Is India Truly the 2nd Greatest Cricket Nation of all time after Australia? Comparing Performances in major tournaments & overall stats - what is a fair stack ranking ?

[rangeelaraja]

Mine is:

 

1) Australia

2) India

3) South Africa

4) England

5) New Zealand

5) West Indies

6) Pakistan

7) Sri Lanka

 

South Africa have amazing overall statistics - but they have hardly won world events. If they had won more world events  - they would have edged India for #2.

 

At this point India is clear #2. 

Edited October 13, 2025 by rangeelaraja

[Majestic]

If it is all time,

 

1. Australia 

2. India

3. England

4. Windies

5. South Africa

6. New Zealand 

7. Sri Lanka

8. Pakistan

[vvvslaxman]

Since 2010 India  is significantly better than every other side ICC ODI events.  India's domination will end up being longer than Australia's in a few years

 

 

 

 

 

[putrevus]

No it is not. I don't think it is even in top three.All India has produced is had one decent fast bowler in Bumrah.

 

 

[Ultimate_Game]

3 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Since 2010 India  is significantly better than every other side ICC ODI events.  India's domination will end up being longer than Australia's in a few years

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that India lost too many big games. 2 WTC finals, 2014 WT20 final, 2017 CT final, 2019 WC SF, 2023 WC Final. Losing one or two big matches can be given a pass but if it happens every tourney then you're not that good.

 

WI in 70s and 80s and Aus in 00s were good coz they won the big matches. Unless India does so consistently they can't be anywhere close to them, especially Aus. One of the main reasons was Kohli as captain and his penchant for top-heavy teams which backfired in big matches.

[Ultimate_Game]

Overall performances historically I would rate the teams as follows:

 

Aus

Eng, India - A close tie as Eng has Test history on their side while India has better shorter format pedigree

WI - Great from mid 70s till mid 90s but other than that peak, have been ordinary

Pak - Similar to WI where they were great in 80s and 90s but quite average otherwise

SA - Would've been higher but for Apartheid boycott from 70s to early 90s

NZ, SL - Can't separate these two. NZ edges it in Tests and SL in shorter formats

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by Ultimate_Game

[vvvslaxman]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

The problem is that India lost too many big games. 2 WTC finals, 2014 WT20 final, 2017 CT final, 2019 WC SF, 2023 WC Final. Losing one or two big matches can be given a pass but if it happens every tourney then you're not that good.

 

WI in 70s and 80s and Aus in 00s were good coz they won the big matches. Unless India does so consistently they can't be anywhere close to them, especially Aus. One of the main reasons was Kohli as captain and his penchant for top-heavy teams which backfired in big matches.

yes.. Once they increased the depth India manages to handle unexpected scenarios. WIth old set up we would not have had a Dube in the line up followed by jadeja. INdian team sructure was not good Always top heavy under Virat Kohli. 

[Ultimate_Game]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

yes.. Once they increased the depth India manages to handle unexpected scenarios. WIth old set up we would not have had a Dube in the line up followed by jadeja. INdian team sructure was not good Always top heavy under Virat Kohli. 

 

Wish selectors had selected Rohit as captain in shorter formats over Kohli. We wasted the best years of Bumrah and Shami coz Kohli acted like an ostrich and buried his head in the sand, refusing to acknowledge the fundamental problem. Rohit built the team the right way with depth - similar strategy which Dhoni followed where he had a specialist batter in Raina coming in at 7.

 

We wouldn't have lost so many tourneys had Rohit been the captain. He was unfortunate to lose the 2023 WC as Pandya's injury impacted our team balance and we also went with another mental midget in SKY instead of someone like Rinku. But Rohit's thinking was correct and you can't fault him. He struggled with bad luck but eventually we had to overcome it, which we did. But in Kohli's case it wasn't just luck. His teams were poor with no depth at all and the top order consisting of mental midgets who disappeared in the big matches.

[Gollum]

Our win % in tests is 4th best in Asia, behind Pak, SL, Afg. 

 

When it comes to W/L we are 6th overall I think. 

 

P4P we are one of the worst sporting teams of all time, not just limited to cricket. Till 5 years back, we hadn't produced one ATG pacer. 

 

Trophy count is inflated because of more ICC events in the last 20 years. If we had such frequency in 50s to 90s, WI and Aus would probably have added 20 more trophies, each, and Eng another 10. A WTC like system, WI would have won 10 straight maces.

[Gollum]

India trails Aus, Eng, RSA, WI, Pak in tests H2H. Even after we win this test, WI will lead 30-25. 

 

ATG Aus, WI, RSA, Eng stomp all over India. Even Barbados AT XI will crush India with eyes closed, and their population is 250k. 

 

It is best if Indians don't overrate their  abilities in sports. Only Indian hockey has some bragging rights for historical reasons, remaining all zero. 

[tapandrun]

Saying Ind is #2 is just recency bias,

 

There have been 2 Super team in Cricket Aus and Wi.

 

Would say #1 is Aus #2 is WI and rest of Ind, Eng, Pak, SA all have been good with in certain time period 

[Gollum]

Can't neglect women's cricket as well. Eng has 4 ODI WC trophies, NZ and WI too have won big trophies, NZ in fact beat Aus in the ODI WC final in 2000. 

 

By 2050 however I expect Indian cricket to crack the top 3 overall. Maybe one day we can even become a clear number 2, Aus will always be number one. 

[deathmonger]

7 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Our win % in tests is 4th best in Asia, behind Pak, SL, Afg. 

 

When it comes to W/L we are 6th overall I think. 

 

P4P we are one of the worst sporting teams of all time, not just limited to cricket. Till 5 years back, we hadn't produced one ATG pacer. 

 

Trophy count is inflated because of more ICC events in the last 20 years. If we had such frequency in 50s to 90s, WI and Aus would probably have added 20 more trophies, each, and Eng another 10. A WTC like system, WI would have won 10 straight maces.

Naah, India has a higher W/L ratio than SL and Afg. Only behind Pak and even that will overturned next year. 5th best, will be 4th by next year.

 

As far as trophy count is concerned, that's a cyclical argument.

 

The reason that the ICC trophies have increased nowadays is due to there being more money in cricket simply due to the booming Indian market. But then again the reason the Indian cricket team is so much stronger now is due to more money in Indian cricket due to the booming Indian market.

 

There is no high frequency of ICC events without a strong Indian team.

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, tapandrun said:

Saying Ind is #2 is just recency bias,

 

There have been 2 Super team in Cricket Aus and Wi.

 

Would say #1 is Aus #2 is WI and rest of Ind, Eng, Pak, SA all have been good with in certain time period 

Yeah it is like saying Spain is the second greatest football nation of all time ahead of Brazil, Italy. 

 

Cricket, like football, has a long history. 

[Gollum]

Just now, deathmonger said:

Naah, India has a higher W/L ratio than SL and Afg. Only behind Pak and even that will overturned next year. 5th best, will be 4th by next year.

Talking about win %, I mentioned both that and W/L in my post. 

Just now, deathmonger said:

As far as trophy count is concerned, that's a cyclical argument.

 

The reason that the ICC trophies have increased nowadays is due to there being more money in cricket simply due to the booming Indian market. But then again the reason the Indian cricket team is so much stronger now is due to more money in Indian cricket due to the booming Indian market.

 

There is no high frequency of ICC events without a strong Indian team.

I don't think financial dominance is a flex when it comes to discussing onfield achievements.

[deathmonger]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Can't neglect women's cricket as well. Eng has 4 ODI WC trophies, NZ and WI too have won big trophies, NZ in fact beat Aus in the ODI WC final in 2000. 

 

By 2050 however I expect Indian cricket to crack the top 3 overall. Maybe one day we can even become a clear number 2, Aus will always be number one. 

Naah I'd say we are already 2 in men's cricket if all formats are considered.

 

WI had a period of dominance but that was in an era when there were way lesser teams. And their mediocrity over the last 25 years kind of cancel it out.

 

SA have been good in tests but poor in white ball and tbh post 2014 very poor in tests away too.

 

England have been poorer in white ball and even in tests is below India if you consider from say 1970 onwards. Unlike Australia, most of England's successes were back in the olden days.

[deathmonger]

Just now, Gollum said:

Talking about win %, I mentioned both that and W/L in my post. 

I don't think financial dominance is a flex when it comes to discussing onfield achievements.

But financial dominance is what has resulted in on field achievements.

 

India was poor in cricket when they were poor in general.

 

In the last 20-25 years India is the clear no 2 behind Australia.

 

 

[Gollum]

You can't convince a neutral that Indian cricket legacy is better than Barbados'.

 

And our population is at least 5000 times larger, and not that Barbados is a Norway or Japan economically speaking. 

[deathmonger]

4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Yeah it is like saying Spain is the second greatest football nation of all time ahead of Brazil, Italy. 

 

Cricket, like football, has a long history. 

The difference I would argue is that all of those major countries were always rich and played at full potential.

 

India was no where near its full potential in the 50s or 60s (or even now for that matter).

 

It is easy to win when your opponents are extremely poor third world countries.

 

[Gollum]

4 minutes ago, deathmonger said:

Naah I'd say we are already 2 in men's cricket if all formats are considered.

 

WI had a period of dominance but that was in an era when there were way lesser teams. And their mediocrity over the last 25 years kind of cancel it out.

 

SA have been good in tests but poor in white ball and tbh post 2014 very poor in tests away too.

 

England have been poorer in white ball and even in tests is below India if you consider from say 1970 onwards. Unlike Australia, most of England's successes were back in the olden days.

But then you have to be consistent. If you neglect previous eras, you must also accept that there are 7-8 nations above India in field hockey.