Media reaction around the world upon India claiming the Number 1 position in ICC Test ranking

[Mr. Wicket]

Not to mention that this idiot is ****ing ignorant. "India need someone with that wow factor. Harbhajan had it at the start of his career, when he ambushed the Aussies with the slippery variation that has become known as “the doosra”. Yet his performances since then have been impressive rather than truly iconic." Pardon my French here, but when in the blue **** was Harbhajan unleashing his "doosra" in the 2001 series where he ambushed Aus? Anyone who watched that series knows Bhajji took most of his wickets with off breaks or topspinners. Nitpicking perhaps, but it's pretty obvious that this jackass hasn't a ****ing clue what he's talking about, is writing based off scorecards, statistics and very close-minded impressions and given his general understanding of the game would be best finding some other topic to write on.

[kabira]

so team with McGrath and Warne should only be No. 1? What about team with Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid?? Both have 10K runs you idiot.

[Sachinism]

Phuck this' date=' I think I'll need to write something just so there's an intelligent article out there re. India's rise to #1. Some of these pieces like the Briggs and Atherton columns are just full of ****.[/quote'] Dileep wrote a good and fair article

[Mr. Wicket]

Dileep wrote a good and fair article

True that. So should I pass on writing a fair and more informed review? :P

[zubinpepsi]

this just takes the cake

A lot of Indian fans are criticising the England team without good reason. Can I remind you that at least six England players would make the Indian team: Strauss, Trott, Pietersen, Prior, Swann and Broad/Anderson. Combined England/India team: Strauss ©, Sehwag, Strauss, Trott, Tendulkar, Pietersen, Laxman, Prior (w), Swann, Broad/Anderson, Zaheer, Sreesanth. As a batsman Pietersen is the best on either team. He is better than Tendulkar – he has more flair, he already has 16 Test centuries and will probably beat all Sachin’s records before he retires. As a bowler Swann has a better average than Kumble and Harbhajan. Swann is the best bowler on either team.

:cantstop:

[Sachinism]

True that. So should I pass on writing a fair and more informed review? :P

[falconhawk]

hahahahha:haha::haha::haha::haha:

[goose]

Show me a greater wicket taking delivery with more wow than RP Singh's swerving thunderbolts from round the wicket.

[Mr. Wicket]

Show me a greater wicket taking delivery with more wow than RP Singh's swerving thunderbolts from round the wicket.

NsaxK5EZCvg&feature=related Reminiscent of what McGrath did to England so often at Lord's, but against a far greater opponent. Hard length to move forward or back on, good pace, bounce, line drawing the batsman outside off - then vicious movement back in to rip into the stumps.

[Celeste]

Great seam position by Ishant.

[Sooda]

The guy 'as' has written two pretty ace responses

India got to the No. 1 spot just like everyone else – by winning Tests. Have we now rewritten the rules to suggest that winning Tests by batting is less worthy than winning tests by bowling? Didn’t Sreesanth scupper the Sri Lankans in the second Test? Is he not a bowler? Given the hysteria which seems to have enveloped some sections of the British media (and how come the South Africans aren’t complaining that much even though they were the No. 1 and England are complaining more even though England is only No. 5?), one would think that India arrived at this position by some alien formula. The reasons given for India not being a worthy No. 1 have ranged from saying a bad ODI performance means they can’t be a great Test team to they don’t have a superstar bowler to other objections never raised before about the other two teams that have achieved No. 1 status. Ricky Ponting’s average in India is in the measly 20s (a very poor average in a country that allegedly has only flat pitches that are a dream for batsmen. Does this mean Ponting can’t bat?), Shane Warne never bowled that well in India and the Aussies couldn’t win a Test series in India for a long time. Yet no one had a problem with that. South Africa became N0. 1 in 2003 when the Aussies were dominating, yet no one questioned whether South Africa were a real No. 1. South Africa repeatedly chokes in World Cups, yet no one suggested, quite rightly, that their poor ODI performance there devalued their status as No. 1 Test team. South Africa lost to Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and no one devalued their No. 1 Test status. India is not yet a dominant No. 1, and time will tell whether they can achieve that, but the ICC doesn’t say you have to be a dominant No. 1 to be No. 1. A ranking is a mathematical figure that describes something at a particular point in time. India have been good enough to get the No. 1 ranking and no amount of primarily English cribbing will change that. It doesn’t matter whether you think we’re a “real” No. 1 or not. The table says we are at this point in time. No one saw a problem with the rankings or nitpickingly defined what a No. 1 Test team should be (apparently good under pressure in an ODI, never mind if the players are different) before. “When a fellow English columnist (sorry, “ranting Pom”) recently scoffed at the table, suggesting that India were poor under pressure and didn’t deserve their lofty position, he was subjected to a ritual disembowelling online.” The columnist’s argument was that India was poor under pressure in an ODI against Australia. By what logic does this equate to India not being worthy of the No 1 TEST ranking? What if many of the ODI players and Test players are different? By that logic, South Africa’s failure under pressure in World Cups makes their No. 1 Test ranking questionable as well (if you were devoid of logic and couldn’t tell the difference between an ODI and a Test). Well, thank God for the internet then. The days when columnists could write any old thing and go unchallenged are gone.

“But my view is that Harbhajan and Zaheer are not quite up there in the giant class.” Who exactly is up there in giant class these days? South AFrica beat Australia and then promptly lost to Australia. They also lost to Sri Lanka. Australia doesn’t have any giant class bowlers at the moment. Yet when South Africa gained the No. 1 spot, where were the spate of articles questioning the ranking system? If winning a series in Australia against a declining Australian side (which had lost to India in India) is enough to be No. 1, then why is it not ok to also judge teams on their ability to win consistently in the subcontinent? We are repeatedly told how easy it is to bat in the subcontinent, so it should be easy to bat/bowl there if you have batting and bowling superstars. Yet that hasn’t been the case. What about the ICC rankings for individuals? Does this mean that you can’t be the No. 1 ranked batsman if you haven’t faced the No. 1 ranked superstar bowler? How can you justify your ranking as best batsman in the world if all the best bowlers happen to be in your own team? “The game arouses such passions in the sub-continent that people forget to see logic or the grey side of things.” Irrationality and failing logic are hardly absent from the English/Australian media/fans. If England gained the No. 1 test ranking for the first time its history, especially on the back of winning the Ashes against a not-so-superior Aussie team, and Indian journalists/fans wrote a plethora of articles questioning their worthiness or whether it was justified, what do you think the reaction would be? Do you think they would suddenly think rankings are meaningless or that you need a superstar bowler or need to be win ODIs to be a good Test team? Also, the headline of this story contradicts what the author says. The headline says “India can’t justify its Test status” – basically meaning India is undeserving of its No. 1 status – and the author says in the third para “For myself, I tend to feel that India are every bit as deserving of the laurel wreath as South Africa or Australia.” Which is it? If you’re every bit as deserving, why introduce caveats and why say it’s not justified? You’re either deserving or you’re not. The point is, both Australia and South Africa had moments during their No. 1 reign when they weren’t exactly playing like the No. 1 team full of all-powerful batting and bowling superstars, and no one thought to question the validity of the rankings or whether their position was truly justified. Apparently the real No. 1 is the one that has batting and bowling superstars, nevermind if they actually win enough Tests to move to the top of the rankings or not.

Also, as someone rightly pts out, comparisions with the Aus of a few years ago are very unfair, this team is the best now- not one of the best ever

[Sachinism]

Great seam position by Ishant.

How did you see the seam position in that vid?

[Celeste]

How did you see the seam position in that vid?

at 2 sec you can see it

[cowboysfan]

the problem with these journalists is they try to compare the present top teams with giants of the past who dominated)australia and west indies).no team now has a bowling superstar.Is mitchell johnson a bowling superstar?.I think even he will laugh at that suggestion.

[Karan114]

the problem with these journalists is they try to compare the present top teams with giants of the past who dominated)australia and west indies).

That is one problem, but by far the bigger issue is that these jealous, racist articles are coming out when India has reached the top. Not a word when South Africa took over the top position - a South African side that lost in Sri Lanka, couldn't win in India and were beaten by Aussies at home.

[cowboysfan]

he is onto to something and unfortunately the top teams can only play against each other more is a two tier system which will kill test cricket in tier two countries

[flamy]

Only after India reached no.1 ranking. they are slicing and dicing the ranking system' date=' flaws, what not. Is there a rule that only SA or Australia should be ranked at the top. Why was there no question when England was placed at no.3 who haven't won against India in a Test series in the last 13 years. When SA became no.1 nobody said "They should stay at the top for atleast an year or so before being considered as real no.1". well. they were knocked off the perch in no time by India.[/quote'] I wish someone asks these questions on TV. Someone credible and well-known. Maybe Gavaskar. :giggle:

[flamy]

I think some people forget that India have been playing some pretty good Test cricket for 6-7 years not. Not great Test cricket, we did lose some series in 2006 and 2008 in particular, but overall our performances have been good. Just to make my point clearer, India have lost five series since January 2003, Aus have lost four series (despite having a great team till 2007 - they have lost three series in pretty quick time) and SA have lost seven I think. So basically we had a base of being decent (but not great) and in the last 18 months have become unbeatable and understandably we are now the top ranked team in Test cricket.

Dude, you are an excellent addition to our forum. Welcome. :hatsoff:

[king2be98]

You guys are correct, but the one comment I made regarding being the best side still stands. India are the best Test playing team and easily at that too, however they aren't the best in ODIs. When they climb to the top of the ODI rankings, they are in 2nd currently, people will say they the are the best team in cricket full stop as a pose to just in one form of the game. Mind you, it's only a minor detail, it's been a long time coming, but congrats to you guys on getting to the top in the most important format of the game.

[vvvslaxman]

wow factor.. hmmm Preity zinta?