Test Team World Rankings

[Shri]

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.

 

[Teja.]

Doesn't stop it being hypothetical.




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

Do I get a gold star now?



AWTA.



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.



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



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

@ ****** fans.

AWTA. Nailed it.

My frustration is not with which of SA and India are the best team atm but rather with aussie's "You need to be as good as some epic teams of the past to be No.1" POV.

 

[Flem274*]

Shri likes it on his plate.

His manbag that is.

 

[DingDong]

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

is that true??!

genuine lol here

 

[Flem274*]

Dingers:

South Africa under apartheid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[marc71178]

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.

No, to be number 1 you have to be a better side than the others, which at the moment it is patently obvious India are.

You might have more of an argument if the table were close, but the gap between 130 (India's current ranking) and 119 (South Africa's rating as number 2) is not insignificant.

The thing about these numbers is they remove all inherent bias that individuals have when ranking sides (as shown by you claiming it's close between India, South Africa and Australia when the actual results show something completely different) - so I for one have no objection to accepting what they say.

 

[Flem274*]

Marc, why are kit kats immoral?

Is it cause I eat them all the time?

 

[DingDong]

Dingers:

South Africa under apartheid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh dear lord

 

[aussie]

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

Harmison circa 2007 was still solid in English conditons. ENG didn't start giving up on him until 2009.

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.

Firslty no team in world cricket between Ashes 2005- Ashes 2009 had the sort of injuries to key players to so many key players at one time like England had. It was almost like an injury curse hit the England team.

- The Ashes attack never played a test again. With all them getting sudden injuries

- Vaughan the inspirational skipper got his knee injury. Which crippled his batting even further

- Trescothick who has heading into peak form had his mental woes

When @ best ENG would just expected Flintoff to be in & out all the time. All of these injuries is the big reaosn why England didn't push for # 1 post Ashes 05.

India team especially their middle-order was legendary ATT. It wasn't novices in English condtions. They where on their 2n & 3rd tours to ENG respectively, so quite obviously on a top quality ENG attack was going test them consistently & beat them. I dont know about you or anyone else, but ATT when certain ENG bowlers where out injured i always expected IND to win - which they did.

That's nice.

Thats the truth. Dont have to check their word for it, check their careers & tell me how many series Hoggard & Harmison where missing from due to injuries outside of that one.

 

[Flem274*]

Harmison circa 2007 was still solid in English conditons. ENG didn't start giving up on him until 2009.

About 3 years late.

Firslty no team in world cricket between Ashes 2005- Ashes 2009 had the sort of injuries to key players to so many key players at one time like England had. It was almost like an injury curse hit the England team.

So? Are we meant to care? I blink and another kiwi bowler has an exploding spleen. Injuries are a part of professional sport and part of being a good test team is having adequate bench strength to deal with them.

- The Ashes attack never played a test again. With all them getting sudden injuries

- Vaughan the inspirational skipper got his knee injury. Which crippled his batting even further

- Trescothick who has heading into peak form had his mental woes

Didn't hurt them in 2009 last I heard (which was the last Corrin post I read).

India team especially their middle-order was legendary ATT. It wasn't novices in English condtions. They where on their 2n & 3rd tours to ENG respectively, so quite obviously on a top quality ENG attack was going test them consistently & beat them.

Wait what? You're started off saying the Indian batting was legendary and finished by saying a top quality English attack (which when considering England 2007-2008 is a massive oxymoron) would beat them?

I dont know about you or anyone else, but ATT when certain ENG bowlers where out injured i always expected IND to win - which they did.

Well yeah, because the English bowlers were always injured and when Mahmood and Plunkett bowl to Sachin and Dravid there is only going to be one winner.

It's not about who you could field, it's about who you do field.

Thats the truth. Dont have to check their word for it, check their careers & tell me how many series Hoggard & Harmison where missing from due to injuries outside of that one.

But why would I? I don't really care.

Harmison and Hoggard were **** at that time anyway. Harmo's brief awesomeness was over and Hoggard was no where near what he once was. They couldn't even bowl out a New Zealand side with Stephen Fleming being the only proven batsman in it ffs.

 

[aussie]

Doesn't stop it being hypothetical.

Making hypotetical suggestions on possible outcomes based on creditible facts, makes more sense than making hypotetical suggestions based on nothing.

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 ranking system can never be objective or reasonably fair when it just judges as poster Somerset righly highlighted earlier in the thread that:

"the rankings are also weighted to give preference to recent form and take no account at all of matches played more than three years ago." .

Along with of course just giving you points for beating the opposition over a series. Never taking into consideration injuries etc to key players which could affect a whole series. A perfect eh of this is the 2009 Windies series vs Bangladesh. BANG got full points for beating windies - but the windies full-strenght team where out due to external problem with the board. The Ranking system didn't consider that.

Which is why i saw cricket does not need a ranking system.

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.

How can IND be slightly & rather not even with SA as the most consistent team since AUS decline from # 1 in 2006/07. When both have won the same amount of test series (9) since 2007?

Plus even if SA beat IND as i expect. That wont make SA # 1 either. Things will still remain even. It will just prove my point that in this post AUS 95-2006/07 # 1 decline. All of AUS/SA/IND are good enough to beat each other @ home with their full strenght sides - but aren't that good enough to win in each others turf. Since SA did fail to bet IND @ home twice in 2008 & 2010.

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

What?. When have IND won away from home againts full strenght AUS, SA, ENG sides?.

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

Well this is where perception comes in. For me its was always obvious they would have declined fairly steep post Ashes 06/07. Not this steepd thanks in part to poor selection policies in this post McWarne era - but steep enough.

So what has eventually happen is people like myself who predicted the steep AUS decline post AUS 06/07 have been proven right by the results. People like yourseleves who may not have - would have been proven wrong.

 

[aussie]

About 3 years late.

No. Harmsion was still very useful in English conditions crica 2007 (especially those that had bounce which was around in that 2007 series vs IND). His problem post his 7 test peak vs WI/NZ mainly was his overseas perfomrances.

So? Are we meant to care? I blink and another kiwi bowler has an exploding spleen. Injuries are a part of professional sport and part of being a good test team is having adequate bench strength to deal with them.

Outside legendary teams. Most test teams dont have superb bench strenght. Generally in test hisotry that is not legendary loses a few key players that cripples them enormously.

If SA lose Dale Steyn today for example. That alone can bring that team down a HUGE degree.

ENG where not a legendary team in 2007 & did not have superb back-up to the Ashes winning pace quartet. Thus the inexperienced back-ups ATT where never going to able challenge that top-class IND batting line-up as it proved to be.

So rather what its better to say. Unless you are legendary team like WI 76-91 or AUS 95-2006/07 with superb bench strenght. The average team cannot be expected to perform at the best of their ability if they lose key players who are basically the heardbeat of their sides, since the adequate bench-strenght back-up for them is normally not around.

Didn't hurt them in 2009 last I heard (which was the last Corrin post I read).

I'm not sure what you mean here.

England's test results between Ashes 05 - Ashes 09 where fairly poor. Their was genuine belief post Ashes 05 that ENG could have risen to # 1, if that team along with young talent that came in after then could have stayed together. That same feeling post the lucky Ashes 09 victory is not fealt ATM.

Wait what? You're started off saying the Indian batting was legendary and finished by saying a top quality English attack (which when considering England 2007-2008 is a massive oxymoron) would beat them?

Yes. Beat them. If that attack could beat AUS in Ashes, i cant see what would have stopped them frrom toppling IND. Especially when you consider in India just 1 year earlier in this test: 3rd Test: India v England at Mumbai, Mar 18-22, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

On a seamer friendly Mumabi pitch akin to English conditions. A full strenght ENG pace attack basically owned that IND batting line-up.

But why would I? I don't really care.

Harmison and Hoggard were **** at that time anyway. Harmo's brief awesomeness was over and Hoggard was no where near what he once was. They couldn't even bowl out a New Zealand side with Stephen Fleming being the only proven batsman in it ffs.[/QUOTE]

Clearly you ahven't followed Hoggard or Harmo career if you are going to tell me both where **** (whatever curse word you used here) in 2007. FYI Hoggard was in his career peak form then. Just came out a superb 2006 where he finally proved he could bowl on flat wicket & wasn't just a typical english swing bowler who was just lethal when the ball was swining. He didn't lose it until the 2008 tour to NZ.

 

[vcs]

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.

LMAO Harmison. Seen wet paper bags with more mental strength. Perma-crock Flintoff. Fact is your lot couldn't defend 387 on a wearing fifth day wicket with 5 bowlers - Flintoff, Harmison, Anderson, Swann and Panesar, so let that 2007 series go. You lost to the better team. You haven't beaten India in a series in 15 years.

 

[Flem274*]

LMAO Harmison. Seen wet paper bags with more mental strength. Perma-crock Flintoff. Fact is your lot couldn't defend 387 on a wearing fifth day wicket with 5 bowlers - Flintoff, Harmison, Anderson, Swann and Panesar, so let that 2007 series go. You lost to the better team. You haven't beaten India in a series in 15 years.

Zing!

I could reply to aussie, but I've been sidetracked by finding a hilarious Cribb quote.

 

[aussie]

LMAO Harmison. Seen wet paper bags with more mental strength. Perma-crock Flintoff. Fact is your lot couldn't defend 387 on a wearing fifth day wicket with 5 bowlers - Flintoff, Harmison, Anderson, Swann and Panesar, so let that 2007 series go. You lost to the better team. You haven't beaten India in a series in 15 years.

I dont know what showing that Brisbane ball is suppose to prove.

I have already stated Harmo's problem after his 7 test 2004 peak, he always was poor overseas. But in ENG he always was good, especially when he got a bouncy pitch which was seen in that 2007 home series vs IND.

Also i dont know what bringing up that Chennai 08 chase, on one of the flattest last-day wickets in recent times, has to do with likely results in the 2007 series. As i just said:


- Harmo for eg was never good overseas, he is totally unsuited to bowling on flat decks. In ENG conditions especially some of the bouncy pitches that where seen in that 2007 series he would have come into his own againts Indian batsmen historically vulnerable againts short pitched bowling.

- Anderson back in 2008 was still a novice. But like he is now is a totally different bowler when the ball is swinging which it was in ENG 07 to flat pitches. He would not have played in that 07 series if all bowlers where fit.

- Swann didnt debut until 2008 so he wouldn't have played in 07 anyway.

- Panesar would have played & IND batsmen would have exposed him then still . But given the conditions in that 07 series where so seamer friendly. His workload would have been largely reduced if the full-strenght seam attack was fit.


We have had this argument before & i shall say again. I have always gotten over that 2007 series. I dont think about at all. Some just need to reminded that given ENGs pace attack was not full-strenght thus IND win in 2007 cannot be rated or looked upon that highly. Since the didn't facing the full challenge of conquering ENGs best bowlers in English conditions.

Yes we have beaten IND in 15 years. But i expect that to change next summer when IND come here. Mark this space...

 

[vcs]

Ah India haven't conquered that mighty English bowling attack consisting of a unicorn, a phoenix, a half-man-half-porcupine and Flintoff. How can we ever accept the number one ranking with a clear conscience?

 

[Shri]

-Harmo has historically never been known to hit the pitch either.

 

[vcs]

-Harmo has historically never been known to hit the pitch either.

Shut up you. Those were just his attempts to extract extravagant seam movement, you know, something that he manages to succeed with only in English conditions.

 

[smash84]

So? Are we meant to care? I blink and another kiwi bowler has an exploding spleen. Injuries are a part of professional sport and part of being a good test team is having adequate bench strength to deal with them.

.

 

[heathrf1974]

It's good to see people debating so vigorously on the definition of number 1.

Regarding injuries and hence facing teams not at full strength does that mean Australia wins the Ashes in 2005 at 1-0 as McGrath was injured during in the tests the Aussies lost in that series?

Anyway hypotheticals are just that hypotheticals, India are officially number 1 according to the ICC with the rankings being based on performances over the last 2-3 years.

It will be good if this proposed ICC Test championship gets underway, then hopefully the status of number 1 will be more clearly defined.