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

[thevortex]

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.

I think a lot of the replies in a similar tone are getting lost in the maze of statistics without understanding the perspective. My post was about the here and now. If you want to take statistics for the past year, that does NOT reflect the true picture. In fact it says the same thing as the rankings.

But' date=' but, but now that Murali has retired doesn't it improve their chances of taking 20 wickets in all conditions?[/quote'] Their attack is still much better than the Indians. Do you contest that?

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.

Please read the section above. This is about the here and now. Dont get lost in past statistics. And yes, England will, for a change, start as favourites against Australia.

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

How you wish, Kabira! I know there are a lot of guys here who are carrying forward the spectre of Hawkeye into other discussions. That is not sensible.

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?

Gunner - as I have said here, looking into past statistics is also going to paint a rosy picture for India. That team is no longer there. Personnel have changed. Personnel's forms have changed. Do you still think those statistics are relevant? At present - please note that this is an operative phrase - India has a much lowlier bowling attack than the other teams mentioned.

[ravishingravi]

Thanks but no thanks for splitting the thread. The crux of the original post was not India's No.1 ranking which is of no consequence to me. It was one statement. If India do have man to man the best team in the world that can challenge and win in all condiions, I wouldn't care for rankings. The original point was about BCCI and IPL and whether it is hurting Indian cricket. Are we producing good enough cricketer from the younger lot? Is our cricket in the right direction? Is BCCI providing good enough infrastructure with all its resources ? I wanted your views. Instead, the No.1 ranking statement hit a nerve and everyone got personal. There are two kinds of a crowd that you can get at Wankhede. One that ""rowdy" crowd devoid of basic understanding of the game shouting " Ae O Ae O Mcgrath is a basterd!!" or making monkey faces and the other appreciating the great talents on display and intricacies of the game. Seems like majority fit in former category from some of the reactions. Except Chanden and few others I haven't seen an opinion or an argument. Deeply disappointed in Indian cricket fans. If not being delusional and stupid is self loathing, then I am guilty as charged.

[saneindian]

Please read the section above. This is about the here and now. Dont get lost in past statistics. And yes, England will, for a change, start as favourites against Australia. At present - please note that this is an operative phrase - India has a much lowlier bowling attack than the other teams mentioned.

Why dont you try defining "HERE and NOW".

[ravishingravi]

I think a lot of the replies in a similar tone are getting lost in the maze of statistics without understanding the perspective. My post was about the here and now. If you want to take statistics for the past year, that does NOT reflect the true picture. In fact it says the same thing as the rankings. Their attack is still much better than the Indians. Do you contest that? Please read the section above. This is about the here and now. Dont get lost in past statistics. And yes, England will, for a change, start as favourites against Australia. How you wish, Kabira! I know there are a lot of guys here who are carrying forward the spectre of Hawkeye into other discussions. That is not sensible. Gunner - as I have said here, looking into past statistics is also going to paint a rosy picture for India. That team is no longer there. Personnel have changed. Personnel's forms have changed. Do you still think those statistics are relevant? At present - please note that this is an operative phrase - India has a much lowlier bowling attack than the other teams mentioned.

Vortex, there is no doubt that England have improved tremendously and in Swann they have the best spinner in the world atm. But in Aus. the English bowlers have time and again been sorely exposed for the lack of swing and seam in those conditions. They are good in helpful conditions and off spinners have traditonally never perfomed in Aus. So, for all the hype by the Eng. media, this team is simply not good enough to be the best. They can prove me wrong by defeating Aus. in Aus. Results can deceptive. Ashes in Eng was dominated by Aus with Eng scraping through with a draw and winning the last one on a dodgy pitch, luckily winning the toss and batting first. The series against SA, they should have lost 3-1, if not for last wicket draws. They still have some way to go. Ofcourse, this series against a poor pak. side again highlights the weaknesses in Eng. Had they picked up all the catches and played Yousuf and YK, it would have been tough for Eng. to win

[thevortex]

Vortex, there is no doubt that England have improved tremendously and in Swann they have the best spinner in the world atm. But in Aus. the English bowlers have time and again been sorely exposed for the lack of swing and seam in those conditions. They are good in helpful conditions and off spinners have traditonally never perfomed in Aus. So, for all the hype by the Eng. media, this team is simply not good enough to be the best. They can prove me wrong by defeating Aus. in Aus. Results can deceptive. Ashes in Eng was dominated by Aus with Eng scraping through with a draw and winning the last one on a dodgy pitch, luckily winning the toss and batting first. The series against SA, they should have lost 3-1, if not for last wicket draws. They still have some way to go. Ofcourse, this series against a poor pak. side again highlights the weaknesses in Eng. Had they picked up all the catches and played Yousuf and YK, it would have been tough for Eng. to win

Regardless, I still think England start as favourites for this Ashes. I do think they will miss Flintoff's hit-the-pitch tactics in Australia. Still, I dont think they are exactly helpless either. The Australian bowling attack is perhaps at its lowest ebb. Of course Johnson and co. can turn around and do something brilliant and therefore unexpected turn to give the Aussies an edge. But that looks like a long shot now. Even at home for the Aussies.

[thevortex]

Why dont you try defining "HERE and NOW".

I dont know that these two terms need definition! They are pretty crystal clear, I think.

[ravishingravi]

Regardless, I still think England start as favourites for this Ashes. I do think they will miss Flintoff's hit-the-pitch tactics in Australia. Still, I dont think they are exactly helpless either. The Australian bowling attack is perhaps at its lowest ebb. Of course Johnson and co. can turn around and do something brilliant and therefore unexpected turn to give the Aussies an edge. But that looks like a long shot now. Even at home for the Aussies.

Well Johnson looked like a "shot duck" in last tour. If it doesn't swing, there is no plan B. Broad and Finn might do slightly better. About "favourites", whatever makes you feel good, I can only base it on conditions and bowlers England has.

[thevortex]

Well Johnson looked like a "shot duck" in last tour. If it doesn't swing' date=' there is no plan B. Broad and Finn might do slightly better. About "favourites", whatever makes you feel good, I can only base it on conditions and bowlers England has.[/quote'] Indeed. As you say if the English bowlers are still better off than their Aussie counterparts, then do they not start off as relative favourites?!

[rabinjackman]

i must say that india holding the number 1 position inspite of not having a potent bowling attack is actually an incredible achievement. goes to show how gooooood our batting is. the basic fight/disagreement in this thread seems to be between people who look at india as the number one side based on performance and those who compare india to the windies of the 80's and aussies of the gilchrist / hayden / waugh era. all i can say is even with the poor bowling attack our team is perform fantastically and doing well in tests both at home and abroad. drawing a series in lanka against a full strength lankan batting line with our pathetic bowlig attack is a trememndous achievement. we have a series coming up against the aussies who have a good batting side and avery potent new ball attack. this series will be a hard fought one and i hope our team inspite of an insipid attack is able to match the aussies. our number 1 position will be under scrutiny again this series. but i must say if the aussies cannot beat us, they fecking dont deserve the no1 spot either :--D

[ravishingravi]

Indeed. As you say if the English bowlers are still better off than their Aussie counterparts' date=' then do they not start off as relative favourites?![/quote'] Yes, but my point is you cannot discount history on this. You mentioned Flintof. How man did he pick up on lasts tour. If it doesn't swing or seam, their attack is impotent. Lets see if they have learnt. After watching them against Pak. I am sure they are far from finished article.

[Andy]

Any Team who manages to Hold Lanka for a Draw in Lanka deserves to be Number 1.

[saneindian]

I dont know that these two terms need definition! They are pretty crystal clear' date=' I think.[/quote'] Why dont you answer that simply rather than going in circles.

[Gunner_Mania]

Vortex - When somebody talked about us picking 20 wickets in the last test, you said you didnt mean the last test, so when I talked about a year, you say it is not the last year, but the here and now. Well certainly yhe here and now has got to be between the last year and the last test. The reason I picked up the last year was also because you talked about, there being No Kumble, Sreesanth, Zaheer in the bowling attack and Harbhajan on a decline. As I recall in the 5 away test stats I posted, Zaheer played 2 of them and Sreesanth,1 and Kumble none. So to be fair we have soldiered along without them and still done decently. As for England having a better attack, well that is all been in their backyard under favourable conditions, except for may be Swann, but then again the last 8 tests (6 at home) they have played are against Bangladesh & Pakistan - whose batting I wouldnt use as a benchmark for rating bowlers.

[thevortex]

Vortex - When somebody talked about us picking 20 wickets in the last test, you said you didnt mean the last test, so when I talked about a year, you say it is not the last year, but the here and now. Well certainly yhe here and now has got to be between the last year and the last test. The reason I picked up the last year was also because you talked about, there being No Kumble, Sreesanth, Zaheer in the bowling attack and Harbhajan on a decline. As I recall in the 5 away test stats I posted, Zaheer played 2 of them and Sreesanth,1 and Kumble none. So to be fair we have soldiered along without them and still done decently. As for England having a better attack, well that is all been in their backyard under favourable conditions, except for may be Swann, but then again the last 8 tests (6 at home) they have played are against Bangladesh & Pakistan - whose batting I wouldnt use as a benchmark for rating bowlers.

Its all about the combination, Gunner. And I am sure you understand when I say that the Indian attack is not potent. If its a time frame that you want take perhaps the last 5 to 6 Tests that India have played. That should help. Yes, they played on pretty unresponsive pitches in SL. But if you take Tests prior to that it would skew figures because the personnel were different and it was quite some time back.

[thevortex]

Why dont you answer that simply rather than going in circles.

I am not sure that you are not understanding my point so much as trying to find a handle to grab onto :). Anyway read my reply in my post to Gunner as to the 'definitions'.

[Gunner_Mania]

Its all about the combination, Gunner. And I am sure you understand when I say that the Indian attack is not potent. If its a time frame that you want take perhaps the last 5 to 6 Tests that India have played. That should help. Yes, they played on pretty unresponsive pitches in SL. But if you take Tests prior to that it would skew figures because the personnel were different and it was quite some time back.

I did take just the last year, when pretty much the personnel have been consistent, in fact some of the 'big guns' have actually been not part of the team. Come the next few tours, if fit, I expect Zak and Sreesanth to be back. Harbhajan always licks his lips in anticipation at the sight of the Australians, Ishant may find that he actually likes bowling in the helpful conditions of South Africa. So frankly, yes given they are all fighting fit and have the right conditions this attack is as potent as any in the rest of the world and capable of taking 20 wickets. Having said that while England may have a 'potent' attack according to you but with their regular batting collapses there is not a lot of help that the bowlers are going to have in the way of presssure, with big totals on the board. India on the other hand most often then not with its batting line up is going to post some decent scores which will help the bowlers put pressure on the batsmen. So at the end of the day it is a combination of batting and bowling that is going to help us win the test matches and maintain our numero uno status. While man to man some of our bowlers may lack a tad with an opposition bowler as a test team we certainly have a combinations that balances it out which clearly lacks in the other teams that you mentioned.

[saneindian]

I am not sure that you are not understanding my point so much as trying to find a handle to grab onto :). Anyway read my reply in my post to Gunner as to the 'definitions'.

So current form and "here and now" means last 5-6 tests. Lets see how the bowling attacks have performed, 1. 3 tests vs SL (Zaheer, Sreesanth/Ishant, Bhajji, Mishra/Ojha)- won 2-0 2. 2 tests vs BD (Zaheer, Ishant, Bhajji, Ojha/Mishra)- won 2-0 3. 2 tests vs SA (Zaheer, Ishant, Bhajji, Mishra/Ojha)- drew 1-1 4. 3 tests vs SL (Ishant. Mithun, Bhajji, Ojha, Mishra)- 1-1 So in 6 out of 10 tests the bowling attack was good enough to take 20 wickets!! As for your argument on personnel being different, More or less it has remained the same (used 7 bowlers in these 10 tests) and Zaheer, Sree and Bhajji will most lilely comeback for the tests vs Australia, so it will be the same attack with same set of personnel. Lets look at England 1. 4 tests vs SA (Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom/Onions, Swann) Drew 1-1 2. 4 tests vs BD (Anderson, Broad, Bresnan/Shezad/Finn, Swann) won 4-0 3. 4 tests vs Pak (Anderson, Broad, Finn, Swann) won 3-1 They have taken 20 wickets in 8 out of 12 tests and the bowling attack has involved 8 bowlers. Lets look at SA 1. 3 tests vs Australia (Steyn, Ntini, Morekl, Harris) Lost 1-2 2. 4 tests vs Eng (Steyn, Ntini/Dewet/Mclaren/Parnell, Morkel, Harris) Drew 1-1 3. 2 tests vs India (Steyn, Morkel, Parnell, Harris) Drew 1-1 4. 3 tests vs WI (Steyn, Morkel, Tsotstobe, Harris, Botha) Won 2-0 So in 6 out of 12 tests the bowlers took all 20 wickets and a total of 9 different bowlers were used. Finally on Sri Lanka, 1. 3 tests vs Pak (Kulasekra, Thusara, Vaas, Mendis, Herath) won 2-0 2. 2 tests vs NZ (Kulasekra, Thusara, Prasad, Murali, Mendis, Herath) won 2-0 3. 6 tests vs India(Welgedera, Malinga, Prasad/Kulasekra/Fernando, Murali, Herath, Mendis, Randiv) Lost 2-3 (overall) In 6 out of 11 tests, they took 20 wickets and used a total of 11 bowlers. Now to summarise, The % of times teams took 20 wickets: India 60% (with 7 bowlers) England 75% (with 8 bowlers) SA 50% (with 9 bowlers) SL 55% (with 11 bowlers). England's numbers are skewed as they have played 75% of their tests vs poor batting teams like BD and Pakistan. Wonder on what basis "here and now" Indian bowling doesn't look like taking 20 wickets but rest all attacks look potent.

[thevortex]

I did take just the last year, when pretty much the personnel have been consistent, in fact some of the 'big guns' have actually been not part of the team. Come the next few tours, if fit, I expect Zak and Sreesanth to be back. Harbhajan always licks his lips in anticipation at the sight of the Australians, Ishant may find that he actually likes bowling in the helpful conditions of South Africa. So frankly, yes given they are all fighting fit and have the right conditions this attack is as potent as any in the rest of the world and capable of taking 20 wickets. Having said that while England may have a 'potent' attack according to you but with their regular batting collapses there is not a lot of help that the bowlers are going to have in the way of presssure, with big totals on the board. India on the other hand most often then not with its batting line up is going to post some decent scores which will help the bowlers put pressure on the batsmen. So at the end of the day it is a combination of batting and bowling that is going to help us win the test matches and maintain our numero uno status. While man to man some of our bowlers may lack a tad with an opposition bowler as a test team we certainly have a combinations that balances it out which clearly lacks in the other teams that you mentioned.

Well, but they are not all fighting fit. And that is the point. What stops Australia from saying that we would be the top team if Mcgrath were still playing? I know I am taking a retired players' example. But if our players are not available - Sreesanth for example - or if our players are woefully out of form - Ishant and Harbhajan for example - then how are we potent as an attack? And yes, I was among those who defended India's rise to the top when it happened and hailed it as a rise attributed to our batting prowess. That prowess and firepower is still there. However, our bowling has further weakened. I think we agree on this point. If we dont, then we will have to agree to disagree.

[thevortex]

Saneindian - need I point it out to you that 2 of those Tests for India out of a total of 10 were played against Bangladesh?! Take that out and see what happens. Of course you can do the same for England as well. Lastly you can do all the gimmickry with numbers that you want. Forget the paper. On field given that we are still missing Zaheer Khan, does this attack inspire fear? Forget fear, does this attack look like its an effective one? I dont think so. We will find out when the Australians tour. India still have an escape route if it prepares dry and dusty pitches where the likes of Ojha can prosper. If it does not do that, then they have an uphill battle at hand.

[kabira]

Vortex, Right now India is number 1, no matter how you look at it and no matter how you find excuses. No team in recent past have drawn the series in Lanka and that too with inexperience attack. It does not matter who you have in the team, if there is good team culture, the new comers feel at ease and start delivering. Thats what we have done in last 5 years. Again, Is India clearly No. 1? Like Australia was last decade. No. they are not clearly number 1. But right now they lead all other test playing nations. Prof had given an example. In a school, one kid is good at Biology, one kid is good in Chemistry and one kid tops in Maths. But there is one kid whose overall performance is better than all the kids and he is number 1. So is India.