• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Test Team World Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
GeraintIsMyHero said:
There is nothing lucky about not getting bowled out in the allotted time. Your bowlers weren't good enough to get Graeme Onions out, go have a cry about it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily a whine about luck. As i always say, unless you are legendary team with great bench strenght like Windies 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07. Teams in general cannot be expected to lose key players to injuries who are basically the heart beat of the side & be expected to maintain that high level of performance. SA didn't have the depth to cover for losing Steyn & Kallis the bowler - thats basically why ENG managed to draw that series.

If we look back @ that series:

- In Centurion. ENG deserved that draw. SA selectors made the mistake of persisting with Ntini when he should have been dropped before that series, so they didn't help themselves with that selection. But with Steyn out & Kallis not being able to bowl, their back-ups weren't good enough to do that job.

- In Durban. ENG outplayed SA. But although Steyn came back, he was not bowling at his best. SA didn't help themselves by again making a poor selection is retaining Ntini instead of picking DeWet.

- In Capetown. ENG where lucky to draw that game. SA where on top for most of that game. Since they got their best side on the park now, esepcially in the bowling attack. Losing De Wet to injury on the final day was the difference in that game. Just like how AUS losing Bollinger @ the end of the Mohali test was difference in that test.

- In Jo'Burg. With no injuries hitting the attack & everything going smoothly for SA. SA totally smoked ENG.

So 2-1 to SA, would certainly have been a better reflection of that series.
 
Last edited:
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Jono said:
Not really. You're saying they're not #1. They're saying they are disputed #1.
Click to expand...
They can be no # 1 in cricket except undisputed, which is attainted by proving you can win in all countries home & away, as i've said before & those 3 said in that interview. Unless they win in SA, AUS, ENG, the best thing to call IND the current team is "very consistent".
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Shri let it go. Aussie's seriously not understanding everyone's point. This will go nowhere.
 
Avada Kedavra

Avada Kedavra

Banned
Ind-SA are pretty even though Ind are just in front.Btw,Ind's recent away record against the top 4 isnt bad!

Aus 1-2
SA 1-2
Eng 1-0(win)
SL 1-1(draw)


India haven't been beaten since that 08 series against Lanka.I think that is mighty impressive when you consider that Ind have had a number of key players missing in almost every series.The Mohali test against Aus was the first time in ages that Ind fielded their full strength side(and lost Lax and Gautam in the very next test!)Oh and Dhoni has lost 10 tosses in a row,apparently,which is a record :laugh:
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Jono said:
Shri let it go. Aussie's seriously not understanding everyone's point. This will go nowhere.
Click to expand...
And all of you clearly dont understand how teams attained # 1 status in test history.

This period of India being ranked # 1, is very similar to when they had that "so called" ranking after they won in England & WI 1971. Those where lucky victories due to circumstances. WI team where in transition & rain prevented that 71 tour to ENG from being a draw.

Just like back then that bubble was crashed in later years as they struggle to beat full strenght WI teams in 74/75, 75.76 & no rain interruptions caused them to lose in ENG 74 & also failed to win in AUS.

So clearly right now, if IND fail to win in SA, ENG, WI, AUS in the next year or two. This very solid ENG 2007-NZ 2010 period, will mean nothing.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
They didn't win in India until 2004. I thought you had to win everywhere?
Click to expand...
You have to win everywhere. AUS where clearly the best team in the world long before they won in IND 04. Even if AUS had never won in Inda during the 95-2006/07 period & everywhere else instead. They still where the best team in the world, by a distance. Just that they would have had a big hole in their record compared to past great teams i.e WI 76-91.
 
Last edited:
Contra

Contra

Cricketer Of The Year
aussie said:
You have to win everywhere. AUS where clearly the best team in the world long before they won in IND 04. Even if AUS had never won in Inda during the 95-2006/07 period & everywhere else instead. They still where the best team in the world, by a distance. Just that would have had a big hole in their record compared to past great teams i.e WI 76-91.
Click to expand...
Contradiction much?
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
aussie, can you not consider than India are the current #1 side, just by a much smaller margin than that Australian side were, and with much bigger holes in their record than the great WI sides of the past? But still #1 nonetheless.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Yeah I think India are #1 but they certainly aren't the "undisputed champion" which I think Aussie is alluding too.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, which are two completely different things, as people have explained numerous times now.

Edit : Never posting again ftr. Gunnest palindrome.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Contra said:
Contradiction much?
Click to expand...
Did you not read that unbolded part of the rest of that post you quoted?. SMH

Marcuss said:
aussie, can you not consider than India are the current #1 side, just by a much smaller margin than that Australian side were, and with much bigger holes in their record than the great WI sides of the past? But still #1 nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I dont even consider them that. Since when AUS lost their # 1 ranking at the end of Ashes 06/07 (although the flawed ranking system waited until they lost vs SA 08/09, to take it away from them). Since 2007 both India & South Africa have won 9 out of the 13/14 test series they have played, which makes both of them the most consistent sides in the recent time period.

But given that SA slipped up in India twice & @ home to AUS. While IND have not yet won away to full-strenght AUS, ENG, SA sides. Nobody can be called # 1 ATM.


Athlai said:
Yeah I think India are #1 but they certainly aren't the "undisputed champion" which I think Aussie is alluding too.
Click to expand...
As i've said before. By proving you can win againts all countries consistently which is how the # 1 status in test history has been attained. You by default become undisputed # 1, since the teams versatility in all conditions cannot be questioned.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top