Motorwada
Banned
Haha considering past records for current status. SA have to win in Eng/Ind too which they did not.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How did India become the No. 1 Test Side?
- Thread starter sumantra
- Start date
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Versatile in the sense I would back them to succeed in more conditions than the Indian team. If SA were touring England, for example, wouldn't you assign to them a higher probability of victory than you have for India's tour right now? With Maharaj in the side, they are also more equipped to succeed in Asia now.
Last edited:
Motorwada
Banned
I think the reason that view is held is because the SA team was so successful in the recent past so people attribute the same qualities to the current team. Thing is Smith, Kallis have retired, Steyn is as good as and Amla is in decline (Although still good but not as great as before). Thing is their batting is pretty weak and is not the batting of old as seen by their performance in this series and in England (and even the home series against England where they got Broaded in one match). Faf, Elgar, DeKock, current Amla, current ABD are good batsmen but they are no Smith/Kallis/Prime ABD/Prime Amla.
If SA were touring England I wouldn't assign a higher probability of victory considering the fact that they just toured Eng a few months ago and lost 1-3 which was the same as India's scoreline in 2014. Also as far as Maharaj's effectiveness in Asia is concerned I wouldn't take it as a given. He averaged over 100 this series against a team that could actually play spin and that includes the Centurion track. Much greater spinners have failed in Asia. Also who is the second spinner? Also relatively the same batting flopped big time in India including in flat pitches in Bangalore/Delhi. Remember this same team also conceded a 100 run lead against Bangladesh in one of the 2015 tests so their success in Asia is not a given.
I can only go by recent results and there is no evidence to suggest they can do well in more conditions than India. The perception of SA being good in a variety of conditions is due to their prime era team.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
bull ****.
India "almost won" the first two tests as well and that too without going into the series with much practice or any warm-up games.
South Africa were lucky to have ABD back after a long time (he saved them repeatedly) or else they would have probably lost the series at home just like they did to England. And South Africa were a country mile away from even competing in India, where rain saved them from a 0-4 whitewash.
India right now are No.1 and rankings reflect that (based on their overall record as of now).
If they lose like 0-3 in England, rankings will reflect that too by throwing them out of the top position. However if the series ends like 1-2, then they will probably still be No.1 in the rankings as well as in our track record calculations we are doing now.
England got beat 0-4 in India, so if India does manage 1-2 defeat in England, then obviously India is doing better overall than other teams.
Slifer
International Captain
As a neutral, it appears to me that a lot of people on here for whatever reason are just bent out of shape seeing India at the top of the rankings as if they didn't deserve it. The recent results reflect the ratings and the fact of the matter is India based on recent results deserve to be number one. Australia/England are not remotely close, I like RSA the most but they lost just as badly in England as India did last time, and they lost at home to Eng as well. They got crushed in India and even with pitches in their favor at home they won vs India but we all know India had a much better showing than RSA away.
It'll be interesting to see how things go in the Oz / RSA series. Anyone thinking that that series alone would determine who is number one is high. Exciting prospect of a series though.
It'll be interesting to see how things go in the Oz / RSA series. Anyone thinking that that series alone would determine who is number one is high. Exciting prospect of a series though.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I would, given that AB is back, and they have added Ngidi who seems worldclass. Man for man their team is simply better if still seriously flawed. No way would this SA struggle the way England did in Australia.
S.Kennedy
International Vice-Captain
I would.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This.
South Africa are number 2 for a reason. They have some clear weaknesses but are better than England and beat Australia away.
The best 4 teams in test cricket at the moment are India, RSA, Aus and England. RSA and Aus seem to win away vs each other and lose at home. No other combination seems to be able to beat each other away. But India have been more invulnerable at home and have done better against the lesser nations (Australia losing in Sri Lanka was devastating for our ranking).
Going forward only Australia really have the ability to claim the #1 spot over India and to do that they have to beat RSA and England away. If we can do that and England beat India at home then Australia can genuinely claim to be ahead of India as an all-conditions side. But if India beat Australia or England at home then they are number 1 until they lose at home or go on their next round of overseas tours, regardless of what Aus/Eng/Rsa do.
It's not like India are an 80s WI or 00s Aus but right now they have a better side overall than any other nation in world cricket and that makes them the number 1.
Chrish
International Debutant
Selection error thing is pretty silly. Everyone was criticizing Bumrah's selection at the start of series but he was just fine. And while I don't agree with exclusion of Rahane, I can see why he was dropped based on his most recent form. Pandya too did well in 1st game although he was trash afterwards. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't. So, no point in pulling out that excuse over and over. Only major mistake Kohli made as far as I am concerned is dropping Bhuvi in the 2nd game. That was entirely illogical.
Similarly, there is no sympathy regarding lack of preparation. They will rightfully get hammered again if they keep repeating it. Its all on them.
Similarly, there is no sympathy regarding lack of preparation. They will rightfully get hammered again if they keep repeating it. Its all on them.
Motorwada
Banned
Never denying that. But even with the current scoreline of 1-2 India have proven themselves.
Chrish
International Debutant
I think our definition of "proving themselves" is vastly different. As far as I am concerned neither India nor Australia have proved themselves in SA and India respectively. They didn't humiliate themselves as expected but in the end loss is a loss.
Motorwada
Banned
Proven themselves to be the no 1 team not proved themselves in SA.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
To use a football analogy, it doesn't matter if Manchester United lose home and away to Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, so long as they beat the other dross 15 teams in the league home and away (and this happened to an extent in a few of the seasons Ferguson managed).
While the cricket rankings are a little more refined than that as they offer rewards for beating a top team (and they similarly make a loss vs a **** team more harsh), the analogy stands. India have done similar - they have been far, far better than anyone else has been at home, while away they haven't been great but they've been okay enough (and their home record is SO good) that it covers for it.
Yes, India aren't an ATG side.
Are they the 'clear' number one? Yes, no, maybe. Not sure really - what they have done is proven themselves thus far over the last 4 years according to how the rankings are produced, and as such they are number one.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
No Indian side has ever been THIS dominant at home as this lot have. In the past, India have won series at home but usually edged it or looked comfortable. Australia was the only remotely competitive series. Everything else has been an absolute blood bath.
Slifer
International Captain
This. And a lot of those series were draws as well. This indian team has absolutely hammered all comers at home. People underestimate what they did vs rsa. Since readmission, if memory serves me correctly rsa has always been competitive in india. This time around however, they were mauled.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
Yep. And apart from one or two sessions, the England series was downright embarrassing. I was embarrassed for England.
Like you said - India went undefeated in series for a long time in the past, but they usually dropped one or two tests, or drew a few tests, or marginally beat the other team. I recall a lot of 2-1s or 1-0 victories.
I genuinely don't recall an Indian team at home as good as this. Jadeja and Ashwin are absolutely freaks, especially at home, and the batting side goes up a notch too because of the favourable conditions.
Recent Indian home series have been white washes, or have only not been whitewashes because of weather. Australia was the only remotely competitive series, and even then they were brushed aside relatively easily barring the first match.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
So you're saying England are a better Test side than South Africa?