When will India become Number Uno?

[Richard]

Asutralia had the best system for the past 2 decades and they also happen to have the best team of the past 1-half decade

It'd not be hard to argue that Australia have had the best system pretty well throughout cricket history. Certainly for the majority of the time (maybe England have surpassed it on occasions but the shambolic amateurishness of English domestic cricket until the early to mid 1990s, and more than ever in the 1980s, is really quite frightening if you know that much of it).

 

[Richard]

A better system = better cricketers.

Do you WI would have lost their #1 position had they adopted a more professional approach with their cricket.

Maybe, maybe not. It obviously hasn't helped but when you see the woeful quality of some of the players of recent times it's hard to imagine them being World-beaters to rank with the Frederickses, Greenidges, Kallicherrans, Richardses, Lloyds, Robertses, Holdings, Garners, Marshalls and Ambroses.

 

[silentstriker]

Manee is right. RP Singh had to go to England before a relatively simple weakness in his thighs was identified, and fixed, with proper training regimen. And he became a much better bowler as a result. It is ridiculous that no one in India could do it, even after he had played international cricket.

 

[Manee]

Manee is right. RP Singh had to go to England before a relatively simple weakness in his thighs was identified, and fixed, with proper training regimen. And he became a much better bowler as a result. It is ridiculous that no one in India could do it, even after he had played international cricket.

Quite ridiculous and thank you for uttering those three magic words "Manee is right".

 

[Mard]

the only way india can be number one is if Australia some how fall below their standards. To tell you the truth i dont think India can never reach the current Australian Standard. I think the only asian team that can reach the standards of Australia is Sri Lanka (when in form)

 

[Top_Cat]

Meh, cbf

Most insightful post of the thread for mine.

 

[Burgey]

A better system = better cricketers.
Do you WI would have lost their #1 position had they adopted a more professional approach with their cricket.

AWTA. No doubt Australia will fall from top spot at some point, but the systems in place mean they will get the best out of what ever talent they have. That being so, they ought not fall too far (well hopefully anyway).

 

[honestbharani]

I don really care abt us being #1 or anything, but I do hope our system becomes good enough to churn out a good decent team capable of being competitive against most sides irrespective of what talent is coming through... THAT is more of an attainable goal, aiming to be #1 is never the best idea.. You can want to be #1, you can dream to be #1 but when it is your aim or goal, it is always difficult because no matter how good you are, being #1 depends so much on how good/bad the others are....... Instead, it is better to concentrate on producing the sort of a system that will get the best out of whatever talent is in hand and try and produce a competitive team.

 

[Richard]

Hmm. Although I'd certainly agree that aiming to be #1 has its dangers (least of all that no-one can hope to be such a thing for more than a finite time) I think Scyld Berry put it well in this year's Wisden: "we all know what happens if you do not aim to be the best".

I wasn't a fan of the ECB's mission-statement of "England to be the best in The World by <insert year>" because of the fact it contained a set date - but you need to aim, always, to be the best. Provided, obviously, that this is a realistic aim, and currently there are just 8 countries who can at any point in the foreseeable future aim for such a thing.

 

[pup11]

I think in the history of the game there were only two sides West Indies and Australia who were definite no.1's for a considerable amount of time and that was simply due to the fact that both these teams had players who were legends in themselves and head and shoulders above their competition from other nations, but when you look across all the current teams, you don't see that kind of quality around anywhere, so imo the competition between the top 4 sides would be very even and there won't be any definite no.1, as in, we won't see complete world dominance from one particular team like the West Indian or the Australian teams of the past displayed, well atleast that's how i see it.

 

[Richard]

Well England were pretty conclusively the best team 1900-1914, but given they were competing against Australia and a South Africa who were generally just a bit off the pace of the top two, that wasn't really that much of an achievement.

1920-1950 it'd be hard to argue anyone other than Australia topped the pile, maybe with the exception of the second half of the 1920s; the 1950s was pretty confused with Australia, West Indies and England constantly cycling things around; the first half of the 1960s it was basically West Indies and Australia; second half of the 1960s it was South Africa; after they were banned it was very briefly India then Australia for a few years; then 1976-1986 it'd be impossible to argue against anyone other than West Indies; 1986-1992 West Indies still just about shaded it though first Pakistan then Australia had caught them up; and 1995 onwards it's been irrefutably Australia.

 

[SJS]

With so much money flowing in to Indian cricket and a more professional approach being undertaken by their cricket board it is only a matter of time before India becomes the best cricketing nation.

Oh yes. Its also a matter of time before Bangladesh becomes numero Uno ..... maybe a matter of 500 years ... its a matter of time

 

[Furball]

With so much money flowing in to Indian cricket and a more professional approach being undertaken by their cricket board it is only a matter of time before India becomes the best cricketing nation.

So when do you guys think there will be this transfer of power from Aus to India?

India will follow a similar pattern to the English football team.

The domestic structure (talking IPL here) will be the one all cricketers want to play in, as the EPL is in football. However, like the EPL, the star performers of the IPL will almost all be foreigners.

The success and popularity of the IPL will convince Indian fans that they're better than they actually are (see England's football team) and will lead to ridiculous amounts of hype.

 

[Precambrian]

Yep, we might defeat Australia regularly, but at the same time lose to NZ too. As long as this disease called "complaecency" exists we will never hold on to No.1 spot for long.

 

[SJS]

Yep, we might defeat Australia regularly, but at the same time lose to NZ too. As long as this disease called "complaecency" exists we will never hold on to No.1 spot for long.

India is NOT going to be number one not because they are complacent but because they aren't good enough. And they are going to get worse.

 

[ret]

India has all the potential to be number one what has to be seen is how this potential transforms into performances

Clearly, with BCCI having tons and tons of moolah, India is reaping some benefits for e.g. with the hiring of coaches like Wright, India started to become more competitive abroad with proper planning, the fielding level went up, and ofc this happened because the talent surfaced at the right time too. Who can forget Zaheer Khan yorking Steve Waugh and Yuvi getting a 80 odd on their debut against Australia in the CT2000 in Kenya

The big problem with India has been a sub-standard domestic structure but with tourneys like the IPL, the domestic will improve too as players will learn a lot from the foreign stars .... And I won't be surprised when the day comes when Indian domestic players would probably be more famous than some of the international players

Other positive thing for me is how there is the drive to make pitches sporting, which is also helping Indian cricketers better adjust when they tour abroad. and also refreshing is the way in which winning abroad has become a natural part of the thinking process than just doing well at home having all the importance

Ofc there are still a lot of negatives, the biggest being not being able to select the best team at most times be it due to bad selection procedures, playing to the emotions of the Indian fans and the general politics .... these are traditional Indian problems which will need to be overcome

I am looking at the positives, and as new faces and new generation comes in and brings in new ideas and new ways of doing things, things well only improve .... if any team that has the resources to be number one then its India

 

[Arjun]

Can India be Number One? Maybe. They have, however, lost one chance when they had big names like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Kumble in prime form. There's enough talent to build a top team, but unfortunately, lack of planning, preparation and strategy has left them high and dry, time and again. You've got teams who got things planned out nicely. Then there are teams who have raw talent. Then there is this Australian team who get the best of both.

Things have been getting a lot better now, since, the 1990's or early 2000's. The talent surely exists, but the people in command need to tap it to good effect, to create a winning team. A whole lot of needless beliefs from the past should be shaken off and they need to look at what they have to do, to win matches consistently. Sachin's centuries don't matter anymore. Only Indian victories do.

They're not the top team now, but there's no harm in trying. Rather, if they don't try, they'll be finished, and way back in the race. While it is unrealistic to assume that India will be the top team and way ahead of every other team in the table, the gap between best and second-best will be getting thinner with time. They can clinch it. The question is, what do they need to do to get it, and how do they go about it.

 

[Precambrian]

AWTA. Once a major win is achieved, we tend to sit back and relax. For example, the tour downunder 10 months ago is regarded as a "success" despite we being humbled 2 tests to 1. Instead of recognising that defeat, and working to rectify it, we indulge in self congratulations about how we managed to topple Australia in Perth, and make dodgy arguments about how we'd have won had the umpires had taken less lunch in Sydney. Even a 1-2 loss in Sri Lanka, where we were expected to win, was simply attributed to Mendis magic.

Instead of seriously regrouping and laying out strategies, and working top downward as a team, ie, planning overall team goals and then assigning small parts for execution to individual players, we have a bottom up approach, where individuals are expected to perform "vaugely" well. As such there is no cohension in the overall planning work. Much of captaincy decisions are taken "at the moment" rather than a product of careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent. That's why luck (read opposition playing substandard cricket) plays a big role in every one of our wins.

To sum up, the day Indian thinktank recognises that sum of individual performances do not add up to overall success, we will start to look ahead.

 

[Top_Cat]

AWTA. Once a major win is achieved, we tend to sit back and relax. For example, the tour downunder 10 months ago is regarded as a "success" despite we being humbled 2 tests to 1. Instead of recognising that defeat, and working to rectify it, we indulge in self congratulations about how we managed to topple Australia in Perth, and make dodgy arguments about how we'd have won had the umpires had taken less lunch in Sydney. Even a 1-2 loss in Sri Lanka, where we were expected to win, was simply attributed to Mendis magic.

Instead of seriously regrouping and laying out strategies, and working top downward as a team, ie, planning overall team goals and then assigning small parts for execution to individual players, we have a bottom up approach, where individuals are expected to perform "vaugely" well. As such there is no cohension in the overall planning work. Much of captaincy decisions are taken "at the moment" rather than a product of careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent. That's why luck (read opposition playing substandard cricket) plays a big role in every one of our wins.

To sum up, the day Indian thinktank recognises that sum of individual performances do not add up to overall success, we will start to look ahead.

I get the feeling the Indian team relies on one or two brilliant batting/bowling performances too and that mindset extends to match losses; if there was an awesome ton or a brilliant bag of 5, it's almost a win morally. Realistically, though, the only teams who apparently don't follow this line of thought are Australia and South Africa, where winning the match and series is paramount and anything less than that is a failure (an attitude which has it's own costs if they do lose or start too look like they're about to lose, though). Even England, after winning against Aus in 2005, barely won a series afterwards. The job was done in their eyes.

The sad part is, the professionalism needed to win at home and away had been starting to take hold over the last couple of years with fewer slugs in the field, bowling in partnerships, quick singles, hitting the gaps instead of relying on 4's. Etc. Just get the feeling they'll have to start all over again when the Fab 5 go.

 

[Julian87]

With so much money flowing in to Indian cricket and a more professional approach being undertaken by their cricket board it is only a matter of time before India becomes the best cricketing nation.

So when do you guys think there will be this transfer of power from Aus to India?

LOLOLOL

Ban him. Worse bait than Boobidy's.