Test Team World Rankings

[Athlai]

India aren't undisputed #1. They are disputed #1.

 

[aussie]

India aren't undisputed #1. They are disputed #1.

Because they have yet to win away againts full-strenght AUS, ENG & SA. The fact that dispute exists, means the # 1 tag cannot be bestowed upon any team.

 

[Athlai]

Because they have yet to win away againts full-strenght AUS, ENG & SA. The fact that dispute exists, means the # 1 tag cannot be bestowed upon any team.

Yes it can. But we can argue about it.

 

[silentstriker]

Basically, the argument is that if on an exam, I score a 95 and someone else scores a 89, there is a dispute about which one of us has the higher grade because the other person is only 6 points behind me, instead of 25.

 

[vcs]

I love Aussie's misguided attempts at writing off India's win in England in 2007 due to injuries or whatever. Keep at it, dude.

 

[aussie]

Yes it can. But we can argue about it.

SMH. I am convinced many of you are way off in cricket history in understanding what being & attaining the # 1 status means.

If their wasn't a ranking system, like this current flawed one, their would be no talk of India being # 1. We need to get back to pre 2002 days of unofficial rankings.

Since the post war period every team that reached # 1 status had to earn it by proving they where good enough to win home & away overseas.

- ENG 1951-58. After ENG lost their # 1 status in 1958, when they lost 4-0 in AUS. Up until 1965 when Windies where crowed unofficial # 1during their home seires vs AUS (although history rounds of WI being the best from ENG 1963 - AUS 68/69). The 7 years (actually 5) in between WI/AUS/ENG jostled to be the best team in the world & test cricket was even.

- WI 63-68. After WI lost their # 1 ranking after losing in AUS 68/69. Until WI claimed backed that status in 1976. In the 7 years in between AUS, SA, ENG jostled for that tag & it was fairly even test cricket. Many reckon if SA werren't baned they would have dominated & being # 1 in the ealry & mid 70s.

During this period Inda were ridiculously called or called themselevs # 1 after they won in WI & ENG 1971 of course. Those where lucky victories due to circumstances. WI team where in transition & rain prevented that 71 tour to ENG from being a draw.

That bubble was crashed in later years as they struggle to beat full strenght WI teams in 74/75, 75.76 & no rain interruptions caused them to lose in ENG 74 & also failed to win in AUS.


- WI were then clear number 1 from 1976-1991. But although WI didn't lose a test series until @ home to AUS 95. It was obvious that after the great exodus of WI players during the 1991 tour of ENG. That between 1991-1994 WI had come back into the pack & it was very close between AUS, WI & PAK in tests, until AUS officially detroned them in 1995.

- AUS then were the clear number from 95 - 2006/07. Since 2007 AUS have come back into the pack & with IND & SA & test cricket is evenly balanced. Thus like in the past no # 1 will exist until a team a team proves they are equally good home & away.

Inda # 1 ranking no is just as flawed as it was in 1971 (although the current IND team is way better). Just like back in 1971, that bubble was crashed in later years as they struggle to beat full strenght WI teams in 74/75, 75/76 & no rain interruptions caused them to lose in ENG 74 & also failed to win in AUS.

So clearly right now, if IND fail to win in SA, ENG, WI, AUS in the next year or two. This very solid ENG 2007-NZ 2010 period, will mean nothing.

This is the cricket history as we know it.

 

[aussie]

I love Aussie's misguided attempts at writing off India's win in England in 2007 due to injuries or whatever. Keep at it, dude.

Ye i right if off, just like how their win in ENG 1971 is written off due to lucky circumstances. Just like back then, them failing to repeat that success in ENG 1974, due to no lucky rain interruptions. proved that 1971 victory was a fluke.

If IND come to ENG next year againts a full strenght ENG side & lose. It will prove that they where lucky to win in 07 due to injuries to ENG full-strenght attack. Only if they win here next year, will they prove the 07 victory wasn't a fluke.

 

[sachin200]

Hai aussie, very simple question.......

You said India's victory against ENG cannot be considered genuine because of injuries to bowlers

Would you consider australia winning in 2004 genuine because sachin did not play first 2 tests and was affected by tennis elbow in the next two.....

Also if AUS had won in 2001 without facing Kumble..... wat about that ????????

 

[vcs]

Ye i right if off, just like how their win in ENG 1971 is written off due to lucky circumstances. Just like back then, them failing to repeat that success in ENG 1974, due to no lucky rain interruptions. proved that 1971 victory was a fluke.

If IND come to ENG next year againts a full strenght ENG side & lose. It will prove that they where lucky to win in 07 due to injuries to ENG full-strenght attack. Only if they win here next year, will they prove the 07 victory wasn't a fluke.

Just like Australia's win in India in 2004 was a fluke.

Just like SA's win in 2000.

Just like England's draw in 2006.

If you shut your eyes and pretend hard enough, you'll find it never happened.

 

[vcs]

I'm waiting for Aussie to write off Australia's 16 year winning Ashes streak as a lucky fluke next. After all, they couldn't repeat it against a quality attack in 2005, could they?

 

[Teja.]

Little does vcs know that he's setting himself up for a 15-page war with the above posts.

 

[vcs]

Little does vcs know that he's setting himself up for a 15-page war with the above posts.

Nah, if you had any knowledge of cricket history you would realize that in ENG 1989 was the start of a new AUS team coming into their prime. Hence all their losses prior to that must be discounted as they had not reached their prime and Allan Border was wearing itchy underpants. So it was AUS who actually dominated the Ashes in the '80s. However, in the '90s, you could see an ENG resurgence with amazing, world-beating talents like Chris Emburey, Martin Bicknell, Peter Such who were simply unlucky to lose to those AUS journeymen and piechuckers led by Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Waugh and so on. This was clearly demonstrated finally in ENG's glorious 2005 victory. In 2006, ENG was hit by major injuries and robbed of an obvious win but they still came back with a respectable 5-0 loss. However, in 2009, AUS were unlucky to lose in ENG with a clearly superior team consisting of the brilliant Johnson, Hughes and Hauritz but for weather interrupting the first Test.

 

[Teja.]

Nah, if you had any knowledge of cricket history you would realize that in ENG 1989 was the start of a new AUS team coming into their prime. Hence all their losses prior to that must be discounted as they had not reached their prime and Allan Border was wearing itchy underpants. So it was AUS who actually dominated the Ashes in the '80s. However, in the '90s, you could see an ENG resurgence with amazing, world-beating talents like Chris Emburey, Martin Bicknell, Peter Such who were simply unlucky to lose to those AUS journeymen and piechuckers led by Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Waugh and so on. This was clearly demonstrated finally in ENG's glorious 2005 victory. In 2006, ENG was hit by major injuries and robbed of an obvious win but they still came back with a respectable 5-0 loss. However, in 2009, AUS were unlucky to lose in ENG with a clearly superior team consisting of the brilliant Johnson, Hughes and Hauritz but for weather interrupting the first Test.

Only thing post lacks is the shake of a head.

 

[smash84]

Little does vcs know that he's setting himself up for a 15-page war with the above posts.

SMH. I am convinced many of you are way off in cricket history in understanding what being & attaining the # 1 status means.

If their wasn't a ranking system, like this current flawed one, their would be no talk of India being # 1. We need to get back to pre 2002 days of unofficial rankings.

Since the post war period every team that reached # 1 status had to earn it by proving they where good enough to win home & away overseas.

- ENG 1951-58. After ENG lost their # 1 status in 1958, when they lost 4-0 in AUS. Up until 1965 when Windies where crowed unofficial # 1during their home seires vs AUS (although history rounds of WI being the best from ENG 1963 - AUS 68/69). The 7 years (actually 5) in between WI/AUS/ENG jostled to be the best team in the world & test cricket was even.

- WI 63-68. After WI lost their # 1 ranking after losing in AUS 68/69. Until WI claimed backed that status in 1976. In the 7 years in between AUS, SA, ENG jostled for that tag & it was fairly even test cricket. Many reckon if SA werren't baned they would have dominated & being # 1 in the ealry & mid 70s.

During this period Inda were ridiculously called or called themselevs # 1 after they won in WI & ENG 1971 of course. Those where lucky victories due to circumstances. WI team where in transition & rain prevented that 71 tour to ENG from being a draw.

That bubble was crashed in later years as they struggle to beat full strenght WI teams in 74/75, 75.76 & no rain interruptions caused them to lose in ENG 74 & also failed to win in AUS.


- WI were then clear number 1 from 1976-1991. But although WI didn't lose a test series until @ home to AUS 95. It was obvious that after the great exodus of WI players during the 1991 tour of ENG. That between 1991-1994 WI had come back into the pack & it was very close between AUS, WI & PAK in tests, until AUS officially detroned them in 1995.

- AUS then were the clear number from 95 - 2006/07. Since 2007 AUS have come back into the pack & with IND & SA & test cricket is evenly balanced. Thus like in the past no # 1 will exist until a team a team proves they are equally good home & away.

Inda # 1 ranking no is just as flawed as it was in 1971 (although the current IND team is way better). Just like back in 1971, that bubble was crashed in later years as they struggle to beat full strenght WI teams in 74/75, 75/76 & no rain interruptions caused them to lose in ENG 74 & also failed to win in AUS.

So clearly right now, if IND fail to win in SA, ENG, WI, AUS in the next year or two. This very solid ENG 2007-NZ 2010 period, will mean nothing.

This is the cricket history as we know it.

An excellent analysis of cricket history. And I would agree with a lot of things that you have to say but I think there is some difference in the way things are being perceived here in the sense that you define the number 1 team to be the absolute dominant team of that era. Like the Windies 70s-80s and Aussies 97-07. However, to be the best team there does not necessarily have to be day light between one team and the rest.

It can be like what happens in a class room. All subjects considered the top student gets 90/100. The second place student gets 88/100 and so on..........

So while India may not be the kind of student like West Indies (or Australia) who got 95 and the second place student was only able to score 55 but they may still score 75 while the others are at 73 and 72 etc.

 

[aussie]

Hai aussie, very simple question.......

You said India's victory against ENG cannot be considered genuine because of injuries to bowlers

Would you consider australia winning in 2004 genuine because sachin did not play first 2 tests and was affected by tennis elbow in the next two.....

Also if AUS had won in 2001 without facing Kumble..... wat about that ????????

Even in Tendy was fully fit in 2004, most likely he would have been the only Indian batsman to stand up to that AUS attack, while the others would have failed. As was the case in the 99/00 series. AUS definately would have won the 2004 series still.

But lets not try to change history. Tendy played through his tennis elbow woes fr much of 2003-2007, before his recent revival & also slipped into a decline into this period. Its not AUS fault if a player is/was in decline.

If AUS had won in IND 2001 without Kumble, it certainly would have been questionable. Since ATT all the IND spinners (young spinners) looked useless, until Bhajn stepped up miraculously. So they would certainly had to win in 04 with Kumble & as you know they did.

Just like Australia's win in India in 2004 was a fluke.

Ignorance. I suppose you will tell me the only injured player in Tendy if he was fully fit in that series. He alone would have stopped AUS from winning that series. SMH.

Just like SA's win in 2000.

Now this has to be trolling the non S African contigent here. India had all their players fit. SA beat the best possible IND team available ATT. What a disrespect to that SA teams performance that is.

I suppse you will tell me great batsmen like Vijay Bhardwaj & H kanitkar were missing. While Kumble wasn't backed by those great spinenrs in Raju, Chauhan, Kapoor & Joshi.

Just like England's draw in 2006.

Indeed. Like the AUS 04 series with Tendy. Laxman was out injured after the 1st test of the 05/06 series. Your replacements (Kaif & Yuvraj) where good enough to win you the second test. Now ENG win the final test & its a fluke.

I'm waiting for Aussie to write off Australia's 16 year winning Ashes streak as a lucky fluke next. After all, they couldn't repeat it against a quality attack in 2005, could they?.

A test by test winning streak is not important, although it is a lovely feat to achieve. Its is winning series at the end that counts in case you didn't realise.

 

[Jarquis]

aussie you repeatedly describe the all time great sides of history... do you simply not understand that being number 1 is entirely different?

Take Manan's test analogy, if one year Manan's class sit the test and Manan's gets 95/100 and the rest of the class get 60/100. He was clearly number 1.
If the following year my class sit the test, I get 75/100 and theorist of my class get 68/100, I am still number one, just by a considerably smaller margin than one of the nerds in the previous year.

 

[Ruckus]

Does the ICC ranking system even take into account whether or not a series is home/away?

If it doesn't that is just ridiculous...

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Aus never beat a full strength Indian side in India.They were also lucky that rain saved them in Chennai.Clearly Aus were never the best side in the world

Please not that even if India win the series in SA it will not count because Donald and Pollock will not be part of the squad.

South Africa's win in Aus doesn't count because Mcgrath and Warne didn't play.

England's draw in SA doesn't count because they didn't allow SA to bowl them out.Steyn was also not bowling well,which is obv England's fault.

The number "1" ceased to exist in december 2009 for some unknown reason.Cricket teams now vying to be the best in the world have to be better than the WI side of the 70s and 80s.

 

[smash84]

Aus never beat a full strength Indian side in India.They were also lucky that rain saved them in Chennai.Clearly Aus were never the best side in the world

Please not that even if India win the series in SA it will not count because Donald and Pollock will not be part of the squad.

South Africa's win in Aus doesn't count because Mcgrath and Warne didn't play.

England's draw in SA doesn't count because they didn't allow SA to bowl them out.Steyn was also not bowling well,which is obv England's fault.

The number "1" ceased to exist in december 2009 for some unknown reason.Cricket teams now vying to be the best in the world have to be better than the WI side of the 70s and 80s.

 

[Jono]

Does the ICC ranking system even take into account whether or not a series is home/away?

If it doesn't that is just ridiculous...

Of course it does.