Test Team World Rankings

[smash84]

You are right, India had some strong teams on paper in 2005-2006 but really struggled to actually back it up with performances. Even our wins in that time were unconvincing. I blame it on Greg Chappell.

Greg Chappell was very irritating as a coach (to a neutral spectator. Almost like an Australian Javed Miandad. I sometimes felt there was a little too much interference from him in all matters. And he always seemed to be up to some machinations. Thats just my opinion. That was the perception that I had with whatever little Indian cricket I followed when he was coach

 

[vcs]

Greg Chappell was very irritating as a coach (to a neutral spectator. Almost like an Australian Javed Miandad. I sometimes felt there was a little too much interference from him in all matters. And he always seemed to be up to some machinations. Thats just my opinion. That was the perception that I had with whatever little Indian cricket I followed when he was coach

Same here. The early WC exit in 2007 was the best thing to have happened to Indian cricket in a long time.

 

[Teja.]

What does Sri Lanka's programme look like?

Over the next 9 months they're playing 5 tests,

3 tests at home against WI in November

2 tests in England in June 2011

Fully expect them to win the first series 2-0 or so. The English tour will be interesting tstl.

 

[vcs]

Over the next 9 months they're playing 5 tests,

3 tests at home against WI in November

2 tests in England in June 2011

Fully expect them to win the first series 2-0 or so. The English tour will be interesting tstl.

Yeah. That will be interesting. They will no doubt miss Murali who has won them matches and series in England before.

 

[Migara]

Over the next 9 months they're playing 5 tests,

3 tests at home against WI in November

2 tests in England in June 2011

Fully expect them to win the first series 2-0 or so. The English tour will be interesting tstl.

That English tour will need five fit SL seamers at top of their game. Batting will be strong for that tour. Kumar is basically been in the top of the ICC list for last few years time. Dilshan, Mathews and Samaraweera are the other important players. PJ will go out of the team by then and Chandimal or Kaushal Silva may come in who are better batsmen. But that tour needs full fit Malinga, Thushara, Mathews, Prasad and Fernando to at least make an impression in English conditions.

 

[Quaggas]

Just ftr we still have a W/R record of 2 outside the subcontinent over the same period. However, I fully agree that it is too small a sample size to be worth considering. Our real test will be against SA later this year.

Yeah, with a cut-off date for game start of 3 Jan 08, India's W/L record outside the subcontinent is infinite.

 

[marc71178]

The flaws are insoluble. You will never get a ranking system that does what some people want done - tells you unequivocally which team is "best". Because sometimes there is no "best" as it is right now.

Erm India say "hi"

 

[aussie]

Erm India say "hi"

I dont know by what standard you & others may term "unequivocal best". By my standards are of:

- Windies 1976-1991
- England 1951-1958
- AUS 1995 - 2006/07
- Windies 1963 - 1968/69
- S Africa 1969 - 1976 (the lost generation)

India currently have not met those standards.

 

[Teja.]

If we start 2012 having won against SA away, England away and Australia away in the three series' that follow, would you then rate India as the best team in the world?

 

[silentstriker]

You're changing the meaning of the word 'best'.

 

[Teja.]

Personally, I don't see how a team has to be far-and-away the best team in the world to be considered the No.1 side. The No.1 side decides just that, the best among the lot by however small/large a margin. Also I don't see how past No.1 teams come into either.

 

[aussie]

If we start 2012 having won against SA away, England away and Australia away in the three series' that follow, would you then rate India as the best team in the world?

Without a doubt.

 

[Jono]

The early WC exit in 2007 was the best thing to have happened to Indian cricket in a long time.

**** that is a great point. Never really thought of that as the moment, but yes. That plus Sydney-gate, for all its controversies, were pretty big turning points in Indian cricket.

 

[marc71178]

S Africa 1969 - 1976 (the lost generation)

So there you have it, a side who didn't get any results and is being rated purely on hypotheticals can be the best side, but a side that has got the results can't.

SMH.

 

[Flem274*]

I dont know by what standard you & others may term "unequivocal best". By my standards are of:

- Windies 1976-1991
- England 1951-1958
- AUS 1995 - 2006/07
- Windies 1963 - 1968/69
- S Africa 1969 - 1976 (the lost generation)

India currently have not met those standards.

They didn't play mate, therefore they can't be the best.

By your logic I can say:

Mark Richardson
Lou Vincent
Mathew Sinclair (if he was treated right)
Stephen Fleming
Nathan Astle
Chris Cairns (if he didn't always get injured)
Daniel Vettori (if his bowling didn't fall away and his batting still improved)
Brendon McCullum
James Franklin (if the **** didn't get injured and decide he's a batsman)
Dion Nash (if he didn't retire before 30 and stayed uninjured)
Shane Bond (if he stayed uninjured)

That team above was the best team in the world, despite never playing a single test match together, Sinclair and Vincent being treated like **** and not capitalising on their talent, and the bowling attack spending most of its time injured.

By the logic you just used with South Africa, I can say Nu Zeeland rulz.

 

[smash84]

**** that is a great point. Never really thought of that as the moment, but yes. That plus Sydney-gate, for all its controversies, were pretty big turning points in Indian cricket.

True. The significance of WC 2007 exit was not appreciated as much before. Well to be fair it was difficult to see that India would get so much better after that.

Dhoni has to be credited for doing a wonderful job of picking up the team after that disaster. Many lesser captains would have lost the track after such a woeful performance but like a lot of other times in his career Dhoni did remain Mr Cool.

I don't know about you guys but I seem to think that Dhoni is the luckiest man in the world. I mean it is like he has a magic touch rather than really mastering the art of captaincy and I always think that his magic touch is about to leave him. But then it doesn't .......I mean Ganguly seemed to emanate a more commanding aura on the field.......

I am not too sure if I have been quite articulate about it but does anyone else feel the same????

 

[aussie]

So there you have it, a side who didn't get any results and is being rated purely on hypotheticals can be the best side, but a side that has got the results can't.

SMH.

They didn't play mate, therefore they can't be the best.

By your logic I can say:

Mark Richardson
Lou Vincent
Mathew Sinclair (if he was treated right)
Stephen Fleming
Nathan Astle
Chris Cairns (if he didn't always get injured)
Daniel Vettori (if his bowling didn't fall away and his batting still improved)
Brendon McCullum
James Franklin (if the **** didn't get injured and decide he's a batsman)
Dion Nash (if he didn't retire before 30 and stayed uninjured)
Shane Bond (if he stayed uninjured)

That team above was the best team in the world, despite never playing a single test match together, Sinclair and Vincent being treated like **** and not capitalising on their talent, and the bowling attack spending most of its time injured.

By the logic you just used with South Africa, I can say Nu Zeeland rulz. en Fleming.

By putting in brackets (the lost generation) i would have thought most erudite cricket fans who have followed the history of the game & the SA team of that period. Would accept & understand i was simply just acknowledging what could have been with that SA team (who many reckon would have been test in the world during that period if they weren't banned) - instead of suggesting they where the best based on hypoteticals.

But of course on CW.net, things are a bit different.

BTW NZ tailender. Even in a hypoteical situation if certain NZ where always fit in this 2000s era, that NZ team could have never been anywhere close to best with AUS around.

What should be the main focus of that post the 4 teams above. Which of course the current Indian so called # 1 according to the flawed ranking system, is by no means comparable to.

 

[Teja.]

By putting in brackets (the lost generation) i would have thought most erudite cricket fans who have followed the history of the game & the SA team of that period. Would accept & understand i was simply just acknowledging what could have been with that SA team (who many reckon would have been test in the world during that period if they weren't banned) - instead of suggesting they where the best based on hypoteticals.

But of course on CW.net, things are a bit different.

BTW NZ tailender. Even in a hypoteical situation if certain NZ where always fit in this 2000s era, that NZ team could have never been anywhere close to best with AUS around.

What should be the main focus of that post the 4 teams above. Which of course the current Indian so called # 1 according to the flawed ranking system, is by no means comparable to.

Why in the name of god does a present team have to be in the same standard of previous best teams when contending for best team atm?

 

[taipan1]

So there you have it, a side who didn't get any results and is being rated purely on hypotheticals can be the best side, but a side that has got the results can't.

SMH.

So that wasn't the team that whitewashed Aus 4-0?

 

[aussie]

Why in the name of god does a present team have to be in the same standard of previous best teams when contending for best team atm?

Because thats what # 1 (undisputed/unequivocal) means & has meant in test history. Unless India wins in ENG, SA or AUS with all teams at full strenght. Then this period of success will just be considerd where they are playing very "consistent test cricket".

As it stands its very close between SA/IND/AUS. has it has been since AUS lost thieir # 1 tag after the 2006/07 Ashes. But again of course the flawed ranking system wouldn't/didnt tell you that.