Who is the worse number 1 side to rise to the top of the rankings during last year?

[Cabinet96]

Your right, and when I said that it was really just quickly thought of off the top of my head. I agree that India were deservedly the number 1 team a year ago, even if they weren't the best, based on consistent results over a 3 year period. I'm a strong believer in the ranking system to be honest. Even if it may not always accurately tell you who the best team is it tells you who has been the best over a recent time period.

Same goes for ODI's, Australia entered the WC as #1 ranked (and by some margin too). But who can honestly say they were the "best" team in the competition? Or even going into the competition? I sure didn't consider them the best team, and I don't consider them the best ODI team right now either. But they consistently won match after match, even if their team composition etc wasn't the greatest.

I think ODI's are a bit different though, as players get rested a lot. And yes I believe Australia were correctly ranked number 1 before the world cup as they were dominant all over the world in ODI's, reckon they might actually still be the best for all conditions as well. But ODI rankings don't really work quite as well as they do in tests. India for example haven't managed to name their strongest side in an ODI since the world cup, whether due to injuries or players being rested.

 

[Contra]

@TumTum- If that were the case, then people wouldn't have been raising questions about India being #1 during there venture, and people wouldn't have dismissed Australia's chances so easily during the WC.

"India for example haven't managed to name their strongest side in an ODI since the world cup, whether due to injuries or players being rested"

That's partly due to the kind of opposition we've faced post WC, we don't need all the players who won us the WC to play to beat the likes of WI and England. We'll need them to beat teams like SL, Aus and SA though, which we're doing currently in the tri-series. It doesn't help that one of your best middle order bat is not available, always believed that having Yuvi in our ODI set up increases our chances of winning significantly.

 

[TumTum]

@TumTum- If that were the case, then people wouldn't have been raising questions about India being #1 during there venture, and people wouldn't have dismissed Australia's chances so easily during the WC.

"India for example haven't managed to name their strongest side in an ODI since the world cup, whether due to injuries or players being rested"

That's partly due to the kind of opposition we've faced post WC, we don't all the players who won us the WC to play to beat the likes of WI and England. We'll need them to beat teams like SL, Aus and SA though, which we're doing currently in the tri-series. It doesn't help that one of your best middle order bat is not available, always believed that having Yuvi in our ODI set up increases our chances of winning significantly.

It's because the WC was in the SC. If it wasn't Australia would be the clear favorites.

Same as the India-England Test series, India were #1 but most people believed England would win because of the conditions.

Right now the rankings say the is no clear favorites, which most people agree with. Before the Pakistan series, England were both objectively and subjectively the best team.

 

[Contra]

It's because the WC was in the SC. If it wasn't Australia would be the clear favorites.

Same as the India-England Test series, India were #1 but most people believed England would win because of the conditions.

Right now the rankings say the is no clear favorites, which most people agree with. Before the Pakistan series, England were both objectively and subjectively the best team.

That kind of proves my point though, that being number # 1 doesn't mean you'll be favourites for each series you play. But you expect the best team to win about 90% of your matches/series. And your right, before the Pak series England could easily lay claim to being both the "best" team and being #1, after the series both of those are in danger, they're still at the top but not by much.

 

[TumTum]

I guess so if you think of it that way, that rankings don't take into account the conditions you play in.

But on the other hand the rankings job is to represent the past and your performance in the conditions you have played in, they don't predict the future.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Their stay at the top rests in the hands of RSA. Fortunately for them, RSA will choke and allow NZ one or two wins (I'm predicting a series win for NZ at home).