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

[vvvslaxman]

Seems like Simon Briggs is getting canned :hysterical:

[Mr. Wicket]

ICF response coming up in a while, gents. :isalute:

[champ]

i dont see anything too harsh in the article :dontknow: .. he does give some praise and adds in some criticism too .. that is how i feel an article has to be written ..

[champ]

this just takes the cake :cantstop:

where is this referred in the article .. :dontknow:

[bunny]

I thought that the article was quite well written (apart from some obvious errors that a few have pointed out).

[vvvslaxman]

Article is pointless.It was written mainly to defend another british columnist. He has come up with a new crap. You are not world no.1 because you don't have bowling superstar. :hysterical:. It is the result that is important. Not how they achieve it. Fact of the matter is India won those tests by taking 20 wickets. If their batsmen put up huge totals and bowl the opposition out so be it.

[Feed]

What's wrong with India winning at home? : Harsha Bhogle Other countries have good home records too. Why does India get stick for theirs? More... India must celebrate and move on It's more difficult to stay at the top than to get there Harsha Bhogle December 11, 2009 India have not set foot on the summit by stepping off a helicopter; they have got there after establishing several base camps and making steady, sometimes hazardous, progress. India's ascent is not a point, it is currently a curve; it is not a moment in time but part of a phase. Any attempt to think otherwise would be unfair and shortsighted. And so while India must celebrate, it must be with a sense of history. This lot of players has put the ribbon on the box, but the cake was baked by many; they have scored a goal but you usually cannot do so unless someone has passed the ball to you. And that is why the only aspect of this moment that disturbs me is the cash award to this team. I am not a huge fan of cash awards to professional players - they are presumably paid to win anyway - but the announcement of this particular one ignores the fact that various others set it up over the last five years. In particular, India have been served by three very fine captains before the hugely impressive current incumbent. Very few good teams win with inadequate leaders anyway. Under Sourav Ganguly, India realised that winning overseas was an option, and India have much for which to thank a player the world found very convenient to misunderstand. Rahul Dravid was the perfect captain to follow, with his strong commitment to the team and to the cause. It is easily forgotten that under him India won in the West Indies for the first time in 35 years and in England for the first time in 21. And Anil Kumble was the leader at a decisive moment in Indian cricket: in Australia in 2008, where the Test win in Perth must rank on par with the win at Kolkata in 2001 for significance. Don't forget, too, that Mahendra Singh Dhoni's current record reads: played 10, won seven, lost zero. Included in that is a series win against Australia, an away win in New Zealand, and now one against Sri Lanka. There are no freebies there. Something is right in Indian cricket. Indeed, India's current position is good for world cricket, as indeed South Africa's little reign at the top was. Three teams competing for No. 1 is always better for the sport than a giant blocking everyone's path. But I am a little concerned at the state of denial in some parts of the world, with the continued devaluation of India winning in India. This is not accompanied by a similar attitude to Australia winning at home, or for that matter South Africa or England doing so. India's winning streak has not been due to financial jugglery, which is a convenient myth in itself, but due to good cricket. To assign other reasons - and what a pity that is being attempted - is to undermine players of extraordinary pedigree. And these are not just batsmen. True, Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Dhoni (even Jaffer and Karthik at key moments) are extraordinary players, and they have set up many victories, but to focus on them would be unfair to those that take 20 wickets. Against England, home and away, Zaheer Khan was the Player of the Series; against Australia it was the very impressive Ishant Sharma, who will soon be leading India's attack again. Amit Mishra and Sreesanth have had their moments in the sun, and Harbhajan has taken more wickets than many of us think he has. But as with all success, India must celebrate the moment and move on. Australia and South Africa are fine teams and Sri Lanka have just the man to drive their transition. As business leaders will tell you, it is more difficult to stay on top than to get there. India need to groom batting replacements, and there are only two on the horizon: the scarcely tested Murali Vijay and the untested Cheteshwar Pujara. Harbhajan Singh desperately needs competition to take him to another level, but more important, India will have to find a way to ensure that players of serious ability, like Rohit Sharma, Sreesanth, Ishant and RP Singh, don't lose their way. And it will call for people with vision at the top. They exist but they are in a bit of a melee at the moment with others of various hues and political colour. Isn't it ironic, though, that for a country accused of devaluing the game, India are struggling in Twenty20 cricket but are atop the summit of the most traditional form of the game? Maybe there is a story there.

[saneindian]

Did any of these so called experts ever question Australia's no 1 test rank between 99-2004 or when SA became the no 1 some months ago. Aussies hadn't won a test series in SL since 1992 (won one only in 2004) and hadnt won a series in India for some 30 years (won one in '04 only) Similarly SA havent won a series in SL since 1993 and havent won a series in India in last 8-9 years. Why is it that a team suddenly has to win a series in SA/Aus to become the best team in the world? Why dont these bitter experts admit that we have played well and only then we have become the best test side in the world.

[TheWall]

Other ppl r jealous of Indian's climb to No.1 , hence this denial, or rather the other countries impotent players do not have talent or guts to win in Indian soil.

[TheWall]

Then why is Paki down in the ratings???????

[Sooda]

Well written response to the likes of Athers, Briggs and whoever Last line is particularly ace

[EnterTheVoid]

The other issue with India is that they are a team without great bowlers (begging Harbhajan Singh’s pardon). Their batsmen do the attacking' date= crushing the life out of sides with the weight and the speed of their run-scoring. Yes, the attack may be solid and professional. But it is hardly up to the level of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, nor the all-conquering juggernaut that was the West Indies’ mean machine. 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. Perhaps the solution is in front of us. Perhaps the combination of Sreesanth and Zaheer Khan, which performed so well against the Sri Lankans, can develop into a genuinely world-beating pairing. But until the Indians can dominate opponents with ball as well as bat, the arguments will go on.

Without ranting non sense, someone please give a calm and collected response why his argument is not devoid of some merit. Perhaps than, the discussion would be more meaningful. There are other teams that are ranked lower whose bowling attacks are, if not better than India's, are certainly on par.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Without ranting non sense, someone please give a calm and collected response why his argument is not devoid of some merit. Perhaps than, the discussion would be more meaningful. There are other teams that are ranked lower whose bowling attacks are, if not better than India's, are certainly on par.

Maybe because its a flawed argument that a team without a great bowler doesnt deserve its #1 ranking. Its all kind of stupid. As an Engineer i just cannot fathom absurdly stupid logic from grown up men and this is one. A team is sum of its part. If 1 part is much better and it wins, why in the world they dont deserve it ? If India is not #1 without a great bowler, then what do you call SA and Aus who cannot win against a team without a great bowler ? No team is perfect. Even the marauding Aussies couldnt win against us and could only manage to save their home series with the help of the umpiring greats. Bradman didn't play in India, so he is not a great. Warne couldnt take wickets against India, so he is not great etc etc..

[DomainK]

Love the jealousy. True sign that we are intimidating them all. True sign that we are no1.

[zubinpepsi]

Without ranting non sense, someone please give a calm and collected response why his argument is not devoid of some merit. Perhaps than, the discussion would be more meaningful. There are other teams that are ranked lower whose bowling attacks are, if not better than India's, are certainly on par.

err. hes a pommie.. not an ozz.. maybe u wanna change ur argument now..

[Sachinism]

Well written Harsha. Can't understand why so much hate from outside India.

[Karan114]

Excellent stuff from Harsha

[Lord]

Good Article.nice to see him acknowledge Dravid n Kumbles captaincy achievements n not only focus on Dhoni n Dada

[cowboysfan]

Isn't it ironic, though, that for a country accused of devaluing the game, India are struggling in Twenty20 cricket but are atop the summit of the most traditional form of the game? Maybe there is a story there.

yes,its been discussed quite at length here:--D

[nballa]

I never really bought into this whole 'home pitches' thingamajig which has been floating around ever since we started winning tests. i swear to god this was never abused so much during the 70's and 80's when we hardly won tests. both teams play on the same pitch. and crowds actually work against home teams not towards. if anything the home team should be on the receiving end.