best team in world cricket right now

[harsh.ag]

Ok but how is that relevant at all to what we are discussing?

They were not competitive in that series. Saying "what if" and that they might be competitive if such and such happened is beyond irrelevant

It's relevant because of your insistence on your definition of rationality.

Your response to that "one good session of batting" comment was:

"Suffice it to say that had they won a single Test in a 4 test series, where the opposition declares twice is not "competitive" in most people's books."

You have no idea what could have happened after that Indian win in the first test. Yet you chose to project the rest of the series as it happened anyways. That's irrational to many.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's relevant because of your insistence on your definition of rationality.

Your response to that "one good session of batting" comment was:

"Suffice it to say that had they won a single Test in a 4 test series, where the opposition declares twice is not "competitive" in most people's books."

You have no idea what could have happened after that Indian win in the first test. Yet you chose to project the rest of the series as it happened anyways. That's irrational to many.

We are talking about what happened, not what might have happened.

Following your train of thought here then no conclusions could be drawn from anything that happens. You can only judge things by what happened otherwise there are endless possibilities.

Anyway, just to be clear the only thing you disagree with me regards is the use of the term "irrational"?

 

[harsh.ag]

We are talking about what happened, not what might have happened.

Following your train of thought here then no conclusions could be drawn from anything that happens. You can only judge things by what happened otherwise there are endless possibilities.

Anyway, just to be clear the only thing you disagree with me regards is the use of the term "irrational"?

That term is the thing on which almost all your arguments revolve, that's why.

For some, India's win in SL was huge and goes a long way to establish their "bestness". But you would perhaps think of that as being irrational due to nationalistic blinders as it was in the subcontinent.

For some, India being competitive in South Africa and New Zealand shows that now, with Umesh doing well and Shami having become a weapon, India will be famously competitive in most conditions. But that would be irrational from a pov which isn't so optimistic.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That term is the thing on which almost all your arguments revolve, that's why.

For some, India's win in SL was huge and goes a long way to establish their "bestness". But you would perhaps think of that as being irrational due to nationalistic blinders as it was in the subcontinent.

For some, India being competitive in South Africa and New Zealand shows that now, with Umesh doing well and Shami having become a weapon, India will be famously competitive in most conditions. But that would be irrational from a pov which isn't so optimistic.

Not what I was referring to though. The whether or not India are no.1 discussion is a genuine debate, and I never said it's irrational for someone to think they are. I was directly referring to some of the bizarre knee-jerk responses to my posts regarding why I don't consider them definitive no. 1, posts which contained much reasoning which was based on objective facts, rather than debatable opinions, yet people were trying to claim the opposite.

 

[srbhkshk]

The whether or not India are no.1 discussion is a genuine debate, and I never said it's irrational for someone to think they are.

**** no. Don't know who it is but it certainly isn't India.

lol.

 

[TheJediBrah]

lol.

That was my opinion and I never said it was an objective fact. Also it doesn't conflict with the other post of mine that you quoted at all.

That post of mine probably was a bit more inflammatory than it needed to be tbf but hey, it's far from the worst

 

[Shri]

lol.

Yeah, that is why I didn't bother responding to his demands for proof. I didn't know where to start.

 

[srbhkshk]

That was my opinion and I never said it was an objective fact. Also it doesn't conflict with the other post of mine that you quoted at all.

That post of mine probably was a bit more inflammatory than it needed to be tbf but hey, it's far from the worst

lol.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, that is why I didn't bother responding to his demands for proof. I didn't know where to start.

Champ if you pick that post as something you disagreed with that would be fine, because as I said, it's debatable and I'm not going to go ahead and say you're irrational for disagreeing with that.

Again, as I have already said, it was all the rubbish that came after that with you and a few others trying to deny objective facts that I put forward as my reasoning for why I don't share the viewpoint.

I'm sure you have it in you to be sensible Shri

 

[harsh.ag]

Okay how about this:

Wait until they win a series outside of Asia, or at least are competitive.

Do you think India would be as competitive in Australia or South Africa? or England? Even on normal non-Asian wickets I doubt they'd be anywhere near as competitive let alone in a series with wickets prepared specifically to suit the home team.

Would you now give that these two statements are wrong? These are what started the whole thing in the first place, as far as I can see. Or do you stick to it, given that India were competitive in South Africa and New Zealand (and won in Windies)?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Okay how about this:

Would you now give that these two statements are wrong? These are what started the whole thing in the first place, as far as I can see. Or do you stick to it, given that India were competitive in South Africa and New Zealand (and won in Windies)?

Windies hardly counts. They are **** and everyone wins there (except England IIRC). Also IIRC the wickets there were pretty slow and low.

NZ and SA were a bit long ago for me to give them much weighting. It's hardly the fault of India that they've played so much at home and in "friendly" away conditions against **** teams lately, but it's inevitably a factor. I want to see how this Indian team goes. May seem like it's not fair on them to judge them when they haven't really had a chance to be competitive but that's a result of their recent fixtures.

So, no, I wouldn't say those statements are wrong. They're clearly debatable and an opinion because no one knows how competitive they would be, but just as clearly not "wrong".

 

[Daemon]

Windies hardly counts. They are **** and everyone wins there (except England IIRC). Also IIRC the wickets there were pretty slow and low.

NZ and SA were a bit long ago for me to give them much weighting. It's hardly the fault of India that they've played so much at home and in "friendly" away conditions against **** teams lately, but it's inevitably a factor. I want to see how this Indian team goes. May seem like it's not fair on them to judge them when they haven't really had a chance to be competitive but that's a result of their recent fixtures.

So, no, I wouldn't say those statements are wrong. They're clearly debatable and an opinion because no one knows how competitive they would be, but just as clearly not "wrong".

Same team that went to Eng and Aus and largely the same team that's playing today.

 

[harsh.ag]

Same team that went to Eng and Aus and largely the same team that's playing today.

Only better KL is better. So is Kohli. And Umesh and Shami. Maybe even Jadeja and Saha.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Same team that went to Eng and Aus and largely the same team that's playing today.

Teams and players change over time. Again, it may seem unfair to judge them by opportunities they haven't had, but literally all I'm saying is I want to see how they go because they haven't been given a challenging fixture for a long time.

It would be like Australia having a huge season hosting Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India at home, then touring Zimbabwe and New Zealand. Australia would almost certainly win all of those series comfortably but they wouldn't be considered no. 1 as a result IMO.

I don't have a problem with people considering India deserving the no. 1 ranking. That's different from saying that they are the definitive "best team in world cricket".

 

[Shri]

Teams and players change over time. Again, it may seem unfair to judge them by opportunities they haven't had, but literally all I'm saying is I want to see how they go because they haven't been given a challenging fixture for a long time.

It would be like Australia having a huge season hosting Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India at home, then touring Zimbabwe and New Zealand. Australia would almost certainly win all of those series comfortably but they wouldn't be considered no. 1 as a result IMO.

I don't have a problem with people considering India deserving the no. 1 ranking. That's different from saying that they are the definitive "best team in world cricket".

Exhibit A for your points being usually considered to be full of ****. Our home dominance started with beating SA, NZ, Eng and Aus. Not lightweights that you are comparing them to subtly here.

 

[CricAddict]

Interesting conversation in the last few pages. India are fairly No 1 in rankings considering what they have achieved in spin friendly conditions in the past season with a friendly schedule. But to be an undisputed No 1 like the great old Windies and Aussie teams, they will need to win in non-spin friendly conditions (Aus, Eng, SA and NZ) which is the point of TJB and is quite fair enough. They have also not faced the strongest sub continent team apart from them (Pakistan) in this season.

So, we need to wait for the overseas tour for the verdict.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't have a problem with people considering India deserving the no. 1 ranking. That's different from saying that they are the definitive "best team in world cricket".

Now you don't, but this language certainly means you had some problem when this whole thing started:

**** no. Don't know who it is but it certainly isn't India.

And that's when all this started.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Now you don't, but this language certainly means you had some problem when this whole thing started:



And that's when all this started.

Yeah he's clearly backpedalling here. I don't have a problem with some of the points he'd made but there's far too much inconsistency.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Exhibit A for your points being usually considered to be full of ****. Our home dominance started with beating SA, NZ, Eng and Aus. Not lightweights that you are comparing them to subtly here.

Exhibit A for you once again completely lacking reading comprehension and common sense.

That's why I specifically used an analogy where SC teams toured Australia (as an analogy for SA, NZ, Eng and Aus (non SC teams) touring India.

Just give it a rest

 

[TheJediBrah]

Now you don't, but this language certainly means you had some problem when this whole thing started:

And that's when all this started.

I don't care. That was clearly my opinion and I never had a problem with people disagreeing with it. Where people started getting stupid denying objective facts was where things went off for me.

Repeating myself for the 3rd time, I don't care about heated debate about something that's debatable and based on opinion (ie. "who is the best team), but when people go ahead and start denying objective facts as part of their argument I am going to call them out on it.

Yeah he's clearly backpedalling here. I don't have a problem with some of the points he'd made but there's far too much inconsistency.

such as? My views haven't changed at all. I've been completely consistent. I can understand confusion regarding what's being conveyed as an opinion and what is clearly a fact but that is inevitable as no one prefaces everything they say with "in my opinion", and grown adults should be able to differentiate between the two.