India's #1 rank in Test Matches / ICC Rankings

[yoda]

LOL @ this thread Some folks take the word "unbelievable" too literally. We have been unbelievably good at tests recently, so I won't believe that we can be number 1 as a result. :hehe:

[thevortex]

Of course, we are the best team in the world. We have not lost a test series for 2 years and 7 series running. We have pulled off an unheard of 400 run chase in India. We have pulled off an unimaginable for a touring side 250 run chase in Sri Lanka. We have bowled out a batting line up like South Africa twice in a rain truncated match. The manner in which Zaheer, Ishant, and Sreesanth have ripped through batting line ups on dead pitches is unprecedented. In Sehwag and Gambhir we have the most deadly opening combination in the world. We have Laxman and Tendulkar who have been conjuring masterpieces regularly with no sign of slowing down. The team and winning culture is so strong that even after losing 3 strike bowlers from the line up, the likes of Ojha have stepped in to lead us to a critical win. A newcomer like Raina immediately comes in and starts making runs and pulling his weight. If all these and much more are not the signs of the best team in the world, then I don't know what is!

Thanks. We could get into details on the above points but lets leave that be and agree to disagree on this one.

[Gunner_Mania]

^ well then whats the point of the debate. Lets put aside Outy's points a moment, why don't you put forward your points of why you dont think India is the number one test nation at the moment, or why you think a different team is the number one at the moment.

[thevortex]

^ well then whats the point of the debate. Lets put aside Outy's points a moment' date=' why don't you put forward your points of why you dont think India is the number one test nation at the moment, or why you think a different team is the number one at the moment.[/quote'] Well, I think its foolish to believe that India at present is the best Test team in the world. Back when it achieved the ranking it had a different bowling line up. Anil Kumble had worked towards that goal. We had Zaheer, Ishant and Sreesanth firing on all cylinders. Today we dont have Kumble and Harbhajan has been in a seemingly irreversible dip in form. Sreesanth has been continuously injured and Ishant is not even a pale shadow of what he was. To put it bluntly and very simply we no longer have the attack to take 20 wickets. Any team lacking that is not the top team in the world. By the way I am not so sure why you even have to ask this in this context. Did we not have a similar discussion between Chappell, Manjrekar and Donald at Cricinfo? Did they say anything too different?

[The Outsider]

India holds the series rubber against all nations except South Africa. Here is a list of the teams and countries they hold the rubber against : India - Australia, England, New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh - 7 South Africa - India, England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh - 6 Australia - South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh - 6 Sri Lanka - South Africa, England, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh - 6 England - Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh - 5 Pakistan - West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh - 3 New Zealand - West Indies, Bangladesh - 2 Bangladesh - West Indies - 1 West Indies - None

[thevortex]

So you figure this is the same team that we are talking about in the present?

[saneindian]

Well, I think its foolish to believe that India at present is the best Test team in the world. Back when it achieved the ranking it had a different bowling line up. Anil Kumble had worked towards that goal. We had Zaheer, Ishant and Sreesanth firing on all cylinders. Today we dont have Kumble and Harbhajan has been in a seemingly irreversible dip in form. Sreesanth has been continuously injured and Ishant is not even a pale shadow of what he was. To put it bluntly and very simply we no longer have the attack to take 20 wickets. Any team lacking that is not the top team in the world. By the way I am not so sure why you even have to ask this in this context. Did we not have a similar discussion between Chappell, Manjrekar and Donald at Cricinfo? Did they say anything too different?

Aha!! Don't they all advocate the UDRS (and specifically the Hawk Eye). Wonder what your problem in accpeting their viewpoint is then :--D Back onto Indian bowling, minus Zaheer, the same bowling attack did take 20 wickets to win a test vs SA on a flat patta wicket, and minus Zaheer, Sree and Bhajji the same bowling attack again did manage to take 20 wickets on a flat pitch in Lanka. BTW who according to you are the no 1 team in the world?

[thevortex]

Aha!! Don't they all advocate the UDRS (and specifically the Hawk Eye). Wonder what your problem in accpeting their viewpoint is then :--D Back onto Indian bowling, minus Zaheer, the same bowling attack did take 20 wickets to win a test vs SA on a flat patta wicket, and minus Zaheer, Sree and Bhajji the same bowling attack again did manage to take 20 wickets on a flat pitch in Lanka. BTW who according to you are the no 1 team in the world?

Is there somewhere a rule that says one has to accept everything that a few people say? Are we even like that with our loved ones leave alone strangers? :) If you like to believe that this Indian bowling attack can still take 20 wickets on a reliable basis, then you are welcome to believe so. At the moment it has to be a toss up between South Africa, England and Sri Lanka.

[saneindian]

Is there somewhere a rule that says one has to accept everything that a few people say? Are we even like that with our loved ones leave alone strangers? :) If you like to believe that this Indian bowling attack can still take 20 wickets on a reliable basis, then you are welcome to believe so. At the moment it has to be a toss up between South Africa, England and Sri Lanka.

And who brought the point that Donald, Chappel and co said India have a weak bowling attack and hence we should accept it!! By the way I am not so sure why you even have to ask this in this context. Did we not have a similar discussion between Chappell, Manjrekar and Donald at Cricinfo? Did they say anything too different? As for the bowling attack not being able to take 20 wickets goes, they did in the last test they played and therefore going by your logic of CURRENT FORM, they do look like taking 20 wickets again especially when we know Bhajji and Zak will be back soon On SA, Eng and SL being ahead of India, SA and SL being there says it all. On what current form, do you think they are ahead of India? SA for beating WI, SL for not winning a series against India at home and Eng for beating the crap out of BD and the weakest Pakistani test side in decades?

[Andy]

Is there somewhere a rule that says one has to accept everything that a few people say? Are we even like that with our loved ones leave alone strangers? :) If you like to believe that this Indian bowling attack can still take 20 wickets on a reliable basis, then you are welcome to believe so. At the moment it has to be a toss up between South Africa, England and Sri Lanka.

For No. 1 Spot?

[ludhianvi]

The first two years have a weighting factor of only 0.5 whereas the last 1-2 years have a weighting factor 1. So in the last 3+ years, India is easily the better team even if you look at the series results and not at the rankings. The upcoming tours will give more diverse opponents and venues. Here's how the ICC site explains how to look at the ratings.

2. What does a particular rating signify? A team that, over the period being rated, wins as often as it loses while playing an average mix of strong and weak opponents will have a rating of close to 100. A rating of 100 could also correspond to a side that wins more often than it loses but who has generally played more matches against weak teams. Similarly, if the majority of its matches are against strong teams, then a rating of 100 could be achieved despite having more defeats than victories. It is quite often the case that there are a number of teams in the 90-110 range. These teams are of broadly similar standard. A rating above 120 suggests consistently strong performances. Above 130 is rarely achieved and suggests a high degree of dominance over all other teams. In every match the total rating points available equals the sum of the initial rating of the two teams, so ratings can be thought of as being redistributed rather than created. There is therefore no 'inflation' in this rating system, so a rating of 120 suggests the same degree of superiority over opponents now as in the past or future, and a team can meaningfully compare its rating movements over time.

http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_C0B4A990FF6812A97BEED9873F82973E_1251697906076_17.pdf

[thevortex]

And who brought the point that Donald, Chappel and co said India have a weak bowling attack and hence we should accept it!! By the way I am not so sure why you even have to ask this in this context. Did we not have a similar discussion between Chappell, Manjrekar and Donald at Cricinfo? Did they say anything too different? As for the bowling attack not being able to take 20 wickets goes, they did in the last test they played and therefore going by your logic of CURRENT FORM, they do look like taking 20 wickets again especially when we know Bhajji and Zak will be back soon On SA, Eng and SL being ahead of India, SA and SL being there says it all. On what current form, do you think they are ahead of India? SA for beating WI, SL for not winning a series against India at home and Eng for beating the crap out of BD and the weakest Pakistani test side in decades?

See, Saneindian - I am not the one to be asking you to accept something because X or Y said so. Please read my post. I only said that they have said that. You can make what you will of that. Current form does not mean the last Test alone. :) About the basis - they are all better balanced teams than India while not having as strong a batting lineup as ours. At the moment these teams have players who can shine all round the world and still pick up 20 wickets. SA might struggle a bit in the subcontinent but I will still take them over the present Indian squad.

[punjabi_khota]

See, Saneindian - I am not the one to be asking you to accept something because X or Y said so. Please read my post. I only said that they have said that. You can make what you will of that. Current form does not mean the last Test alone. :) About the basis - they are all better balanced teams than India while not having as strong a batting lineup as ours. At the moment these teams have players who can shine all round the world and still pick up 20 wickets. SA might struggle a bit in the subcontinent but I will still take them over the present Indian squad.

:hysterical::hysterical: Lanka played 3 tests in India recently, kindly let me know how many times they picked up 20 wickets. Actually, please let me know the last time they picked 20 wickets outside of SL. kthxbye :bye:

[saneindian]

See, Saneindian - I am not the one to be asking you to accept something because X or Y said so. Please read my post. I only said that they have said that. You can make what you will of that. Current form does not mean the last Test alone. :) About the basis - they are all better balanced teams than India while not having as strong a batting lineup as ours. At the moment these teams have players who can shine all round the world and still pick up 20 wickets. SA might struggle a bit in the subcontinent but I will still take them over the present Indian squad.

Looks like the UDRS thing didnt go down well with you. Happens. I can understand. Kindly define "Current Form" for the mortals like us. England , SA and SL having a balanced attack to take 20 wickets everywhere? When was the last time England and SA won a test series in Ind/SL and the last time SL won a series away from home?

[punjabi_khota]

Talking about England's ability to take 20 wickets around the world, :rotfl: In India they lost 1-0 and did not pick 20 wickets in any game. In WI they lost the 4 test series 1-0 and did not pick 20 wickets in any game.

[The Outsider]

:hysterical::hysterical: Lanka played 3 tests in India recently, kindly let me know how many times they picked up 20 wickets. Actually, please let me know the last time they picked 20 wickets outside of SL. kthxbye :bye:

But, but, but now that Murali has retired doesn't it improve their chances of taking 20 wickets in all conditions?

[saneindian]

Talking about England's ability to take 20 wickets around the world, :rotfl: In India they lost 1-0 and did not pick 20 wickets in any game. In WI they lost the 4 test series 1-0 and did not pick 20 wickets in any game.

Last time they toured SL and Australia, they failed at those places as well. Wait but we are talking about current form. They did take 20 wickets against such a great Pakistani batting line up on absolutely flat patta wickets. Next time they tour India, they will demolish us, if they tour WI, the English bowlers will blow them away. And Aussies better be prepared for a 5-0 thrashing in the Ashes.

[kabira]

Vortex getting owned here. LOL But guess what there are self loathers everywhere.

[Gunner_Mania]

At the moment it has to be a toss up between South Africa, England and Sri Lanka.

Current form does not mean the last Test alone. :) About the basis - they are all better balanced teams than India while not having as strong a batting lineup as ours. At the moment these teams have players who can shine all round the world and still pick up 20 wickets. SA might struggle a bit in the subcontinent but I will still take them over the present Indian squad.

Here is a stat for you. This is for the last year. All tests played away. Australia - P4 W3 L1 - the 2 wins were against NZ & 1 against Pakistan England - P6 W3 L1 D2- the 2 wins were against Ban & 1 against SA India - P5 W3 L1 D1- the 2 wins against Ban and 1 against SL SA - P5 W3 L1 D1- the 2 wins against WI and 1 against IND SL - P3 - L2, D1 - How on earth are England & Srilanka better than India?

[thevortex]

Looks like the UDRS thing didnt go down well with you. Happens. I can understand. Kindly define "Current Form" for the mortals like us. England , SA and SL having a balanced attack to take 20 wickets everywhere? When was the last time England and SA won a test series in Ind/SL and the last time SL won a series away from home?

Saneindian - first things first. You and a lot of others here need to start differentiating between Hawkeye and UDRS. If you cannot get off the blocks on this, then there is absolutely no point in initiating any sort of discussion on this subject. With that cleared - yes, England, SA and SL have much better, balanced attacks than India. Do you contest that?