India are now #1 in ODIs as well

[sourab10forever]

Test ✓ ODIs ✓ 

Only T20s left..

[sourab10forever]

8 consecutive ODI wins...

 

Next best is 9 wins b/w 2008 and 2009

[G_B_]

need a cup....

[Gollum]

No cup, no celebration. Only test no 1 matters because we get to keep the mace and after all, that is the purest format of the game. 

[Straight_talk]

every format matters. those who don't blv are either old fgs or 'trying to act cool' ppl

[Ankit_sharma03]

Not important, whats gr8 is  in terms of selection and planning we are on right path 

[Gollum]

10 minutes ago, Straight_talk said:

every format matters. those who don't blv are either old fgs or 'trying to act cool' ppl

Then why don't most of the best cricketers big up ODI and T20 cricket like they do with tests match cricket? See any great player talk and see how highly they hold red ball cricket, even most modern day greats like Kohli, Ashwin, Starc, Smith, Root, Amla, KW, Steyn etc give more importance to test cricket. Test cricket is like classical chess, ODI is rapid chess, T20 is blitz/bullet. GMs are rated in terms of greatness based on their classical performance, then rapid, blitz is for laughs and isn't taken seriously. Cricket is similar to chess in that aspect. 

[Straight_talk]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Then why don't most of the best cricketers big up ODI and T20 cricket like they do with tests match cricket? See any great player talk and see how highly they hold red ball cricket, even most modern day greats like Kohli, Ashwin, Starc, Smith, Root, Amla, KW, Steyn etc give more importance to test cricket. Test cricket is like classical chess, ODI is rapid chess, T20 is blitz/bullet. GMs are rated in terms of greatness based on their classical performance, then rapid, blitz is for laughs and isn't taken seriously. Cricket is similar to chess in that aspect. 

Yes but people tend to go overboard saying every test player can play otehr format but not otherwise which is utter shytee.

Laxman, langer, pujara, samaraweera, misbah, rahane,  etc etc all people with goood test record could ever make it big in short or shorter format.

You gotta respek the fact that every format has it's own challenges and skillset required rather than insulting them coz it's not so called 'elite' format.

[Gollum]

15 minutes ago, Straight_talk said:

Yes but people tend to go overboard saying every test player can play otehr format but not otherwise which is utter shytee.

Laxman, langer, pujara, samaraweera, misbah, rahane,  etc etc all people with goood test record could ever make it big in short or shorter format.

You gotta respek the fact that every format has it's own challenges and skillset required rather than insulting them coz it's not so called 'elite' format.

Similar to chess where not all great classical players(Topalov, Caruana) are great in blitz and not all top blitz players(Meier, Dubov) are great in classical. But long format players are always rated higher compared to short format players. Moreover it is easier to transition from tests to ODIs/T20s for greats than the reverse. You can name 10 test greats who failed in shorter formats and I will name 50 great shorter format players who failed in tests. In longer formats you have to force mistakes(batsmen or bowler or chess player) but in shorter formats you get more unforced errors because of time constraints. Another factor is patience, perseverance and tenacity, same reasons why BO5 matches(Slams, earlier 1000M) in tennis are given more importance than BO3. Tomorrow if football/field hockey is reduced to a 10 minute game with sudden death penalty shootouts the matches will be more wide open, you see the picture.......

Edited September 21, 2017 by Gollum

[Straight_talk]

3 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Similar to chess where not all great classical players(Topalov, Caruana) are great in blitz and not all top blitz players(Meier, Dubov) are great in classical. But long format players are always rated higher compared to short format players. Moreover it is easier to transition from tests to ODIs/T20s for greats than the reverse. You can name 10 test greats who failed in shorter formats and I will name 50 great shorter format players who failed in tests. In longer formats you have to force mistakes(batsmen or bowler or chess player) but in shorter formats you get more unforced errors because of time constraints. Another factor is patience, perseverance and tenacity, same reasons why BO5 matches(Slams, earlier 1000M) in tennis are given more importance than BO3. Tomorrow if football/field hockey is reduced to a 10 minute game with sudden death penalty shootouts the matches will be more wide open, you see the picture.......

Yes, but ODIs especially has enough space for everyone. It's not dependent on luck factor like t20 and also gives you chance to come back. I am a fan of test cricket but 50 overs will always be special for me. I guess it comes down to preference after all.

[Samcric]

The most satisfying part is that this time, Batting and Bowling have contributed in equal parts for India to be no.1 in Tests+ODIs. Batting used to do the heavy lifting in the team of 2008-2010.

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, Straight_talk said:

Yes, but ODIs especially has enough space for everyone. It's not dependent on luck factor like t20 and also gives you chance to come back. I am a fan of test cricket but 50 overs will always be special for me. I guess it comes down to preference after all.

Even I love ODIs especially when there is balance between bat and ball. In the 90s with challenging pitches, more lenient fielding restrictions and 1 new ball rule which helped bowlers get their due I never missed an ODI. Even though I place tests on top, ODI cricket will always have a special place in my heart(unless we get 400 meets 375 batting shootouts where bowlers are treated like bowling machines). I am not averse to T20 as well, just that I believe that Tests>ODIs>T20s in the minds of most genuine cricket followers. 

[goose]

Still unproven overseas. Shami, Umesh, Bhuvi, Panda, and Ishant is a line-up based more on hope than expectation where the away series against RSA/ENG/AUS in 2018 is concerned.

[SK_IH]

7 hours ago, Gollum said:

No cup, no celebration. Only test no 1 matters because we get to keep the mace and after all, that is the purest format of the game. 

amongst all the negative hyperbole you post,this time I agree with you,rankings in limited overs mean nothing without trophies

[ravishingravi]

Rankings mean zilch. We have to see how the skill level of players improves to win in all conditions and be undisputed no. 1

[chewy]

These rankings need to be given home-away weighting factors 

Maybe points earned in away matches should be 25% extra

[chewy]

Another flaw with rankings system is the number of uneven matches played between nations

 

classic example is Ashes, Eng and Aus who play 5 test series, whilst most series are 3 matches and in Bangla case 1 or 2 match series 

[Trichromatic]

ODI bilaterals are probably most boring part of cricket. Need to bring back triangular series. T20s are likely to replace ODIs in longer run.

[sensible-indian]

We have become like SA in ODIs and T20s. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by sensible-indian

[express bowling]

5 hours ago, sensible-indian said:

We have become like SA in ODIs and T20s. 

 

We have won both WC and CT in the last 6 years

 

So, I would say, no for ODIs.

 

No team has won big tournaments consecutively apart from Australia.

 

T20 is lottery

Edited September 23, 2017 by express bowling