So who is number 1 right now? (Feb 2010)

[Pratters]

SA have lost 5/10 tests, won just 3 and havent won a test series for more than a year so no way are they the second best team in the world ON PAPER

ON PAPER, Oz look the best but that is irrelevant

India are deservedly ranked no. 1 based on performances and until they are beaten, they should stay there IMO

 

[social]

With this batting lineup and bolstered by Dravid, I cannot see Australian pacers having enough firepower to hold them even in Australian pitches. The best bet will be to make NZ 2002 type of pitches but with the current Australian batting lineup that would be a lottery as well. Anyway all these are speculation. Who knows how it will turn out in the next 2 years when India tour Australia?

Dravid had his jaw broken by a club standard medium pacer (sad, but that's the truth)

 

[Richard]

2007?

Are you serious?

Eng had a largely 3rd string bowling attack on the park and India still needed the help of the weather to win

That wasnt a win, it was a robbery!

England's third-string bowling attack was arguably an improvement on what would've been their first-string - Sidebottom, Anderson and Tremlett were all an improvement on the likes of Harmison and Plunkett.

India may have been lucky to escape in the First Test (not really due to rain as without the conditions that also brought rain the conditions that helped the England swing bowlers so much wouldn't have been anywhere near so prevalent) but they then utterly dominated the Second and Third - in classical English conditions.

India were worthy winners that series. Yes, the presence of Hoggard in the England attack could've made a difference, and had Bucknor given Sreesanth out as he should've and England thus won the First Test the entire next two could, just possibly, have gone differently. But they were worthy winners nonetheless; on the other hand, their victories in New Zealand and West Indies recently owed a fair bit to the fact that the home side did not prepare pitches to suit themselves.

 

[Cevno]

There's a lot of problems with that approach. For example, the team that Australia lost to in England was significantly better than the team South Africa beat the summer before, and that team was in turn better than the team that lost to India in 2007. On the other hand, the Australian side that beat India at home was much better than that which lost to South Africa the year after. How are you going to decipher all of that?

On top of that, the approach neglects two key factors. Firstly, fitness. Players that can play every game are better than players who get injured a lot. There's no two ways about it. Secondly, DEPTHHH. Australia can bring in Ben Hilfenhaus and Doug Bollinger when Stuart Clark and Brett Lee break down. When Zaheer breaks down India have to spin the wheel of mediocrity (copyright SS) to find a replacement. That's something Australia have over India, and by factoring in notable absences, you're unfairly discounting it.

But if you trun it arround India's 4th/5th choice spinners would make both the Australia and South african teams.
And this will definately hurt both of those teams in the future.

 

[Cevno]

Haha yeah, you've touched on some of the points I was just making.

It is just a bit of an oddity. But South Africa aren't a bad side at home. I mean, everyone knows they can beat Australia and England at home, but are India capable of going to Australia and winning? Erm, we're not entirely sure. They never have.

I'm fully aware that this is all a bit airy and has no real substance. It's more of a feeling that South Africa can beat anyone anywhere, whereas India... they might be able to. On results they're remarkably close, South Africa being a bit better in results between the three and India being slightly better in results against other sides (England, notably). This vague concept is all I can find to split them.

Without Bucknor (like last two times,specially at the scg) .YES.

And certainly with having more time to acclimatise with the conditions,unlike last time before the MCG test.

And as for south africa,i think India have a better chance of winning in Aus ,then Sa beating Aus in SA.

When SA defeated Aus at home,i predicted that time only that AUS would extract revenge in SA.

Btw,it's waht they did that matters and not what they could.

 

[Richard]

The rest of your post somewhat contradicts the last line.

What could have happened in a series with fairer outcomes is every bit as important as what the actual scoreline was. If not more so, in fact.

What matters in a series is who played the better cricket, not who won, AFAIC. There is no way 2-1 to Australia in 2007/08 was a fair result or an accurate reflection of the cricket played in the series, and nor should anyone say that "Australia won 2-1 so that's all that matters".

 

[Richard]

But if you trun it arround India's 4th/5th choice spinners would make both the Australia and South african teams.
And this will definately hurt both of those teams in the future.

Only in spin-friendly conditions. And these are in the minority.

Under far more circumstances than not, seam is far more important than spin.

 

[Cevno]

The rest of your post somewhat contradicts the last line.

What could have happened in a series with fairer outcomes is every bit as important as what the actual scoreline was. If not more so, in fact.

What matters in a series is who played the better cricket, not who won, AFAIC. There is no way 2-1 to Australia in 2007/08 was a fair result or an accurate reflection of the cricket played in the series, and nor should anyone say that "Australia won 2-1 so that's all that matters".

What was i was trying to counter was the argument that India cannot beat AUS in AUS based on that series.While on the other hand ,SA can beat England in SA and AUS .

When in fact India were a lot more closer to beating australia in the last 2 series,and did not due to external factors(bucknor and others) ,then SA beating AUS IN SA or the recent england-SA series.

To count SA as superior on that basis is false,thus the last line.

 

[Cevno]

Only in spin-friendly conditions. And these are in the minority.

Under far more circumstances than not, seam is far more important than spin.

Wasn't graeme swann recently the highest wickettaker in the recent series in South africa and Joint man of the series?

His difference with harris was the difference between a SA win and a series draw.And he himself is not the bestest of bowlers in the world.

 

[Richard]

Nah, the difference was South Africa's inability to take 1 wicket on not 1, but 2, occasions.

Well, that was the biggest difference anyway - in cricket, the nature is that you can pinpoint absolutely any delivery and say if it'd gone differently then a whole series or career could've gone differently. And sometimes you'd be right, too.

 

[Cevno]

But still it shows the importance of spin in SA conditions too.

In england also spinners can play a big role.Certainly in AUS.

So what does that leave us?

 

[Cevno]

Btw,2011 will be crucial for India.

They are slated to tour south africa ,West indies,England and Australia all the next year.

This year India only have newzealand coming to India for tests.The rest are on-days or t20 series.

Though i can see the board squeezing in a test series between july and and october this year.
Either India can play Srilanka away in a test series in august/september ,though the weather may not permit after the tri-series involving newzealand.Or even Australia could be asked to play a few tests in India in september before their ODI series in India(7 match), Though i am not sure they will agree unless the ODi series is cancelled or shortened.
Antoher option could be to call up the west indies in august\Septemeber.

 

[Richard]

But still it shows the importance of spin in SA conditions too.

In england also spinners can play a big role.Certainly in AUS.

So what does that leave us?

Fingerspinners only exceptionally rarely play an important role in any of Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand, Pakistan or West Indies.

IOW, that leaves us India and Sri Lanka.

 

[Burgey]

Btw,2011 will be crucial for India.

They are slated to tour south africa ,West indies,England and Australia all the next year.

This year India only have newzealand coming to India for tests.The rest are on-days or t20 series.

Though i can see the board squeezing in a test series between july and and october this year.
Either India can play Srilanka away in a test series in august/september ,though the weather may not permit after the tri-series involving newzealand.Or even Australia could be asked to play a few tests in India in september before their ODI series in India(7 match), Though i am not sure they will agree unless the ODi series is cancelled or shortened.
Antoher option could be to call up the west indies in august\Septemeber.

Assuming Australia go anywhere near India this year, that is. Not sure if they can alter the future tours programme like that, but I'd be happy if they did if it means more tests

 

[irfan]

Does anyone think a World Championship of Test Cricket (if introduced) would help assist in determine the number one team, or could it further complicate matters ?

 

[Richard]

Any finite term might help with simplifying the "who's number-one" thing because it'd basically emphasise the fact that "number-one" was only something earned at the end rather than constantly. And that it would only be earned for a brief time, until the next championship started.

The trouble with that - and the reason I've always been against said idea - would be that it would devalue historical contests which have always been the backbone of Test cricket, most especially those involving England.

And also no amount of specified terms can control the development of players - players will develop and decline when they will, no amount of "well let's try to keep this team going for the rest of this Championship" will change that.

 

[HMas]

Yet the team has somehow contrived to win all its series since 2008 season ended, except the just concluded series.

vs Aus Home - 2-0
vs Eng Home 1-0
vs NZ Away 1-0
vs SL Home 2-0
vs Ban away 2-0
vs SA Home 1-1

That is 9 wins against 1 loss which is incredible. Nobody is claiming India's bowling attack is top drawer, but with a thinking captain and 2 world class bowlers, it is not doing a terrible job either. Sometimes it is this we want, unfancied attack but potent to rip through any batting attack. A bit of complacency in the opposition lineup doesnt hurt!

India have lost their last away series in SA,Aus,SL & Pak......India is most undeserving team to become # 1.

 

[Sanz]

Pakistan is the most deserving team for no. 1.

 

[R_D]

Afghanistan imho...

not talking about Associate number 1 here tbh

 

[R_D]

When was the last time South Africa actually won a test series.... away or home?

India number 1 by a small margin for me as well.