By when do you think India will become number one team in the World?

[vandemataram]

by which point India may well have lost some of they great players they have now.

Yup, good point.

 

[SJS]

I dont think the options are enough. There should be at least one more which should be more than 5 years. maybe those who have voted for 5 years have done so because their is no other option for a longer time.

of course, there could be a case for having an option, NEVER, but I think we can do without that but certainly there shhould be one saying, CANT SAY.

 

[BoyBrumby]

India really needs a couple of genuinely quick bowlers.

I guess the predominant playing conditions aren't conducive to it, but (and this is only my guess, never having been to the sub-continent) Pakistan's must be relatively similar & they've produced some belters.

 

[Pratters]

Considering they constantly perform below potential in matches throwing wickets away, it will take some doing to be the best team.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think it's mostly down to role-models, Pakistan has role-models that are fast bowlers, India doesn't particularly and so you get guys like Sehwag who model themselves on Tendulkar.

 

[Pratters]

It is a weird aspect that a lot of same kind of cricketers tend to come from a relatively small area.

A lot of Indian wicket keepers were all from Baroda. In Pakistan, one part of the country produces fast bowlers and another batsmen in general.

Must be the hero worship of people from that area as well. Like a lot of kids in Najafgarh would try to play like Sehwag and an agressive batsman would me more probable to come out of the area than a spinner.

 

[sledger]

the quality they have in their batting line up is not going to be replaced in a very long time, the emerging players are not to the same standard as laxman, tendulkar and esspecially dravid, not even ganguly or sehwag for that matter,
the bowlers on the other hand....well the 2 spinners are very good but the pace attack needs strentheging to become best team in the world. The pace attack is what separates india from australia as best team in the world in my opinion. and ah yes there is a small matter of a wicket keeper that can bat, that is also a huge hole that they must fill, karthik is not up to that job in my opinion.

 

[shankar]

January 23 2009 5:45 p.m

(It came to me in a dream )

Not bad, just over 10 months off on the right answer.

Found this thread while searching for an old post. Interesting read (apart from an Ind-Pak detour in between). Most people's analysis was that a) the retirement of the batsmen with no one to replace them and b) the lack of good bowlers would be the problem. Turned out that the batsmen lasted longer than expected and just 1 good bowler and a few decent support bowlers was enough (and of course the decline of Australia).

 

[BlazeDragon]

They are still not #1 is ODIs yet and I still think South Africa are the best team at the moment even after their world cup "choking."

at the 3 people that voted "They are already the best?" back in 2004/2005. Australia were kicking their asses like hell back then so how were they #1? Were they even top 3?

 

[morgieb]

So going by this thread...6 years?

 

[miscer]

I think someone forgot that to be a good team, let alone the best in the world, you actually have to have a bowling attack worthy of the name...which I'm afraid I cannot see happening until Sachin, VVS and Dravid are all long gone...

guess we disproved that theory huh? our "attack" is mediocre at best.

They are still not #1 is ODIs yet and I still think South Africa are the best team at the moment even after their world cup "choking."

at the 3 people that voted "They are already the best?" back in 2004/2005. Australia were kicking their asses like hell back then so how were they #1? Were they even top 3?

true they weren't the best back in 04/05 but australia, even in their prime never "kicked india's ass." look at the border/gavaskar trophy results from the late 90s to mid-late 2000s and ull see australia just a little ahead but india giving them a tough fight. in the 03 series in australia which was drawn 1-1 u had all the australian players in shock saying this is the hardest series they had played at home.

and india would have won that series had ganguly chosen to ask australia to follow on IMO. but that's besides the point.

 

[Borges]

at the 3 people that voted "They are already the best?" back in 2004/2005. Australia were kicking their asses like hell back then so how were they #1? Were they even top 3?

Well, one can laugh at almost all the posts in this thread.

With a few, all too rare, exceptions like this:

I think when the aussies finally lose their crown, it will be nip and tuck between SA and India...

It all depends on if SA can find a class spinner who will win them matches overseas, and if India can lose their tag as poor performers overseas...

Makes for interesting cricket...

When none of the other teams ranks above India

India may become the number one saome day, at least I hope so. But how the hell is anyone supposed to put a time to it ?

 

[vcs]

My worry is this, our batting is in it's prime/golden era yet our bowling is full of youth. By the time our bowlers gather plenty of experience and hit their prime, our best batsman may be getting on in age. Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman aren't young, and whilst Sehwag, Yuvraj and Kaif (I have faith in him) are young and talented, we need them all to click at once and now would of been the perfect time. If we had top quality bowlers now we'd be right up there, but at the current moment I'd say not for a long time, possibly 10 years and thats being optimistic.

That being said I don't think the arrogant replies by some were needed. =-/

Heh.. still applies to a certain extent. India seem to have found a way to work around their bowling deficiencies though. Has any side in cricket history done better when you consider their success relative to the strength/depth of their bowling attack? I know it's a very subjective question.

 

[salman85]

India have a pretty decent bowling attack now TBH.The weak bowling attack associated with India is a thing of the past.

 

[Blaze 18]

I think it looks okay if you compare it to some of the other attacks at this point. Only South Africa, England and Australia are definitely better. India are definitely better than Sri Lanka (I'm talking about that attack that just toured England), Bangladesh, West Indies and New Zealand. They are probably level with Pakistan (excluding the two As, obviously), or slightly inferior. In a nutshell they are the fourth or fifth best attack (or, depending on how you want to see it, fifth worst). Just goes to show how bad the current bowling stocks worldwide are, if the much maligned Indian attack manages to find a place in the top four-five.

 

[vcs]

I think it looks okay if you compare it to some of the other attacks at this point. Only South Africa, England and Australia are definitely better. India are definitely better than Sri Lanka (I'm talking about that attack that just toured England), Bangladesh, West Indies and New Zealand. They are probably level with Pakistan (excluding the two As, obviously), or slightly inferior. In a nutshell they are the fourth or fifth best attack (or, depending on how you want to see it, fifth worst). Just goes to show how bad the current bowling stocks worldwide are, if the much maligned Indian attack manages to find a place in the top four-five.

Well, India's best bowler averages above 30 (though in reality he is performing much better than that right now). India's attack have a knack of doing just enough without really producing any breath-taking performances on an individual or collective basis. If you look at the attacks of Australia, SA, Pakistan and W. Indies in the '90s, all had at least two bowlers better than anything India have currently. Yet India are arguably doing better than any of those sides bar Australia.

 

[GIMH]

Well, India's best bowler averages above 30 (though in reality he is performing much better than that right now). India's attack have a knack of doing just enough without really producing any breath-taking performances on an individual or collective basis. If you look at the attacks of Australia, SA, Pakistan and W. Indies in the '90s, all had at least two bowlers better than anything India have currently. Yet India are arguably doing better than any of those sides bar Australia.

Funny actually; Anderson and Zaheer would walk into anyone's World XI yet both average over 30.

Shows you how little a career average means really, especially during a player's career.

And at the end of their careers, let's say they both average 29-30. Future CWers will not grasp that there was a period were they were both **** hot.

But then I guess it comes down to whether you rate players on their peaks.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea. I mean if you took waqar's peak, you can make a very convincing argument that he was the best bowler in the history of cricket (at least post-Barnes). By the same token, by peaks, Ian Botham could possibly be the greatest cricketer in history and in a "peak" all time xi they'd both be shoe-ins yet most people dont have either in their all time xi's overall.

It's all personal preference about that.

 

[Teja.]

Yea. I mean if you took waqar's peak, you can make a very convincing argument that he was the best bowler in the history of cricket (at least post-Barnes). By the same token, by peaks, Ian Botham could possibly be the greatest cricketer in history and in a "peak" all time xi they'd both be shoe-ins yet most people dont have either in their all time xi's overall.

It's all personal preference about that.

But thing is Waqar by even overall stats is as good/negligibly worse/better than any ATG bowler by virtue of him taking a ridiculous amount of wickets @ 18 per match in the first part of his career.

However, Looking at overall careers, There are a few all-rounders such as Hadlee, Miller, Imran and Sobers who were clearly superior to Botham(While still an ATG) as cricketers, even numerically, IMO. That is not the case with Waqar. Waqar also did not fall away completely after 1995, He was still in the 'very good' category, about as good a bowler as Jason Gillespie for five more years. He had a full decade(The 90s) of averaging 21 at 5 wickets per match. It's his last three years(00-03), when he should've retired, that ruin his stats a little but 400 wickets @ 23 in the end is still as good as anything.

 

[GotSpin]

Well, India's best bowler averages above 30 (though in reality he is performing much better than that right now). India's attack have a knack of doing just enough without really producing any breath-taking performances on an individual or collective basis. If you look at the attacks of Australia, SA, Pakistan and W. Indies in the '90s, all had at least two bowlers better than anything India have currently. Yet India are arguably doing better than any of those sides bar Australia.

Probably because India has such a great attacking batting attack while bowling line ups throughout the other test teams are pretty low aside from South Africa and England