silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Aussie,
If I get a 95 and you get a 89, would there be a debate about who got the higher score?
If I get a 95 and you get a 89, would there be a debate about who got the higher score?
-
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.
Test Team World Rankings
- Thread starter heathrf1974
- Start date
- Status
Flem274*
123/5
I'm going to say this very very slowly aussie.
Number one means one team is the best of several teams, even if it's by a small margin.
Being dominant means there is daylight between one side and the rest.
West Indies, Australia et al were dominant. India are currently number one.
If you can't see the difference then I'm afraid I'll have to leave you to shake your hooters on your own.
Number one means one team is the best of several teams, even if it's by a small margin.
Being dominant means there is daylight between one side and the rest.
West Indies, Australia et al were dominant. India are currently number one.
If you can't see the difference then I'm afraid I'll have to leave you to shake your hooters on your own.
Avada Kedavra
Banned
No-one got the higher score because neither of you got 100
smash84
The Tiger King
errrr......what is this statement supposed to mean???No-one got the higher score because neither of you got 100
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No. That is not what being #1 means by any definition. That's you deciding who qualifies as dominant or not. Not who is number one.
Jayzamann
International Regular
In getting a perfect score in an exam, you've dominated it
G.I.Joe
International Coach
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
It means aussie's opinion and view of the #1 team in the world.. IOW, drivel.
errrr......what is this statement supposed to mean???
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
rofl.. by that example of aussie, no one will ever pass the exam and they will remain in the same class forever if they were not good enough to get 90... I thought CW will never hit certain lows, I obviously reckoned without aussie's view on the #1 team.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
So basically, even if you both have to retake the exam, the guy who got an 89 and 55 both didn't get a higher score than the other?
You might be better than me at basketball, and thus out of the two of us, you might be #1. That doesn't mean you're as good as Michael Jordan. Numbers are comparative, and thus if you're slightly better than the competition, you are ranked above him. Thus #1 is higher than #2. And #1 is higher than #2.
To say anything else is you now starting a war against numbers in addition to your war against the English language. I would say that you need to be careful of a two front war there, it might be more than you can handle...Hitler & the invasion of Russia..etc.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
but..........but............aussie can't be wrong, dawg.So basically, even if you both have to retake the exam, the guy who got an 89 and 55 both didn't get a higher score than the other?
You might be better than me at basketball, and thus out of the two of us, you might be #1. That doesn't mean you're as good as Michael Jordan. Numbers are comparative, and thus if you're slightly better than the competition, you are ranked above him. Thus #1 is higher than #2. And #1 is higher than #2.
To say anything else is you now starting a war against numbers in addition to your war against the English language. I would say that you need to be careful of a two front war there, it might be more than you can handle...Hitler & the invasion of Russia..etc.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
I'm going to say this very very slow Flem274.
In cricket no number one team can exist, even if its by the samllest margin until some team proves they can/have the ability to be the best @ winning home & away consistently.
Being dominant in cricket or the dominant team does not mean daylight between one side & the rest needs to exist. Case in point England between 1951-1958 as i said before:
So that ENG teams fits the bill of a # 1 team who where the best by the samllest margin. Not the current Indian team.quote said:
Only West Indies from 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07 had daylight between them & the rest of their competition. ENG 51-58, WI 63-68 where # 1s, but daylight between them & the competition wasn't present.
# 1 in cricket is special accolade that has to be earnt based on performances over a long period of time after you have proven you can/have the ability to win home & away fairly consistently. It is not to be thrown around losely to any team like IND currently who have not done the above, but just have been playing consistent test cricket.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
According to who?
ICC? No. It's their ranking.
The other boards? No. They defer to the rankings.
The players? No. They constantly refer to India as the #1 team.
The fans? Just you.
Last edited:
Checkmate
School Boy/Girl Captain
Hey guys I just wanted to say one thing.
Aussie, you say that the West Indies team from 76-91 was "number one". But it's not like WI had won everything home and away by 1976 (In fact they had just lost 5-1 in Australia!). It took many tours and many years to become so dominant - same with Australia in 1995. Would you compromise by saying that India could be starting its reign at number one, one that could hypothetically go from 2008 till say 2015? Obviously India would have to win the next few important tours coming up and sustain this sort of performance through important retirements but certainly this is one way cricket could end up going.
If this scenario did indeed happen, in ten years wouldn't you say that India was number one between 2008 and 2015 and thus in 2010?
Aussie, you say that the West Indies team from 76-91 was "number one". But it's not like WI had won everything home and away by 1976 (In fact they had just lost 5-1 in Australia!). It took many tours and many years to become so dominant - same with Australia in 1995. Would you compromise by saying that India could be starting its reign at number one, one that could hypothetically go from 2008 till say 2015? Obviously India would have to win the next few important tours coming up and sustain this sort of performance through important retirements but certainly this is one way cricket could end up going.
If this scenario did indeed happen, in ten years wouldn't you say that India was number one between 2008 and 2015 and thus in 2010?
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Firstly. Why did you just quote the incomplete portion of that post, instead of the rest in which i clearly stated how such a ranking has been earnt throughout cricket history?. I shall have to call that "quote picking".
ICC doesn't highlight make judgements on cricket history. Historians & erudite cricket fans do.The ICC ranking systems (the current & past one) is & always be faulty, which is why India are ranked # 1 now. If we where in the pre 2001 days of no ranking system no fan, no board, no player would be calling India # 1 today.
What would be correct to say is fans on CW (indians like yourself mainly & others) believe India are # 1. But of course the world of cricket opinion doesn't live & end on CW.net. In England here my cricket friends who i play & talk cricket with are of the majority asians who are Indian & Pakistan fans. The Indian fans i know here (who are super fanatical about India) have taken to proper approach of saying, that they are not comfortable calling IND # 1 unless they win away to full-strenght AUS, ENG, SA sides, although of course they are backing IND to do so.
Fact is as i've said before. If India fail to win in SA, ENG, AUS, WI in the next year. History will not remember nor recongise this 2007-2010 period where India have been ranked # 1. Just like it doesn't recongise that period after 1971 when they were ranked # 1. This 2007-2010 period will just be remember as the period when India played arguably its most sustained consistent test cricket in its history.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
That tour to AUS in 75/76 doesn't isn't included when judging WI 76-91 period of dominace. It is started from the 76 tour of England & ended in the 91 tour to England when Richards, Dujon, Richards, Greenidge retired.
Between 76-91 they beat every country everywhere home & away (except for NZ, they lost in 1980 & drew in 86/87, but everyone knows the circumstances around both those series & rightly doesn't hold that againts that great WI side).
Overall yes i would certainly (along with many other cricket fans outside the CW bubble) compromise by saying in the next couple of years if India win in SA, ENG, WI, AUS, that this 2007-2010 period was the start of them becoming # 1. But if they fail to win those upcoming series. This 2007-2010 period will just be remember as the period when India played arguably its most sustained consistent test cricket in its history.
Checkmate
School Boy/Girl Captain
WI certainly had more holes in their record than just NZ. They lost in India in 78/79 and drew Aus in 81/82, while constantly drawing series against Pakistan throughout their reign.
I see your point, but still, I think it's unfair of you to say that India have to win every single tour away in the next year to claim 1st place while WI didn't win in India till 83. This next SA tour is key obviously. A draw or better would be enough I think for most people, me included, to say that India are best in the world.
Last edited:
- Status