Test Team World Rankings

[Flem274*]

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.

It's still hypothetical bull**** and therefore does not count.

BTW NZ tailender.

Don't mix me up with Geg. It's insulting to Geg.

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.

Hypothetical.

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.

No one is arguing they are. You don't have to be light years ahead of the pack to be the number one team. You're arguing an argument that isn't there.

And lets be honest, the ranking system is only flawed because you don't want India to be number one, which is the real issue here.

 

[aussie]

It's still hypothetical bull**** and therefore does not count.

I was never suggesting it was should count. I was just sort of giving a shout out to the lost SA generation. Who as i said many reckon would have been the undisputed # 1 from the early-mid 70s before WI took over & started their reing in 1976..

Don't mix me up with Geg. It's insulting to Geg.

My mistake. I'm still high from drinking last night british time. I'm still on my bed on my laptop ATM.

Hypothetical.

Yes but the hypotetical scenario with the SA 1969-1976 side rise to # 1, was far more likely to occur than that NZ side side.

No one is arguing they are. You don't have to be light years ahead of the pack to be the number one team. You're arguing an argument that isn't there.

The ranking system was founded on the principle of deciding who was the undisputed # 1, after years of having many series where you had battles for the "unofficial # 1", such as WI vs AUS 1965, AUS vs SA 2001/02, WI vs AUS 90/91. WI vs AUS 94/95, WI vs PAK 92/93, Ashes 1954/55. If it cant do that get rid of it. Which i why i always say any erudite cricket fan can see ATM, can make a fair guage on the best positions of the 9 test players nations.

The most you can say is that post AUS decline/lost of the #1 status after Ashes 2006/07. India have been the most consistent test team along with SA since 2007. With both winning 9 out of the 13/14 test series they have played respectively.

But neither have been able to full conquer their challenges oveseas as other true # 1 team did in the past.

- SA missed their chance by failing to beat AUS @ home in 08/09 & not winning in India in 08 or 2010.

- While India have not yet won in ENG, SA, AUS with teams @ full strenght.

And lets be honest, the ranking system is only flawed because you don't want India to be number one, which is the real issue here.

No have nothing againts India, so dont try that with me. I have already highlihted other examples of why the current & previous ranking system before this will always have flaws. For eg:

- In previous ranking system. Somehow SA in January 2003 where ranked #1 test side, afther had smoked the 5-1 in over 6 tests circa 2001/02.

- In the current ranking system. AUS didn't lose their #1 tag until they lost to SA 08/09. They should have lost it immediately after the 2006/07 Ashes, since it was obvious AUS would have gone into transistion & results would have declined as it has turned out since then.

 

[Jono]

Someone's gotta be #1 mate.

#1 does not equate to dominant test team.

It is okay if you think India aren't actually the best team. That's a reasonable thought, they haven't won in SA or Australia yet. But just understand that if someone does believe India are the best team, it doesn't mean they are the Australia of 2000-2005. You've gotta stop bringing dominant teams up.

 

[Shri]

- While India have not yet won in ENG, SA, AUS with teams @ full strenght.

2007? Full strength? Wtf? We don't send mafia out to whack opposition players. If they are weak ****s and get injured, its nobody's fault. A team can only beat whatever opposition that they are told to beat.

 

[aussie]

No. Nobody has to # 1.

We just have a case now which has been fairly common throughout test history outside of the dominant #1 peaks of WI 76-91, 63-68, AUS 95-2006/07, ENG 51-58. Test cricket is fairly even which is good for the game.

# 1 test does equal dominant test team. If not a team should not be called that. Just call them a very consistent team or something. Since the term # 1 is special accolade that must not thrown around to any team that runs into a a good run of form/results, cause if IND lose in SA this christmas (which i certainly see happening) all this talk of them being # 1 will crash.

 

[DingDong]

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

they do rule flem274

 

[DingDong]

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?

why in the name of god r u even thinking about such an inane theory? let it go. india are no 1 haters can suck it.

 

[Jono]

Wow. If someone wins the grand final in a sport by 6 points/1 goal in soccer in extra time or a touch down in NFL or whatever, and then does it the next year by the same margin, against the same team again, they're #1. Not by much, but they are. It's not about consistency. You can be slightly better.

If you think India aren't better, and it is even now with no #1, Fair enough. But your theory that unless someone is dominating there is no #1 is so silly.

 

[Teja.]

why in the name of god r u even thinking about such an inane theory? let it go. india are no 1 haters can suck it.

 

[Flem274*]

they do rule flem274

why in the name of god r u even thinking about such an inane theory? let it go. india are no 1 haters can suck it.

WAG.

 

[aussie]

2007? Full strength? Wtf? We don't send mafia out to whack opposition players. If they are weak ****s and get injured, its nobody's fault. A team can only beat whatever opposition that they are told to beat.

I'm not going to go over this again. Fact is AFAIC if ENG in 2007 had a fully fit Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison, IND would not have won that series. Of that i'm certain.

The challenge of touring is beating the opposition when they have their best players, not when they are weakened. Plus & FYI, outside of Flintoff ATT, the likes of Hoggard & Harmo where not known for having much injuries. It was just coincidence ATT that both got injured.

 

[Shri]

I'm not going to go over this again. Fact is AFAIC if ENG in 2007 had a fully fit Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison, IND would not have won that series. Of that i'm certain.

The challenge of touring is beating the opposition when they have their best players, not when they are weakened. Plus & FYI, outside of Flintoff ATT, the likes of Hoggard & Harmo where not known for having much injuries. It was just coincidence ATT that both got injured.

And why is it exactly India's fault that they had to face that England side? And with Zaheer and RP in superb form, it was the bowling that won us games. The legendary batting line up could have handled any one thrown at them.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not going to go over this again. Fact is AFAIC if ENG in 2007 had a fully fit Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison, IND would not have won that series. Of that i'm certain.

Good for you, but it's not proven. And lol Harmison. Would have been Sachin fodder.

The challenge of touring is beating the opposition when they have their best players, not when they are weakened.

Succeeding in foreign conditions is the other challenge. As for what's written above, tough **** for England. Part of being the best is getting your best side on the park on a consistent basis, and if you can't do that then as the West Indies, England until last year, New Zealand and ironically India (bowlers) until recently will show you, you won't do very well.

Plus & FYI, outside of Flintoff ATT, the likes of Hoggard & Harmo where not known for having much injuries. It was just coincidence ATT that both got injured.

That's nice.

 

[GotSpin]

And why is it exactly India's fault that they had to face that England side? And with Zaheer and RP in superb form, it was the bowling that won us games. The legendary batting line up could have handled any one thrown at them.

Jeeze. It's obviously going to have an impact on the way the victory is viewed if key players are injured. Pretty much sums up why the 2005 ashes series never happened.

Not that I believe England could have necessarily won though

 

[Shri]

Jeeze. It's obviously going to have an impact on the way the victory is viewed if key players are injured. Pretty much sums up why the 2005 ashes series never happened.

Not that I believe England could have necessarily won though

 

[aussie]

Wow. If someone wins the grand final in a sport by 6 points/1 goal in soccer in extra time or a touch down in NFL or whatever, and then does it the next year by the same margin, against the same team again, they're #1. Not by much, but they are. It's not about consistency. You can be slightly better.

If you think India aren't better, and it is even now with no #1, Fair enough. But your theory that unless someone is dominating there is no #1 is so silly.

Im not sure how those other sports comparions relate to cricket. But last i checked for a cricket team/test team to be called # 1. You have prove you ae good enough to win in all countries fairly consistently home & away (especially againts strong opposition). That is what propelled certain WI, AUS, ENG teams of the past to that accolade.

 

[Shri]

Im not sure how those other sports comparions relate to cricket. But last i checked for a cricket team/test team to be called # 1. You have prove you ae good enough to win in all countries fairly consistently home & away (especially againts strong opposition). That is what propelled certain WI, AUS, ENG teams of the past to that accolade.

They are all time great sides, this is the no.1 side at this point in time. Jeez.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes but the hypotetical scenario with the SA 1969-1976 side rise to # 1, was far more likely to occur than that NZ side side.

Doesn't stop it being hypothetical.

The ranking system was founded on the principle of deciding who was the undisputed # 1, after years of having many series where you had battles for the "unofficial # 1", such as WI vs AUS 1965, AUS vs SA 2001/02, WI vs AUS 90/91. WI vs AUS 94/95, WI vs PAK 92/93, Ashes 1954/55.

I know why the ranking system exists. To show who the current best side is.

Do I get a gold star now?

If it cant do that get rid of it.

AWTA.

Which i why i always say any erudite cricket fan can see ATM, can make a fair guage on the best positions of the 9 test players nations.

Can you stop making broad generalisations? An official ranking system which is reasonably fair (which the current one is) will always hold more weight than the opinions of ****** fans or whatever you're talking about. People will always be subjective to an extent, but a ranking system is relatively objective.

The most you can say is that post AUS decline/lost of the #1 status after Ashes 2006/07. India have been the most consistent test team along with SA since 2007. With both winning 9 out of the 13/14 test series they have played respectively.

Which is why they are the best teams in the world and the India/South Africa series will be a big pointer into who is best. India atm are slightly ahead but are still the best side in the world.

But neither have been able to full conquer their challenges oveseas as other true # 1 team did in the past.

But they still do it better than the other sides, proving they're better than them.

- In the current ranking system. AUS didn't lose their #1 tag until they lost to SA 08/09. They should have lost it immediately after the 2006/07 Ashes, since it was obvious AUS would have gone into transistion & results would have declined as it has turned out since then.

It wasn't obvious at all. Australia had some bloody good players coming through and they still have a shot at being the best.

 

[aussie]

And why is it exactly India's fault that they had to face that England side? And with Zaheer and RP in superb form, it was the bowling that won us games. The legendary batting line up could have handled any one thrown at them.

I'm not saying its Indian's fault. They just didn't encounter the best English attack in English conditons ATT. Thus result cannot be looked as India best conquering England's best @ home.

Only a top English attack akin to the one that won the 05 Ashes would have been good enough to stop that legendary Indian batting line-up whose middle-order where well season to English condtions.

ATT as soon as ENG lost those key players before the series to injury, IND became favourites & always should have won which they did.

 

[marc71178]

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

That team did not play from 1969-1976 when it was apparently the best team in Test Cricket.