New Test Rankings: Updated Aug 30th, 2009

[Dhondy]

Let's take South Africa, India, and Australia over their last series amongst each other home and away : South Africa : Won - 6; Lost - 5 India : Won - 5; Lost - 5 Australia : Won - 5; Lost - 6 You just seem to be on an Aussie glorification trip :giggle:

Yes, and that shows how close those three sides are. However, of those three, SA and Australia have beaten each other away, while India haven't managed to win a series away from home. Hence I'd place both those sides ahead of us.

[The Outsider]

Yes' date=' and that shows how close those three sides are. However, of those three, SA and Australia have beaten each other away, while India haven't managed to win a series away from home. Hence I'd place both those sides ahead of us.[/quote'] I would use away over home to break a tie in the W/L ratio, as things stand all three have different W/L ratios. But fair enough if you rank away over home above the overall W/L ratio.

[ShermanAve]

I am not talking about just NZ. NZ could be excused' date=' what about the series before that against Pakistan where we won the 1st test and orders went out to make flat batting tracks, why -- I dont know. India could have easily beaten that team 3 - 0, instead -- we went 1 -0.[/quote'] India didnt won 3-0 against Pak becuase they did not allowed you to do so. Pak lost that series in 1 session collapse.

[Dhondy]

India didnt won 3-0 against Pak becuase they did not allowed you to do so. Pak lost that series in 1 session collapse.

That's what he is saying. India went on the defensive instead of going for outright wins in the next two Tests, which has been their failing in many, many series. In the last Test, they continued quite unnecessarily on to 600+, and then ran out of time as your batsmen collapsed quite spectacularly against Kumble's seam up bowling in the last innings. I am quite amazed (well, not really, having dealt with your fellow fans in the past) that you are somehow attributing credit to your players for holding out. They were like rabbits caught in the headlights.

[DomainK]

I am not talking about just NZ. NZ could be excused' date=' what about the series before that against Pakistan where we won the 1st test and orders went out to make flat batting tracks, why -- I dont know. India could have easily beaten that team 3 - 0, instead -- we went 1 -0.[/quote'] Agree with that. That one should have been 3-0.

[Desi Cartman]

Any ranking system which places Sri Lanka as the 2nd best test team in the world is a sheer disgrace.

We lost to SL 2-1 , so how do we deserve to be #1 and they dont ?

[Bradman99]

We are No 1 in the world. Rankings are flawed. No way SL are better then us

No.. South Africa are number 1. Aussies had 14 years of test domination, I suppose I just have to be happy with that. Hopefully we don't do a Windies now..

[Ram]

Australia at no.4! What a big culture shock!

[Zap_Brannigan]

We lost to SL 2-1 ' date=' so how do we deserve to be #1 and they dont ?[/quote'] Because if 1 series was the benchmark then we would have been #1 in 2001.

[Lord]

Are you not demanding a little too much? A few months ago' date=' even winning a series away was like a distant dream. Naturally, Dhoni would hold on to a lead more than anything else. Winning was the first priority was it not? Had India lost the lead trying to go another one up, we would have slaughtered him right here. We have just started winning some. Have patience. Let the team and the fans get a little used to winning.[/quote'] we led by 530 odd runs with 2 days to go IIRC.Do you seriously that NZ could have chased that with thier batting line-up?IMO there was only one team who could win from there.NZ could only save the test n we duly allowed them to n what about that game v Eng in Mohali.we led by 150 runs but instead of oing for the kill we went super slow n Dhoni didnt declare to allow a chance to Gambhir n Yuvi to get thier tons,throwing away a fantastic opportunity of a win having said that,i DONT think SL deserves to be no.2.what is the last away series they won(except BD n Zim).hell they managed only a draw against lowly WI n NZ.they at best should be 4th

[Desi Cartman]

Because if 1 series was the benchmark then we would have been #1 in 2001.

arey yaar they have been beating all the visiting teams, am I right ? From what I can remember they have only lost to Aus in Aus in the last couple of years. its mainly because they are playing a lot at home, their ranking will come down once they start with return tours. Im sure they'll struggle in SAF , Ind , Eng and even NZ but for now they have more points than any other team and that is because they have been winning/playing a lot more and we can not blame them for doing that.

[satishg]

Australia at Number 4..well to be honest i never thought this moment would come!

[Zap_Brannigan]

arey yaar they have been beating all the visiting teams, am I right ? From what I can remember they have only lost to Aus in Aus in the last couple of years. its mainly because they are playing a lot at home, their ranking will come down once they start with return tours. Im sure they'll struggle in SAF , Ind , Eng and even NZ but for now they have more points than any other team and that is because they have been winning/playing a lot more and we can not blame them for doing that.

I think that's what people mean when they say they are suspect of SL ranking 2. India is a bit better but not by much. I said that in reply to your post indicating only 1 series. Sl have won only 2 and lost 4 in the last 3 years away from home (excluding BD). Meanwhile India has won 5 but lost 6. But in those 5 wins, it was 2 away series win in Eng and NZ. Even at home SL score reads 6 won 1 lost with all series won (excluding BD) while India is 5 won 1 lost with a drawn series against SA. In face value, India has been better esp with away series win and home series win against Aus and solitary test win against powerhouses SA and Aus away. But Sl has played 5 games against BD which puts their win/loss ratio much higher than India. Maybe thats why people dont like SL being 2.

[zubinpepsi]

SL are minnowbashers and home track bullies... overrated bunch.... dont deserve to b in No.2 these rankings r fecked up.... dont differentiate between home and away ...

[goose]

The ICC rankings were lent credence by virtue of having Australia consistently ranked way out in front - something everyone knew and agreed with. Tendulkar did the same for the batting rankings in the 90s. In both these instances the side/player was permanently slotted at No.1 despite the failings of the ranking formulae - they were that good. Now there is no clear frontrunner it's time to recognise these rankings for what they are - bogus and random. Want to know who's ranked 2nd, 3rd, or 4th? Watch some cricket.

[Bradman99]

The ICC rankings were lent credence by virtue of having Australia consistently ranked way out in front - something everyone knew and agreed with. Tendulkar did the same for the batting rankings in the 90s. In both these instances the side/player was permanently slotted at No.1 despite the failings of the ranking formulae - they were that good. Now there is no clear frontrunner it's time to recognise these rankings for what they are - bogus and random. Want to know who's ranked 2nd' date=' 3rd, or 4th? Watch some cricket.[/quote'] Very well said. You are definately not a goose :two_thumbs_up:

[iHammad]

The ICC rankings were lent credence by virtue of having Australia consistently ranked way out in front - something everyone knew and agreed with. Tendulkar did the same for the batting rankings in the 90s. In both these instances the side/player was permanently slotted at No.1 despite the failings of the ranking formulae - they were that good. Now there is no clear frontrunner it's time to recognise these rankings for what they are - bogus and random. Want to know who's ranked 2nd' date=' 3rd, or 4th? Watch some cricket.[/quote'] Just because India aren't 1st that doesn't mean the rankings are flawed. Remember these are ICC Rankings, ur telling us to go watch some cricket, if there was no ICC, there wouldn't be any International Cricket. Imagine that.

[siddhu]

Just because India aren't 1st that doesn't mean the rankings are flawed. Remember these are ICC Rankings, ur telling us to go watch some cricket, if there was no ICC, there wouldn't be any International Cricket. Imagine that.

That is quite a different view from other padosis we have seen. because usually padosis blame ICC, BCCI etc for their ranking state. So if the ranking is not flawed then you accept your teams current position. 6th or 7th is it?? with 85 points??

[goose]

Just because India aren't 1st that doesn't mean the rankings are flawed. Remember these are ICC Rankings, ur telling us to go watch some cricket, if there was no ICC, there wouldn't be any International Cricket. Imagine that.

...and there'd be no Indian Cricket Forum...and there'd be no threads....no incredibly stupid posts...imagine that?

[iHammad]

That is quite a different view from other padosis we have seen. because usually padosis blame ICC' date=' BCCI etc for their ranking state. So if the ranking is not flawed then you accept your teams current position. 6th or 7th is it?? with 85 points??[/quote'] Yes. Why wouldn't I?