The curse of No. 1

[Feed]

Neither India nor England have been convincing at the top of the Test rankings, and narrow vision has prevented South Africa from getting there. But it's not a bad thing for the fan More... The curse of No. 1 Neither India nor England have been convincing at the top of the Test rankings, and narrow vision has prevented South Africa from getting there. But it's not a bad thing for the fan Ian Chappell April 8, 2012 Following 25 years of domination, first by West Indies and then Australia, the top ranking in Test cricket has suddenly become a slip zone. Where both India and then England took steady steps, rising one rung at a time to reach the top, on arrival at the pinnacle they have encountered uncertainty. While India proceeded to slither down a greasy fireman's pole, England are currently clinging on grimly with closely clipped fingernails. Why the sudden problems for the team rising to the top? In India's case they were always destined for a short stay because they reached the pinnacle with batting strength and only steady bowling. To dominate, a team requires not only bowling strength but also depth, and India possessed neither as they sought to conquer a variety of conditions and remain a power. They were also a team built for home conditions, and travelled about as well as seafood salad in the tropics. England, on the other hand, have a strong, well-balanced attack, with some quality replacements. They are equipped to win away from home, which they did admirably in Australia. Their Achilles' heel has been batting, and more particularly the inability to conquer their spin demons. A general lack of footwork and the-sweep-is-the-answer-to-any-question-posed-by-a-spin-bowler mentality has seen them struggle on slower surfaces. Despite their batting woes in four consecutive losses, England remained competitive in all those contests thanks to the tireless efforts of their bowlers. The big difference between India and England and the two sides that dominated before them has been that while West Indies and Australia were far more complete teams, flaws have been exposed in the newer No. 1s. However, the overall result for the game has been a much more interesting competition since Australia's dominance began to wane following the 2005 Ashes loss. There is now very little between the top six sides and one bad day can lead to an upset. Contrast that with a 25-year period where there were very few challengers to West Indies and then Australia, when predicting series results was simpler than forecasting the daily temperature in Barbados. The one team that should have been more dominant in the last few years, especially since the addition of Imran Tahir's legbreaks to the mix, is the often disappointing South Africa. They have failed to develop fully under Graeme Smith's rather narrow leadership vision. A bristling pace attack, a decent legspinner and one of the game's great allrounders, complemented by a solid batting line-up, should be enough to regularly beat all-comers in this era of flawed opposition. However, since they beat Australia at the MCG in 2008-09 to clinch their first series victory in that country, South Africa have won only a meagre 38% of their Test matches. It's not too late for South Africa to shed their underachievers' tag, but to win consistently they'll require more aggressive leadership. It's not enough to just possess a strong attack; the bowlers need to be complemented by positive captaincy. Andrew Strauss is also a conservative leader, and at times he tends to wait for something to happen rather than to try and provoke a mistake. This has hurt England during their recent struggles because the fragile batting line-up has needed to be chasing as few runs as possible. India are likely to struggle for traction on the greasy pole for a while yet. Their batting mastery is a thing of the past and they only have a moderate attack. When they eventually get around to rebuilding it'll require a new leader with fresh ideas to inspire. Virat Kohli is emerging as a likely candidate. Australia are currently experiencing a surge on the back of a strong young pace attack and an extremely positive leader in Michael Clarke. However, the looming departure of Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey will leave their batting with an air of vulnerability and a far less threatening aura. This all leads to the conclusion that the status quo is likely to be maintained, with the struggle for the No. 1 ranking retaining a "fire-and-fall-back" feel. It's a far cry from and a big improvement on the days of dominance.

[Cricket Tragic]

The one team that should have been more dominant in the last few years, especially since the addition of Imran Tahir's legbreaks to the mix, is the often disappointing South Africa.

Except that Tahir has bowled some real filth since he made his debut. He hasn't been anywhere as good as what people expected.

[bulbul]

Except that Tahir has bowled some real filth since he made his debut. He hasn't been anywhere as good as what people expected.

Remember the hype before his selection like he is going to change the whole SA spin issue..turned out he is anothelr ordinary spinner.. But its funny to see people still running behind this overrated No 1 thing

[Sehwag1830]

Funny he didn't blame English culture for their loss .

[zen]

There is no curse. It is just that ppl are used to seeing teams like WI and Aus dominate that they associate #1 with such teams forgetting at times like these two are amongst the best teams of all time. It is not easy to match such performances Taking ATG teams out of equation, any team that manages to be #1 for 18months (roughly 5 to 6 series) or more should be seen as a good performance. If a team manage to stay at top for like 36 months, it's excellent. For 5 to 6 years, it could be amongst the top sides in history. For a decade or more, it is an ATG team! Anything less than 18 months on trot could be factored due to transition in cricket or a team is merely a #1 because some team has to get that rank with musical chairs being played for the spot

[Ultimate_Game]

To dominate, a team requires not only bowling strength but also depth, and India possessed neither as they sought to conquer a variety of conditions and remain a power. They were also a team built for home conditions, and travelled about as well as seafood salad in the tropics.

totally disagree with the bold part and I guess it shows that the author is either ignorant or biased. India toured Aus (2007), Eng (2008) and SA (2010) before reaching the top and India's results were as follows... 1. Aus (2007) - Lost a tightly contested series 1-2 where the difference maker was that Sudney test. 2. Eng (2008) - India beat Eng 3. SA (2010) - India drew the series and could very well have won the series had India managed to snaffle Kallis or Boucher with SA tottering in the last Test. Adding to those series we drew in SL, beat WI in WI and NZ in NZ. Plus we beat all-comers at home. That means other than losing a close series to Aus away we won or drew everything home or away. That's a prettu decent record IMO. Just because we struggled in the last away series doesn't mean we were always poor away the last 10 years or so. In fact Eng are luckier to be ranked no. 1 as they lost to India/Pak and managed to draw against SL. This record is poorer in alien conditions as compared to India's.

[Sehwag1830]

totally disagree with the bold part and I guess it shows that the author is either ignorant or biased. India toured Aus (2007), Eng (2008) and SA (2010) before reaching the top and India's results were as follows... 1. Aus (2007) - Lost a tightly contested series 1-2 where the difference maker was that Sudney test. 2. Eng (2008) - India beat Eng 3. SA (2010) - India drew the series and could very well have won the series had India managed to snaffle Kallis or Boucher with SA tottering in the last Test. Adding to those series we drew in SL, beat WI in WI and NZ in NZ. Plus we beat all-comers at home. That means other than losing a close series to Aus away we won or drew everything home or away. That's a prettu decent record IMO. Just because we struggled in the last away series doesn't mean we were always poor away the last 10 years or so. In fact Eng are luckier to be ranked no. 1 as they lost to India/Pak and managed to draw against SL. This record is poorer in alien conditions as compared to India's.

We have undone all our good work. We have to accept it. Even WI managed a draw in India and OZ . We have to restart again. There is no point thinking about past.

[Ultimate_Game]

We have undone all our good work. We have to accept it. Even WI managed a draw in India and OZ . We have to restart again. There is no point thinking about past.

That's true. This is what hurts the folks who have followed India since 90s :(( All the good work done under Ganguly and later under Kumble/Dravid/Dhoni is gone down the drain. But still we need to ensure that we don't fall into the same trap. Sure we sucked balls the last year going 0-8 but it doesn't mean we were always like that throughout 2000s and didn't deserve the top ranking. That would be disingenuous to say the least and would play into Aussie/English propaganda. We need to work on our shortcomings to ensure we never witness such a debacle ever again but that shouldn't stop us from taking pride in our earlier accomplishments, i.e. ranked no. 1 in Tests and winning the World Cup.

[Sehwag1830]

That's true. This is what hurts the folks who have followed India since 90s :(( All the good work done under Ganguly and later under Kumble/Dravid/Dhoni is gone down the drain. But still we need to ensure that we don't fall into the same trap. Sure we sucked balls the last year going 0-8 but it doesn't mean we were always like that throughout 2000s and didn't deserve the top ranking. That would be disingenuous to say the least and would play into Aussie/English propaganda. We need to work on our shortcomings to ensure we never witness such a debacle ever again but that shouldn't stop us from taking pride in our earlier accomplishments, i.e. ranked no. 1 in Tests and winning the World Cup.

Who said we didn't deserve no.1 ranking ? The same Chappell had 8 Indians in his 11 for World XI in 2010. Yes 8 out of 11. But we have to accept that we have undone all our good work. For godsake FTB Lankans outplayed us in Eng and OZ. Sorry please don't bring the memories of last year.

[Ultimate_Game]

Who said we didn't deserve no.1 ranking ? The same Chappell had 8 Indians in his 11 for World XI in 2010. Yes 8 out of 11. But we have to accept that we have undone all our good work. For godsake FTB Lankans outplayed us in Eng and OZ. Sorry please don't bring the memories of last year.

Yes we have, and yes Lankans were better than us in Eng & Aus. That's why we need to make some tough calls and ensure we build the team for the next away series 2 years from now. But I do have problems with likes of Chappell, Tony Greig, Vaughan and the likes who are re-writing history after the 0-8 fiasco. Sure we were pathetic but it doesn't mean we didn't play well away before that. There's a difference between criticizing the team for poor performance and apologizing for team's good performances in the past.

[Sehwag1830]

Yes we have, and yes Lankans were better than us in Eng & Aus. That's why we need to make some tough calls and ensure we build the team for the next away series 2 years from now. But I do have problems with likes of Chappell, Tony Greig, Vaughan and the likes who are re-writing history after the 0-8 fiasco. Sure we were pathetic but it doesn't mean we didn't play well away before that. There's a difference between criticizing the team for poor performance and apologizing for team's good performances in the past.

Then why do you take them too seriously ? I mean we should ignore them and worry about our team performance. Whether they like it or not Test no.1 ranking is temporary but WC champion 2011 is permanent.

[Ultimate_Game]

Then why do you take them too seriously ? I mean we should ignore them and worry about our team performance. Whether they like it or not Test no.1 ranking is temporary but WC champion 2011 is permanent.

Yes we should worry about our team's performance but at the same time I am not going to agree with whatever shyt they come up with. Criticizing the team is one thing but inventing lies like the "team was built for home and traveled as well as seafood to tropics" is a lie pure and simple and am pointing it out.

[Sehwag1830]

Yes we should worry about our team's performance but at the same time I am not going to agree with whatever shyt they come up with. Criticizing the team is one thing but inventing lies like the "team was built for home and traveled as well as seafood to tropics" is a lie pure and simple and am pointing it out.

Fine. I don't take Chappell seriously. You also don't take him seriously problem solved.

[vamos_rafa]

Then why do you take them too seriously ? I mean we should ignore them and worry about our team performance. Whether they like it or not Test no.1 ranking is temporary but WC champion 2011 is permanent.

I remember some post where someone mentioned that the pundits these days write only with the recent past in mind. We did not lose at almost any place during our pursuit to #1 and then in the eventual 22 months. Now, how on earth is a 22 month span short? We were never like the WI of 8's or Oz of 90's.

[Crookbond]

totally disagree with the bold part and I guess it shows that the author is either ignorant or biased. India toured Aus (2007), Eng (2008) and SA (2010) before reaching the top and India's results were as follows... 1. Aus (2007) - Lost a tightly contested series 1-2 where the difference maker was that Sudney test. 2. Eng (2008) - India beat Eng 3. SA (2010) - India drew the series and could very well have won the series had India managed to snaffle Kallis or Boucher with SA tottering in the last Test. Adding to those series we drew in SL, beat WI in WI and NZ in NZ. Plus we beat all-comers at home. That means other than losing a close series to Aus away we won or drew everything home or away. That's a prettu decent record IMO. Just because we struggled in the last away series doesn't mean we were always poor away the last 10 years or so. In fact Eng are luckier to be ranked no. 1 as they lost to India/Pak and managed to draw against SL. This record is poorer in alien conditions as compared to India's.

UG, I don't think Ian is denying these wins India had from away. I think he's more on the lines - "India's team is less equipped to win away than home" which I guess is kind of true. I think he's rather crediting the fact that we were winning despite a strong bowling attack.

[Ultimate_Game]

UG' date=' I don't think Ian is denying these wins India had from away. I think he's more on the lines - "India's team is less equipped to win away than home" which I guess is kind of true. I think he's rather crediting the fact that we were winning despite a strong bowling attack.[/quote'] He did take a shot at India's away record by mentioning India traveled as well as seafood to tropics. If that isn't a shot at India's away record I don't know what is. As for India being equipped to win at home every team's the same. It stands to reason that a team will bet better at home since the players are used to the home conditions. Tell me which other teams are equipped to win away? Aus don't have a spinner and has been found out in India going 0-4 in the last 6 matches in India. Eng can't play spin at all. SA can't even win at home forget about winning everywhere. Chappell mentioned how Eng was equipped to win away coz they beat Aus totally ignoring the fact that Eng/Aus/SA are similar in nature and you need similar skills to succeed in such places. It's like us saying we are equipped well to play away coz we can compete in Pak/B'desh/SL. Away for Aus/SA/Eng is the subcontinent just like for sub-continental teams the away matches are generally meant to be in Eng/Aus/SA.

[Crookbond]

He did take a shot at India's away record by mentioning India traveled as well as seafood to tropics. If that isn't a shot at India's away record I don't know what is. As for India being equipped to win at home every team's the same. It stands to reason that a team will bet better at home since the players are used to the home conditions. Tell me which other teams are equipped to win away? Aus don't have a spinner and has been found out in India going 0-4 in the last 6 matches in India. Eng can't play spin at all. SA can't even win at home forget about winning everywhere. Chappell mentioned how Eng was equipped to win away coz they beat Aus totally ignoring the fact that Eng/Aus/SA are similar in nature and you need similar skills to succeed in such places. It's like us saying we are equipped well to play away coz we can compete in Pak/B'desh/SL. Away for Aus/SA/Eng is the subcontinent just like for sub-continental teams the away matches are generally meant to be in Eng/Aus/SA.

UG, Not just India he took a potshot at every team including Australia! I think he means England have a slightly better chance than other teams due to a good bowling attack. Remember he also mentions that England's batting line up is fragile. All over I think he's given an ok view of the current competitiveness and we aren't going to see a runaway no.1 side in the near future. Personally, I wouldn't dig deeper.

[ravishingravi]

Forget about the post no.1 Syndrome. But to my memory even during 90 s where India were prominent home bullies, did we have a worse cricketing season than this one.

[Ultimate_Game]

Forget about the post no.1 Syndrome. But to my memory even during 90 s where India were prominent home bullies' date=' did we have a worse cricketing season than this one.[/quote'] This season (since the World Cup last year) has been one of the the worst cricketing year, and possibly the worst ever. Even in 90s we didn't endure such a year and in 90s we were home bullies. This last year has been so bad that it has undone the good we had done since Ganguly became the captain. Now suddenly everyone is going on as if those years never happened. And the sad part is there has been no repercussions after such a huge debacle. Forget repercussions there hasn't even been a review of what went wrong :(( As per Srinivasan & Shukla we did beat WI and blanked Eng at home in odis and will beat Aus at home so nothing to worry :facepalm: As for Srikkanth we recently won the WC and these things happen so nobody should be dropped :mad: