How did India become the No. 1 Test Side?

[S.Kennedy]

Even the WI team that lost in India in the late 70s was the second XI. The main team was bz playing WSC. But even though they lost a few series in the sub con, no doubt Australia between 1995 til about 2007 or so was the team to beat and undisputed number one.

Of course - I'd forgotten that they were Packerless.

 

[Furball]

Undisputed though? These teams were number one for short times and anyhow never put forth a feeling of being undisputed. Pakistan were number one for five seconds on the back of drawing in England as I recall, and then got a thorough going over in New Zealand and Australia.

When you think about it, from 1980 through to 2005, that is twenty-five years, we had one clear cut all-conquering team dominate test cricket, if you ignore the fact that the Aussies lost four times on the subcontinent. Heck, you could add another four years onto that by going further back in the years of West Indian dominance, if you ignore another Indian failure and a Kiwi series with the dodgiest umpiring.

Twenty-nine years!

Pakistan didn't get to number one on the back of just a draw in England.

Same as England didn't just get to number 1 by beating India. It takes 2 or 3 years of good results to get there.

 

[CricAddict]

Can someone change 'became' to 'become' in the thread title please? I thought the thread would die early but it has been on the front page for a few days now.

 

[Victor Ian]

Nah. Leave title as it is. It so neatly hints that something so understandable is nevertheless just wrong.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Pakistan didn't get to number one on the back of just a draw in England.

Same as England didn't just get to number 1 by beating India. It takes 2 or 3 years of good results to get there.

The West Indies (retrospectively) held the top ICC ranking for 89 months (March 1981 - July 1988). They would have held it for a further 74 months until 1995 if not for two Australian interludes and an earlier even briefer Pakistan period. That is 163 months of near dominance, during which the ''greatest team'' was undisputed and unquestionable! The Australians held numero uno for 95 months (September 2001 - July 2009). They would have held it for 62 months longer (1995 - 2001) if not for three brief South African interventions. That is 157 months of near dominance.

We have then had 320 months of possessing an undisputed test team, 1981 - 2009.

Since 2009 there has been no comparison. Strauss's England held it exactly one year, Pakistan two months. South Africa held it 3 and 21 and 18 months consecutively. India held it for 21 months, 1 month, 4 days and 14 months (and counting) consecutively. Four teams have basically been playing pass-the-parcel with the mace since the arsehole fell out of Ponting's side in 2009.

Incidentally, this would confirm South Africa and India as being the closest to a dominant team, 42 and 36 months (and 4 days) respectively.

 

[Furball]

And?

 

[S.Kennedy]

And?

Not exactly any ''undisputed'' team when we compare the 2009-present with the 1981-2009 period, is there? The top ranking was being handed back-and-forth rather too frequently.

 

[marc71178]

Well your idea of undisputed seems to include "time when they weren't number one but I'll count it anyway". If they're not number one by a large enough margin that they keep dropping below someone then they can't be deemed undisputed.

 

[Flem274*]

why do we need a clear #1? it's much more entertaining when all the teams are oscillating between brilliance and haplessness

 

[vcs]

No problem with that, but it's just a different type of predictability when no one can win away from home.

 

[S.Kennedy]

why do we need a clear #1? it's much more entertaining when all the teams are oscillating between brilliance and haplessness

I do not believe anyone has specified that we do (''need a clear #1''). If the home advantage was addressed I'd even say this is a good era.

 

[Slifer]

No problem with that, but it's just a different type of predictability when no one can win away from home.

RSA won in Oz and NZ

 

[vcs]

RSA won in Oz and NZ

"No one can win in alien conditions" would probably be more accurate. Like SL is a struggle for Australia but they win easily in NZ. Would be the other way around for India.

Will be interesting to see how SA go in their next trip to Asia with their batting looking less solid and Steyn struggling to stay fit.

 

[Furball]

Not exactly any ''undisputed'' team when we compare the 2009-present with the 1981-2009 period, is there? The top ranking was being handed back-and-forth rather too frequently.

Yes there are. The time frames are just shorter.

India 2008-10, England 2010-11, South Africa 2012-15ish, Pakistan 2015-16.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Yes there are. The time frames are just shorter.

India 2008-10, England 2010-11, South Africa 2012-15ish, Pakistan 2015-16.

We seem to be discussing two completely different things here.

 

[marc71178]

We seem to be discussing two completely different things here.

Well you're happy enough to call teams indisputed number 1 when their lead was so small that teams you deemed indisputed number 1 slipped to number 2 so I'm not sure how you can challenge Furball on his thoughts regarding indisputed number 1.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Well you're happy enough to call teams indisputed number 1 when their lead was so small that teams you deemed indisputed number 1 slipped to number 2 so I'm not sure how you can challenge Furball on his thoughts regarding indisputed number 1.

I'd certainly call the West Indies ''undisputed'' who held an unbroken reign (dated retrospectively) from 1981-88, and Australia also who reigned from 2001 - 2009. I am not sure I could call any team ''undisputed'' since that date.

 

[stephen]

Yeah the West Indies were undisputed from probably 79-95. When Australia won in the West Indies in 95 they became the new undisputed beat until the retirement of McGrath and Warne in 2007 and maybe a year or two past that.

Anything else is revisionist history.

 

[Slifer]

Based on this one concluded series, I think we can see y India are number 1. Though they lost 2-1 and won what some might deem a dead rubber they were highly competitive in each match and but for some lapses, could've won. And RSA got a spicy pitch in the last test and still whined about it. RSA on the other hand had absolutely no chance in India and realistically should've been brown washed. I can see India doing similar in NZ, ENG and maybe Oz (doubtful about Oz but u never know).

 

[OverratedSanity]

India isn't winning in Australia in our lifetimes. Our only chance is a Lords 2014 style meme collapse.