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

[thevortex]

Not really. Johnson has raw pace' date=' angle and bouncer to go back to. He is not effective in English conditions[/quote'] It works the other way as well. Johnson will come onto the bat easily and fly off it easier as well. Which is what we have been seeing this last season. Johnson to me is a limited bowler. Yes, he can bowl fast. But he is limited in his capabilities. But yes, I am not denying that Anderson needs to dig deep in Australian conditions.

[kabira]

Reading earlier posts would help' date=' surely.[/quote'] No it does not help. You are assuming the things. You don't have proof. Do you??

[ravishingravi]

It works the other way as well. Johnson will come onto the bat easily and fly off it easier as well. Which is what we have been seeing this last season. Johnson to me is a limited bowler. Yes, he can bowl fast. But he is limited in his capabilities. But yes, I am not denying that Anderson needs to dig deep in Australian conditions.

Not really wtih raw pace you can atleast go back to shot pitch or reverse swing at pace. Where would Anderson go? Nowhere.

[punjabi_khota]

Johnson didn't do all that great last time he visited India, IIRC

[thevortex]

Not really wtih raw pace you can atleast go back to shot pitch or reverse swing at pace. Where would Anderson go? Nowhere.

Well - if given a choice between a bowler with raw pace but no variety or special skill and a bowler with decent pace and with a variety of skills, you know which player teams would generally pick. And lets wait and watch how these two go.

[thevortex]

No it does not help. You are assuming the things. You don't have proof. Do you??

Proof? Your asking this question itself should highlight how much of the conversation you have understood.

[ravishingravi]

Well - if given a choice between a bowler with raw pace but no variety or special skill and a bowler with decent pace and with a variety of skills, you know which player teams would generally pick. And lets wait and watch how these two go.

That is the problem. There is no variety except swing. If it doesn't swing, then happy hunting

[Dhondy]

Sometimes, maybe once in a couple of generations, you stand at the crossroads in a sport. Accepted definitions get thrown out of the window, new paradigms take over. Cricket is at one such cross road. The best sides used to be the ones with the best bowlers. That's always been the case and will reassert itself as a truism once a certain cricketer moves on. It takes a freak of nature, an accident of fate to overturn conventional wisdom, to annul accepted truths, to force people to sit up, take notice and wonder, "Have things changed?" Virender Sehwag is that unforeseen vicissitude that's hit world cricket. There never has, nor will ever be another like him. While he is at his peak, India will continue to be a force, winning matches they have no right to win, saving ones they were destined to lose. Once he passes, and all things must pass, the old order will re-establish itself.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

Sometimes, maybe once in a couple of generations, you stand at the crossroads in a sport. Accepted definitions get thrown out of the window, new paradigms take over. Cricket is at one such cross road. The best sides used to be the ones with the best bowlers. That's always been the case and will reassert itself as a truism once a certain cricketer moves on. It takes a freak of nature, an accident of fate to overturn conventional wisdom, to annul accepted truths, to force people to sit up, take notice and wonder, "Have things changed?" Virender Sehwag is that unforeseen vicissitude that's hit world cricket. There never has, nor will ever be another like him. While he is at his peak, India will continue to be a force, winning matches they have no right to win, saving ones they were destined to lose. Once he passes, and all things must pass, the old order will re-establish itself.

nicely written :hatsoff:

Daac check my stats thread for VS :P ... has become the only player ever to score 1000 runs against a team at better than run-a-ball.

:yay:

[Dhondy]

Daac check my stats thread for VS :P ... has become the only player ever to score 1000 runs against a team at better than run-a-ball.

I take it you agree with my assessment of Sehwag being the best bat of our lifetime then?:winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Sometimes, maybe once in a couple of generations, you stand at the crossroads in a sport. Accepted definitions get thrown out of the window, new paradigms take over. Cricket is at one such cross road. The best sides used to be the ones with the best bowlers. That's always been the case and will reassert itself as a truism once a certain cricketer moves on. It takes a freak of nature, an accident of fate to overturn conventional wisdom, to annul accepted truths, to force people to sit up, take notice and wonder, "Have things changed?" Virender Sehwag is that unforeseen vicissitude that's hit world cricket. There never has, nor will ever be another like him. While he is at his peak, India will continue to be a force, winning matches they have no right to win, saving ones they were destined to lose. Once he passes, and all things must pass, the old order will re-establish itself.

He is not yet the best player of my life time :). But he is getting there. Certainly not slowly. But surely. The coming two to three seasons will help throw more light on this.

[Andy]

'India are the most disputed No. 1'

The concept of a Test championship has gained momentum recently with the ICC considering a four-year cycle for a play-off event between the top Test teams. In the coming months, ahead of the 2011 World Cup, Test cricket takes centre stage again with several top teams taking each other on in what could possibly serve as a prelude to the proposed championship. India play Australia in October, South Africa take on Pakistan followed by India, Australia host the Ashes, while Sri Lanka face up to a struggling West Indies. Which of these teams is likely to top the table at the end of these series? Is there a possibility of Test cricket returning to a unipolar age where one team dominated the format, or are the teams too closely matched for that to happen? Will there be a definitive No. 1? And are the current rankings, with India at the top, a fair reflection of how the world's best teams actually stack up? We spoke to former South Africa coach Mickey Arthur, former Australia coach John Buchanan, and ESPNcricinfo senior editor Sharda Ugra for their views Mickey Arthur: I was fortunate when we [south Africa] managed to get to No.1 in the world in both forms of the game. We knew we had India in India, England in England, Australia in Australia all in that year. We knew we had to go and beat those sides in their own conditions to really claim that undisputed No. 1 ranking. Until India beat South Africa in South Africa and win their next series in Australia, I'm not 100% sure they can be the undisputed No. 1 team in the world. As I said, the home ground factor plays such a huge role. John Buchanan: One of the measures of being regarded as the dominant side in world cricket and then as the No. 1 side in cricket is that you need to demonstrate your ability to play well not only at home but when you tour, and it is that consistency that all sides strive for. Certainly India in South Africa would love to play well enough to win a series in a country that is challenging. India always has the potential. If they can get their systems and processes far more consistent then they really pose a threat to everybody around world cricket. Sharda Ugra: India are certainly not the undisputed No. 1 in the world; you could say that they are the most disputed No. 1 in the world. They haven't won the big-ticket series in the big-ticket countries. They did win in England in 2007 but the two southern-hemisphere series that you have to dominate if you are to be considered the No. 1 side in the world are South Africa and Australia and that is what they have to do. They have the next two seasons to prove they belong at that particular spot. Do they have their weaknesses? This is almost a precarious time for them because their best batsmen are heading towards the end of their careers - the middle order, which has actually strengthened the way they play abroad. They made enough runs for no matter what the bowling attack to take those 20 wickets and win Tests abroad. That is going to be the test. India will always manage series by series to find a couple of bowlers who can pull off something. But it is the batting that is going to raise issues, particularly when they go to Australia towards the end of next year. Australia dominated world cricket for much of the late nineties and most of the decade gone by. But since the retirements of several of their experienced players, their fortunes have significantly declined. They were beaten on their previous visit to India, they lost a home Test series for the first time in 16 years, lost the Ashes in 2009, and were most recently held to a 1-1 draw by Pakistan. Can their younger cricketers trigger a revival against India? And in the long run, are they capable of replicating the supremacy they enjoyed? JB: I think they have a good chance of winning that series. A lot would depend on how their bowlers adapt to the conditions because they rely on their pace attack quite a deal, and how disciplined that pace attack can be. That is, if they have particular plans and strategies and how long they are able to stick to those. That series will be very much determined by the contest between Australia's bowlers and India's batsmen. Australian batsmen should basically bat well, given they have played there quite a bit both in the long form of the game as well as the short form - that is, the IPL. In 2004 we had our plans and we stuck to those plans and certain players performed well individually, which gave us a chance to win that series. In terms of Australia going forward, they are one of the countries with good processes, good planning of what's ahead of them in the next four or five years and can certainly regain their dominance around world cricket but they have to contend with England because they have been putting some very good things behind their international side of late. SU: I think Australia does have the chance to become the No. 1 team again. I am not speaking specifically about making their way up the ICC rankings, which can be a bit strange and skewed at times. But they certainly have a chance to begin to be, not Steve Waugh's team, but certainly the team everyone wants to chase and beat. What people seem to discount about Australia is that they almost seem to have an institution about the way they compete. They do have sort of a great fighting spirit, which sounds a bit of a cliché, but every time you look at how they perform when the chips are down, you do know it is something they have built in them. "One of my biggest regrets was that once we got to that No. 1 mantle, we had achieved the end goal and we couldn't lift for the following year. I think South Africa certainly have the ability to win anywhere. As long as the players remain hungry, and as long as our top players remain in form, South Africa will be formidable" Mickey Arthur, former South Africa coach MA: I see this Australian team doing really well. They have the personnel. Australia are always going to be very strong. I don't think Australia are going to dominate like they did through the end of the 1990s or the early 2000s. But they do have the personnel to win tough Test series and to win them well anywhere, both home and away. The team to dethrone Australia from the No. 1 position was South Africa. The bowling of Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, the leadership of Graeme Smith and the success of the likes of AB de Villiers and Hashim Amla have made South Africa one of the best touring teams around. They've drawn level in India, won in England and Australia, and most recently brushed aside West Indies in the Caribbean. Arthur and Buchanan differed about their chances. MA: One of my biggest regrets was that once we got to that No. 1 mantle, we had achieved that end goal and we couldn't lift for the following year. I think South Africa certainly have the ability to win anywhere. As long as the players remain hungry, and as long as our top players remain in form, South Africa will be formidable. One key thing to switching and playing in different conditions is to know your gameplans in those different conditions and adapt to those conditions very quickly. Often it's a mental shift. I know when we've gone to play Test series away, mentally the guys have had to shift their focus very quickly depending on what conditions they're playing in. JB: South Arica are always challenging. Over the next 12-18 months or so they may lose some of their key senior players, which could well mitigate their potential to consistently succeed around the world. They have shown in the past they are quite consistent - perhaps not that consistent away from home but that is not different to most sides. I think one of the things they might struggle with over the next few years is the exodus of certain key players. I don't really see the depth of talent coming through compared to what they had in the past. England have been impressive at home, regaining the Ashes in 2009 and upstaging Pakistan quite comfortably in the recently concluded Test series. Graeme Swann has emerged as a match-winning spinner and Eoin Morgan and Steven Finn have been major finds this summer, while James Anderson and Stuart Broad have formed a highly potent fast-bowling combination. But performances overseas have been inconsistent. Can this team measure up to Australia Down Under later this year and cast aside the memory of the 5-0 defeat in 2007? JB: Well, that would put them on the right path of course. But even if they beat Australia, it would only show that they've been a consistent Test performer against one or two countries for a period of some 12 or 18 months. To be, in my opinion, ranked as a No. 1 nation, to dominate world cricket for at least a minimum of four years, they'd have to beat a lot of other countries in a lot of other countries as well over the next couple of years. I think it will be a very closely fought series again. The series will be determined by the contest between the top four or five batsmen in either side and the opening bowling combinations. Whichever side can consistently either take wickets or consistently put together strong partnerships will be the side that will ultimately become victorious in the Ashes series. SU: This Ashes series for them is going to be a test of everything: of their ambition, of their fortitude and whether they can actually do it. Every time a team comes to a point where it is either make or break for them and you do know what they are made of, the English have been stuck with this reputation of "They can't win in a tough situation", particularly when they are not playing in a comfortable environment. Winning the World Twenty20 will have done a lot for the general spirit of the team. MA: England have got a realistic chance. It's going to be a very hard-fought series. If I was a betting man, I'd have my money slightly on Australia, just for the fact that they're playing at home. But England have shown unbelievable form through the last 12 months. They seem to have something really good going. They seem to have a structured team. They're a team that works well under Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower. So they're going to be a tough, formidable opposition for Australia. I can't see the series being 5-0, but if I had to say who was going to slightly edge it, I'd have to say Australia. Buchanan: "The Ashes will be determined by the contest between the top four or five batsmen on either side and the opening bowling combinations" © Getty Images Sri Lanka are a strong side at home but have been deprived of opportunities of playing away. Mahela Jayawardene, currently their most experienced player, has never played a Test at the MCG, and last played a Test series in South Africa in 2002. Buchanan, however, believes they have the potential to be No. 1 with their ability to churn out quality spinners even after the retirement of Muttiah Muralitharan, and the presence of several experienced players. SU: That has been Sri Lanka's disadvantage - that they really haven't travelled enough. They haven't travelled to Australia and South Africa and played a lengthy series there for a long enough time. That is something the rest of the world is to blame for. Winning at home after some time becomes a staple that you have to do. You would look at all these results, of teams winning abroad and think that home advantage doesn't mean anything more, but in Sri Lanka it does. But for them to be the No. 1 team in the world you would want a ranking system to be structured in such a way that there are two factors. Firstly they can play abroad in all the major countries, and secondly, you only become No. 1 if you have an adequate number of home and away wins. If Sri Lanka were going to become the No. 1 team in the world in this last series against India that would have been completely skewed and unfair because they haven't had a well-structured calendar, and that is why you need the FTP to be organised in such a way that there is an even spread of home and away contests for all the teams in cricket. Given how closely matched these teams are and how difficult it is to predict the outcome of their upcoming contests, is the era of one team dominating the format over? Or can the pre-eminence that West Indies and Australia enjoyed be repeated? JB: Yes, I think that is possible. I say that because to really dominate in any particular field there is a lot of planning that goes into the process of winning. Not just in the short term but over a period of time. What, for me, determines a ranking of No. 1 is not one season or one year but the fact that you're actually ranked that way for a number of years in all different parts of the world. So I think that is possible but it requires a tremendous amount of planning in so far as looking at your schedule, your players, talent-identification systems, support systems and so on. But I think there are teams like Australia, England, potentially India, who have the wherewithal in terms of at least talent and the proper systems behind that to be No. 1 over a number of years. SU: It does look as though the "super team" has run its course - the massively dominant team that can rule over decades. I think it is possibly because a lot of the other teams are catching up. They are figuring out all the stuff that, say, the Australians did particularly well. West Indies had a really special reign because they had this great generation of fast bowlers. I think teams are understanding overall that if they can produce bowling attacks that can take 20 wickets in all kinds of environments, they have a chance to win everywhere. MA: I think you could have one team emerge eventually down the line but all your top four teams at the moment are very closely matched. A lot depends on who plays who at what venue. For India in South Africa, you've got to back South Africa. But then you go play India in India - you're obviously going to back them. Home advantage plays a huge role, and for once in world cricket you've got four teams evenly matched, which augurs so well for Test cricket. The next few months promise some intriguing Test cricket between the world's strongest teams. The greater parity between them, compared to the previous decades, has made the prospect of a Test Championship all the more exciting. With Siddhartha Talya, this is Akhila Ranganna for ESPNcricinfo.

Source

[saneindian]

So once again, Indi hs to win series in SA and Aus to be undisputed no 1. Australia from 1995-2004 had not won a series in India and SL. Were they the undisputed no. 1 for those 8-9 years? When SA became no 1, they had not won their last two series in India and they have never won a series in SL. Yet they were undisputed no. 1 team in the world!!

[Gunner_Mania]

:yawn2:

[achilles]

Okay :cheer:

[ZodiaC]

:lazy::boring:

[kabira]

same old *****

[Zap_Brannigan]

Hypocrites!