Food for thought for those who think India was never among the top 4

[Viscount Tom]

found out!!!



read the first para of this post

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-india-never-among-top-4-a-3.html#post2785776

India has won rubber against England and Australia and successfully defended it.Now England and Australia have wrested the rubber from India,let them defend it.Until then desist from rating the Indian team.(Criticizing the performance of the team is ok but rating the team is not, imo)

India have never won a series in Australia, so how can they defend it from them?

Also the margins of victory over England have hardly been wonderous in the past decade.

4-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1

 

[Furball]

India have never won a series in Australia, so how can they defend it from them?

Also the margins of victory over England have hardly been wonderous in the past decade.

4-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1

Because they beat Australia 2-1 in India in 2000/01 then went to Australia in 03/04 and drew 1-1.

 

[miscer]

Because they beat Australia 2-1 in India in 2000/01 then went to Australia in 03/04 and drew 1-1.

that would have been a win if we had any balls at all.

 

[Ikki]

Wait, wha..?

England v S.Africa?

 

[Jono]

that would have been a win if we had any balls at all.

Sydney was very flat, but yes I agree. We really should have enforced the follow-on.

So so ****.

 

[Straight Drive]

Sydney was very flat, but yes I agree. We really should have enforced the follow-on.

So so ****.

I blame baby face and insipid captaincy for wasting that opportunity of a lifetime to win a series in Australia.

 

[Jono]

Parthiv Patel wac

 

[sreeku7]

Because they beat Australia 2-1 in India in 2000/01 then went to Australia in 03/04 and drew 1-1.

beat Australia 2-0 in 2008 and defended the rubber in 2010 by the same margin 2-0 I still can't figure out why Australia consented for two consecutive away series,but there it is India defended the rubber twice against Australia

 

[Furball]

beat Australia 2-0 in 2008 and defended the rubber in 2010 by the same margin 2-0 I still can't figure out why Australia consented for two consecutive away series,but there it is India defended the rubber twice against Australia

Because no ODIs were played in 2008. They were due to play a 7 match ODI series in 2010 but then India got to number 1, the BCCI realised that they had no Tests scheduled for a few months and the series got changed. Same thing happened with South Africa - they were due to play a 5 match ODI series as the ODI leg from the 2008 tour.

 

[sreeku7]

Did anyone really think India were never in the top four Test teams at any point between 1995 and now?

I mean, they might not be now, but a few years ago there was no debate over the matter, surely...

PEWS sums it up quite succinctly really.

Especially the first point. Who said India were never in the top 4 in the last decade and a half

Yeah but that was ages ago.


I'd like you to find me one quote from someone saying India have not been in the top four at any stage during the last 17 years.

I haven't heard of anyone claiming this.

So basically you made up something that no one ever said in CW, and disproved it.

You debated with yourself.

The funny thing is, he didn't even do that, even though it should have been very easy. He made a straw man and then mounted a pretty weak case against it.

A truly odd thread.

The funny thing is, he didn't even do that, even though it should have been very easy. He made a straw man and then mounted a pretty weak case against it.

A truly odd thread.

But as PEWS said, noone was saying about where India ranked in the last decade and everyone was ranking them only based on current form. It was a wrong argument to put worth in the OP though I can understand where it came from.

Back on topic, silly thread. Not even the guy who hates Indian cricket with a passion (Raghav) has said this on CW.

All the above posts are the results of putting a wrong construction on the original post.The thread title was not referring to any C Webber,but certain media 'experts' who have no sense of history while rating teams.If one goes through the first post carefully it can be seen that I was referring to the recent ratings of some C Webbers,not to any ratings during the last decade.This is what I said

Pretty decent show for a team which does not figure in the top 4 of many C Webbers

 

[Spark]

Also for the most part totally irrelevant to what CWers are interested in, ie. how good the team is right now.

 

[sreeku7]

agree with you bud I was really pissed when nobody on CW rated Pakistan the best test team in the world during the bodyline era when clearly we were better then England and Australia

Definitely Pakistan was the best all round team then.

 

[sreeku7]

Also for the most part totally irrelevant to what CWers are interested in, ie. how good the team is right now.

difference of perspectives.As someone who has been following Test cricket for the last 52 years I feel that at least 3 to 5 years is required to rate how good a team is.The ICC also adopt a 3 year span while rating the teams

 

[Spark]

I don't even see what happened two years ago as particularly relevant to our team given how different the personnel are.

 

[Prince EWS]

difference of perspectives.As someone who has been following Test cricket for the last 52 years I feel that at least 3 to 5 years is required to rate how good a team is.The ICC also adopt a 3 year span while rating the teams

Okay. Well lets see some results from 2009-2012 then. 1995? WTF?

 

[sreeku7]

I don't even see what happened two years ago as particularly relevant to our team given how different the personnel are.

btw,Ponting Clark,Hussey,Hilfenhaus,Siddle,Haddin,all of them were members of the Australian team which lost to India 2-0 in 2009 and 2010.Seeing that these are the very same players who had been instrumental in whitewashing India in the current series,I don't think change of personnel matters much in this case

 

[Spark]

Two years ago Michael Clarke was mere months away from the worst form slump of his life. Ponting was about to enter a phase where he couldn't get past 70, and many people were saying that Hussey should have been dropped six months previously. Peter Siddle was incapable of pitching the ball up as was Hilfenhaus and Brad Haddin was considered one of our best batsmen, wicketkeeping aside. At the time, Simon Katich was opening with Shane Watson, Marcus North was #6 and Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Hauritz rounded out the bowling attack.

None of these statements are especially relevant to team as it stands right now.

 

[sreeku7]

Okay. Well lets see some results from 2009-2012 then. 1995? WTF?

Please Prince I have already pointed out hat 1995 has no relevance to India's performance.It was the year from which Australia was ranked as the unofficial World champions.This was mentioned to show how long Australia dominated world cricket.From 2003 Australia became the officially ranked No.1.So pl don't come to the hasty conclusion that I was referring to 1995 to gloat over India's past glory to cover up the embarrassment of the current 4-0 drubbing.In fact I don't care whether India (or for that matter any other country) wins or loses as long as rating of a team is done logically.I chose India to illustrate this fact because it provided the most suitable example

 

[sreeku7]

Two years ago Michael Clarke was mere months away from the worst form slump of his life. Ponting was about to enter a phase where he couldn't get past 70, and many people were saying that Hussey should have been dropped six months previously. Peter Siddle was incapable of pitching the ball up as was Hilfenhaus and Brad Haddin was considered one of our best batsmen, wicketkeeping aside. At the time, Simon Katich was opening with Shane Watson, Marcus North was #6 and Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Hauritz rounded out the bowling attack.

None of these statements are especially relevant to team as it stands right now.

Doesn't this rule apply to the Indian batsmen like Tendulkar,Sewag Dravid and Laxman and bowlers like Zaheer and Sharma,also

I don't think an Ideal Test Cricket team should be affected by the loss of form of some of its players.There should be others to compensate it..A Test Team should be rated by its consistency not by its immediate status.That is why I suggested a span of 3 to 5 years to rate a team.Australia had this consistency until 2008.South Africa still has this consistency.No other team is giving a consistently good performance over a decent period of time

 

[Spark]

Indeed it does, which is why it's not very relevant to how people see the merits and qualities of each time at the present time.