, WI 63-69, Illingworth's late 60s/early 70s ENG. Chappell's AUS 72-76, WI 76-91 & AUS post 95 people didn't need a ranking system to tell them that.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, but they didn't.

And anyway, those things happen, sometimes, sure. Australia reached #1 in 2013/14 after a couple of great series vs England and SA. That isn't the case with what happened with India and England though... They were good for a far more extended period of time and they fully deserved their no.1 ranking, mainly because other teams were worse rather than they themselves being incredible, but that's a separate issue.

And when AUS reached # 1 in 2013/14, coach Lehmann quickly rubbished the idea - Australia reclaim No. 1 Test ranking | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

We're not true No. 1 yet' - Lehmann

Australia's coach Darren Lehmann does not believe Australia have yet earned the right to call themselves world No. 1 - even if the ICC rankings say so. In Adelaide to speak at a corporate function, Lehmann told The Advertiser he wanted the team to prove their quality by sustaining the success of the past six months. "I don't think we're No. 1 until we win a lot of series away from home and at home," he said. "Once we start doing that and spread the gap between No. 1 and No. 2, then you can start calling yourself the genuine No. 1. "We've got to win against Pakistan, the Ashes in England, win at home, win in the West Indies. If we tick off those, then you can pretty much say, 'Yeah, we're No. 1'. But until you do that we're No. 1 in rankings only, if that makes sense. The players understand that. They enjoy being No. 1 but now the challenge is to spread it from one to two. The way you do that is to not lose a game, for starters. Making sure that when we're under the pump in games that we fight hard to get out of it. Almost unbeatable -- that would be the ultimate goal."
Lehmann's sentiments were echoed by Test opener Chris Rogers, who told Cricket Australia's website the team still had some "unfinished business".
"I don't know, personally," Rogers said. "Obviously, there's still some unfinished business. Losing 4-0 in India - you can't do that if you're number one - but I think to beat South Africa in South Africa meant a lot. They were number one and to go beat them in their place; I think that is a big achievement."

ENG & IND coaches at the time should have said the same, when the rankings told them they were # 1.

Amla also found another hole in the system, when SA lost points in Bangladesh - 'Us losing points seems strange' - Amla | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Contra]

All he basically said was that it would be nice if the gap between points was higher...

 

[cnerd123]

Pro Tip 4: It is not enough to make incorrect arguments, you should also make the posts as long as possible, and make as many as possible, in order to clutter entire pages of the thread -and eventually, the entire forum- with your drivel.

If the majority is against you, post so much that you yourself become the majority. Then you win.

 

[indiaholic]

All he basically said was that it would be nice if the gap between points was higher...

I read Lehman's quote more along the lines of: There is no statistically significant difference between one and two. We need to increase the spread before we can claim the number one spot with some certainty.

 

[Contra]

I read Lehman's quote more along the lines of: There is no statistically significant difference between one and two. We need to increase the spread before we can claim the number one spot with some certainty.

Of course any team in the world would like to have a big gap because it gives them breathing space in case they do badly, but that has hardly anything to do with what was being discussed before hand.

 

[indiaholic]

Of course any team in the world would like to have a big gap because it gives them breathing space in case they do badly, but that has hardly anything to do with what was being discussed before hand.

I don't think Lehman is saying that they need breathing space.. More like with such a small gap, you are not different enough from the number 2.

 

[aussie]

I read Lehman's quote more along the lines of: There is no statistically significant difference between one and two. We need to increase the spread before we can claim the number one spot with some certainty.

Exactly & AUS performances after that win in SA, especially in away series Lehmann mentioned at time that he was hoping to win UAE & Ashes this year - they lost. Thus it puts that win vs SA & AUS revival under him into proper context currently - that SA still really is the # 1, they just ran into a hot AUS team in one series with one player in god like bowling form (Johnson/Harbhajan), like AUS ran into India 2001 & lost.

Its well established how poor AUS was from Ashes 2009 - Ashes 2013, how whatever the ranking system did to say a 8 tests revival of excellent performances vs ENG/SA in 2013/14 could suddenly give them a # 1 rank over SA who had just lost 1 series in 8 years up to that point was ridiculous.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Exactly & AUS performances after that win in SA, especially in away series Lehmann mentioned at time that he was hoping to win UAE & Ashes this year - they lost. Thus it puts that win vs SA & AUS revival under him into proper context currently - that SA still really is the # 1, they just ran into a hot AUS team in one series with one player in god like bowling form (Johnson/Harbhajan), like AUS ran into India 2001 & lost.

Its well established how poor AUS was from Ashes 2009 - Ashes 2013, how whatever the ranking system did to say a 8 tests revival of excellent performances vs ENG/SA in 2013/14 could suddenly give them a # 1 rank over SA who had just lost 1 series in 8 years up to that point was ridiculous.

Oh it was. I said it at the time as well. In no way is that even remotely analogous to how India and England got to No 1. They didn't get to no.1 "suddenly". They weren't incredible teams and them getting to the top of the table was as much a function of other teams screwing up as them being good, but they had a long series of very good performances leading up to their getting to the top of the rankings.

 

[aussie]

Of course any team in the world would like to have a big gap because it gives them breathing space in case they do badly, but that has hardly anything to do with what was being discussed before hand.

It has everything to do with discussion before, how the ranking system works is wrong in most aspects & it isn't helped by the fact of cricket having a very incoherent schedule where teams don't play each other home/way in a coherent balanced basis similar to a football league set-up , but rather the Big 3 plays + SA playing each other all the time while picking and choosing when they playing the other 5 teams.

So in times like these when we are not in a dominant # 1 team era similar to WI 76-91 or AUS 95-2007 - the mathematical faults of the rankings always gets exposed when at various points ENG/IND/AUS were said to be # 1 based on strange calculations.

Even FIFA rankings aren't perfect its just seen as a guide, currently Belgium are ranked # 1 nobody is taking it seriously although they are a talented team but in the end we have structured tournaments like world cup and various confederations cups to accurately judge where teams levels are at - cricket doesn't have that for tests.

 

[aussie]

Oh it was. I said it at the time as well. In no way is that even remotely analogous to how India and England got to No 1. They didn't get to no.1 "suddenly". They weren't incredible teams and them getting to the top of the table was as much a function of other teams screwing up as them being good, but they had a long series of very good performances leading up to their getting to the top of the rankings.

Actually ENG was the same thing too. If you followed ENG cricket from when Strauss took over in 2008 to the 2010 home season - ENG were nothing more than a hard working team punching above their weight. Nobody was calling them or players anything close to # 1 at the end of home season 2010 vs PAK. Essentially that team peaked with guys like Cook, Bell, Tremlett, Swann, Anderson all taking their games/careers to next levels or having series of their lives in Ashes 2010/11.

So however you judging that potential ENG dynasty that eventually died after they won in India 2012 has to start from Ashes 2010/11, just like how people start AUS & WI dynasties from 95 & 76 based for similar specific player/team seismic change reasons. Ranking system understandably doesn't account for such things - so when ENG then went on to hammer SRI & IND (then then also wrong # 1 at home in 2011) to complete 12 tests of excellent performances - everyone was also mocking their # 1 status when they lost 3-0 in UAE to PAK 2012.

IND never beat SA. SA was the team that took the # 1 tag off AUS in 2008 - so IND had to beat them, so how the ranking system ever placed IND over SA as # 1 back then was also ridiculous.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Actually ENG was the same thing too. If you followed ENG cricket from when Strauss took over in 2008 to the 2010 home season - ENG were nothing more than a hard working team punching above their weight. Nobody was calling them or players anything close to # 1 at the end of home season 2010 vs PAK. Essentially that team peaked with guys like Cook, Bell, Tremlett, Swann, Anderson all taking their games/careers to next levels or having series of their lives in Ashes 2010/11.

So however you judging that potential ENG dynasty that eventually died after they won in India 2012 has to start from Ashes 2010/11, just like how people start AUS & WI dynasties from 95 & 76 based for similar specific player/team seismic change reasons. Ranking system understandably doesn't account for such things - so when ENG then went on to hammer SRI & IND (then then also wrong # 1 at home in 2011) to complete 12 tests of excellent performances - everyone was also mocking their # 1 status when they lost 3-0 in UAE to PAK 2012.

IND never beat SA. SA was the team that took the # 1 tag off AUS in 2008 - so IND had to beat them, so how the ranking system ever placed IND over SA as # 1 back then was also ridiculous.

wtf that's not how rankings work. SA lost lots of random tests and what's more never beat India in that period of 08-2011 either. 08 in India, 2010 in India and 2010/11 in SA were all incredibly closely fought series. There is no way SA were a clearly superior in a head to head contest. It was dead even.

 

[aussie]

wtf that's not how rankings work. SA lost lots of random tests and what's more never beat India in that period of 08-2011 either. 08 in India, 2010 in India and 2010/11 in SA were all incredibly closely fought series. There is no way SA were a clearly superior in a head to head contest. It was dead even.

So what you wanted SA to be invisible like WI 76-91 and not loose a tests? What kind of criticism is that. Yes those series were close fought, but since it was S Africa that took the # 1 title off the AUS, India had to beat them. SA not losing those series should have clearly meant they maintained their hold on the rank.

It was very similar to Pakistan's battled with Windies in the 1980s/early 90s after WI became unofficial # 1 after defeating AUS in 79/80. Pakistan & WI drew very even series in 85/86, 87/88 & 90/91 - they had to beat WI like AUS did in 95 to be # 1 or be considered it - but they never did.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So what you wanted SA to be invisible like WI 76-91 and not loose a tests? What kind of criticism is that. Yes those series were close fought, but since it was S Africa that took the # 1 title off the AUS, India had to beat them. SA not losing those series should have clearly meant they maintained their hold on the rank.

That's. Not. How . Rankings. Work.

Just because I made a wrestling analogy with my Mick Foley example, you can't apply it literally where you can only become the champ by beating the current champ. It's a ranking. Not a PPv championship match.

 

[indiaholic]

Sooo.. Daemon mentioned that we will probably prepare a rank turner for the Mohali test. Do you guys think that is a good idea? Won't it be a situation similar to teams preparing seaming tracks for India?




Desperate diversion tactics.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sooo.. Daemon mentioned that we will probably prepare a rank turner for the Mohali test. Do you guys think that is a good idea? Won't it be a situation similar to teams preparing seaming tracks for India?




Desperate diversion tactics.

Yeah quite possibly, since none of our batsmen have looked close to as convincing against spin as the previous generation. A track which has nothing in it for the pacers but spins day 3 onwards would be perfect. I don't rate this SA lineup too high. Lots of unproven youngster in there and it's very reliant on Amla/AB.

 

[aussie]

That's. Not. How . Rankings. Work.

Just because I made a wrestling analogy with my Mick Foley example, you can't apply it literally where you can only become the champ by beating the current champ. It's a ranking. Not a PPv championship match.

The ICC doesn't treat it as "just a ranking" - the person who is #1 according to the system gets a "trophy" this is farcical. This is why the test championship is needed to separate the ranking system # 1 to the actual # 1 team.