England at Home

[cricfan123]

How come everyone says India are only number 1 because they play alot at home ,yet everyone thinks England should be no 1 even though in their last 9 test series 6 have been at home

[wobblydoggy]

How come everyone says India are only number 1 because they play alot at home ' date='yet everyone thinks England should be no 1 even though in their last 9 test series 6 have been at home[/quote'] We play Two at home one early summer and one late. But as we play Austrailia for 5 tests we do not normally fit a second series in. Blame the ICC they do the scheduling

[Fontaine]

England have yet to beat India at home where they were beaten last time around. But it's pretty typical for the English media to go overboard with both kudos/criticism. They are playing well, no doubt, but the situation is the same as it was a year ago where I would think SA at home are the best team, India at home are the best, and now England at home also.

[Chandan]

We play Two at home one early summer and one late. But as we play Austrailia for 5 tests we do not normally fit a second series in. Blame the ICC they do the scheduling

Its not ICC which does the scheduling but the boards which put forward what series they want to play. It is mere "approved" by ICC. You yourself went around saying how India wanted series with Australia, England etc. It is the same for England and Australia too. ICC only does the approving part.

[wobblydoggy]

Its not ICC which does the scheduling but the boards which put forward what series they want to want to play. It is mere "approved" by ICC. You yourself went around saying how India wanted series with Australia, England etc. It is the same for England and Australia too. Icc only does the approving part.

True, but we still want to play all sides and are not urging the ICC, note I used the word 'urging' To make a super group, who play each other more. We know our normal schedule, but if for instance Bangladesh improved dramatically, it would only be right that they played four or even five tests against the major sides and so schedules would change. They would not however improve easily if they are rarely getting a chance to play test cricket because of this proposed supper group.

[wobblydoggy]

England have yet to beat India at home where they were beaten last time around. But it's pretty typical for the English media to go overboard with both kudos/criticism. They are playing well, no doubt, but the situation is the same as it was a year ago where I would think SA at home are the best team, India at home are the best, and now England at home also.

I think the rankings speak for themselves. If you are playing at home against say SA for 4 tests and only win one but draw three then you lose points. If you cannot maximise your points at home and gain as much as you can away, then you would not be no1

[deepak_sach]

I think the rankings speak for themselves. If you are playing at home against say SA for 4 tests and only win one but draw three then you lose points. If you cannot maximise your points at home and gain as much as you can away, then you would not be no1

India have the best win-loss percentage at home

[vamos_rafa]

India have the best win-loss percentage at home

Now its back to square one for our doggy. He wud say that India can win only at home.

[Chandan]

True, but we still want to play all sides and are not urging the ICC, note I used the word 'urging' To make a super group, who play each other more. We know our normal schedule, but if for instance Bangladesh improved dramatically, it would only be right that they played four or even five tests against the major sides and so schedules would change. They would not however improve easily if they are rarely getting a chance to play test cricket because of this proposed supper group.

Even India wants to play all the sides and have merely 'urged' (yes, notice the word urge here,) that they couldn't host Bangladesh. They are willing to vising Bangladesh and even converted Bangladesh's away series in last FTP into their home series so that they could earn more revenue. And note that this all happened because Bangladesh agreed to it and ICC approved BCA and BCCI's urging. And India plays less home series that England, because ECB "urged" for more than one home series a year.

[wobblydoggy]

Even India wants to play all the sides and have merely 'urged' (yes' date=' notice the word urge here,) that they couldn't[b'] host Bangladesh. They are willing to vising Bangladesh and even converted Bangladesh's away series in last FTP into their home series so that they could earn more revenue. And note that this all happened because Bangladesh agreed to it and ICC approved BCA and BCCI's urging.

That may be the case, but you noted revenue as an important factor. If sides are seen only as revenue good or bad, for either attendance or TV, then cricket will become like football. I want to keep cricket pure and free as much as possible from TV domination. Yes I would like to see the big sides play more, but I would not vote for it or urge my country to agree to it, if it meant the smaller fry never getting any better. Or for instance a side like the once great WI sinking into obscurity because they do not have a good side at present. Cricket lovers around the world should resist such temptations. Lets face it, it is all the better then when you two big sides meet.

[Chandan]

That may be the case, but you noted revenue as an important factor. If sides are seen only as revenue good or bad, for either attendance or TV, then cricket will become like football. Lets face it, it is all the better then when you two big sides meet.

Unfortunately, Bangladesh cricket wanted revenue more than they wanted to tour India. It was their choice. They won't ask you what you want. It is the cricket boards that run the cricket. In BCA wanted India to tour to BD more than they wanted their players to tour, who can you fault here? BCCI? As is the fashion these days, I'm surprised how BCCI is not blamed for Japan earthquake and Tsunami!

I want to keep cricket pure and free as much as possible from TV domination. Yes I would like to see the big sides play more, but I would not vote for it or urge my country to agree to it, if it meant the smaller fry never getting any better. Or for instance a side like the once great WI sinking into obscurity because they do not have a good side at present. Cricket lovers around the world should resist such temptations.

Unfortunately, it'll never happen. Revenue is the most important part of the game these days and maximum revenue comes from TV rights. Naturally TV broadcasters would wants more series between the heavyweights because it'll be watched by more people. But then, thats how it has always been. No one used to play with India regularly when India was a week team 3 decades back. Now everyone is forming a beeline to have a series with India. It is an incentive for teams like Bangladesh where there is as much passion for cricket. All they need to do is, improve. Things will fall in place for them from thereon. Yet, that doesn't solve the problem of more home series for Australia and England. Only these two countries have two home series every season. India doesn't have any such rule or season here.

[kabira]

I think the rankings speak for themselves. If you are playing at home against say SA for 4 tests and only win one but draw three then you lose points. If you cannot maximise your points at home and gain as much as you can away, then you would not be no1

Actually you are totally wrong. if you draw a lot with lower ranked team, you lose points, lets say England was ranked 4th and beat India who are 1st, 2-1, they will get lot more points if it was other way round. It all depend on your current ranking and your opponents ranking as well.

[NareshK]

For English and Aussie morons, only the Ashes matters and whoever wins the series is the best team in the world. Of course, they cant put in a decent performance in India to save their lives but when India doesnt win in England or Australia, they say we dont deserve No.1 and only win at home (which is also false btw). This is their hypocrisy.