This.Not really. You're saying they're not #1. They're saying they are disputed #1.
Not necessarily a whine about luck. As i always say, unless you are legendary team with great bench strenght like Windies 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07. Teams in general cannot be expected to lose key players to injuries who are basically the heart beat of the side & be expected to maintain that high level of performance. SA didn't have the depth to cover for losing Steyn & Kallis the bowler - thats basically why ENG managed to draw that series.There is nothing lucky about not getting bowled out in the allotted time. Your bowlers weren't good enough to get Graeme Onions out, go have a cry about it.
They can be no # 1 in cricket except undisputed, which is attainted by proving you can win in all countries home & away, as i've said before & those 3 said in that interview. Unless they win in SA, AUS, ENG, the best thing to call IND the current team is "very consistent".Not really. You're saying they're not #1. They're saying they are disputed #1.
Good point.Shri let it go. Aussie's seriously not understanding everyone's point. This will go nowhere.
That's an interesting way to look at it.Haha why are people still arguing? Australia clearly not the best team until 2004. And then lost that title in 2005.
yeah would be nice to have something to choke back on after the WCYeah, always nice to have an easy home series.
No AUS where the best team in the world clearly from WI 95-Ashes 2006/07.Haha why are people still arguing? Australia clearly not the best team until 2004. And then lost that title in 2005.
And all of you clearly dont understand how teams attained # 1 status in test history.Shri let it go. Aussie's seriously not understanding everyone's point. This will go nowhere.
They didn't win in India until 2004. I thought you had to win everywhere?No AUS where the best team in the world clearly from WI 95-Ashes 2006/07.
You have to win everywhere. AUS where clearly the best team in the world long before they won in IND 04. Even if AUS had never won in Inda during the 95-2006/07 period & everywhere else instead. They still where the best team in the world, by a distance. Just that they would have had a big hole in their record compared to past great teams i.e WI 76-91.They didn't win in India until 2004. I thought you had to win everywhere?
Contradiction much?You have to win everywhere. AUS where clearly the best team in the world long before they won in IND 04. Even if AUS had never won in Inda during the 95-2006/07 period & everywhere else instead. They still where the best team in the world, by a distance. Just that would have had a big hole in their record compared to past great teams i.e WI 76-91.
Did you not read that unbolded part of the rest of that post you quoted?. SMHContradiction much?
I dont even consider them that. Since when AUS lost their # 1 ranking at the end of Ashes 06/07 (although the flawed ranking system waited until they lost vs SA 08/09, to take it away from them). Since 2007 both India & South Africa have won 9 out of the 13/14 test series they have played, which makes both of them the most consistent sides in the recent time period.Marcuss said:aussie, can you not consider than India are the current #1 side, just by a much smaller margin than that Australian side were, and with much bigger holes in their record than the great WI sides of the past? But still #1 nonetheless.
As i've said before. By proving you can win againts all countries consistently which is how the # 1 status in test history has been attained. You by default become undisputed # 1, since the teams versatility in all conditions cannot be questioned.Athlai said:Yeah I think India are #1 but they certainly aren't the "undisputed champion" which I think Aussie is alluding too.