How did India become the No. 1 Test Side?

[TheJediBrah]

You can only play what’s put on front of you. Inod a has benefited from playing at home the past 18 months and has dominated there. In an era like the current one where most sides bar SA struggle away from home, it’s not that surprising those performances put them to number one.

Yeah there's no special secret. India were just given a fixture over the last 2 years where they were virtually guaranteed to end up no.1, unless they performed truly terribly

Yes.I think it takes into account your last 4/5 years with last 2/3 years as full points and the previous as half-points.....

I don't think that India are undeserved #1. They have beaten everybody in the subcontinent, and their scheduling has resulted in and 'easy' #1 place. Whereas all the other teams (SA, Aus, Eng) vying for that spot have had some inconsistent results home and away. They will probably drop a couple of spots in the next year, but that will also depend on how the SA/Aus series goes. If SA can win here in SA against Aus and beat SL in SL have a good shot of going top. even with the recent loss to Eng. If Aus beat SA and destroy India can see them going top. Eng i`m unsure about.

They deserve it just as much as anyone

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Oz also beat RSA away, NZ away and lost 3-2 to Eng away, which you left out.

They cop a lot of **** for their away form, but were probably the toss in Bangalore away from winning that entire tour away in India in my opion.

They cop **** for 3-0 vs Sri Lanka, fact of the matter is, Sri Lanka won all 3 tosses of that series. A touring side hasn't won batting second in Sri Lanka since India did it almost 8 years ago. Even when RSA won there (and were lauded for there performance there 4 years ago with Steyn and co), they won 2 of the 3 tosses.


Oz are a fair shot to beat RSA as well in March. Warner loves RSA and Smith is in the form of his life, there's not much between the bowling units at all.

While i will grant you only losing 3-2 in England and winning in SAbut the losses in SL were about as inept a performance from a team seen in my lifetime (probably only beaten by a few England ****fests) Using the tosses as an excuse in that series simply isn't accurate. They looked like a pub team.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Yes.I think it takes into account your last 4/5 years with last 2/3 years as full points and the previous as half-points.....

I don't think that India are undeserved #1. They have beaten everybody in the subcontinent, and their scheduling has resulted in and 'easy' #1 place. Whereas all the other teams (SA, Aus, Eng) vying for that spot have had some inconsistent results home and away. They will probably drop a couple of spots in the next year, but that will also depend on how the SA/Aus series goes. If SA can win here in SA against Aus and beat SL in SL have a good shot of going top. even with the recent loss to Eng. If Aus beat SA and destroy India can see them going top. Eng i`m unsure about.

Re England we will be more competitive in a late summer NZ with more sporty pitches and it's highly conceivable we win all our home tests this summer. (Take one off for weather, and one off for us ****ting the bed randomly as per usual)

 

[Shri]

SA truly is a freakish side in the bowling department atm. Even if we lose in england, I don't think its going to be this bad like in SA.

 

[SeamUp]

Was pretty chuffed with SA's victory in Sri Lanka in 2014 considering how Australia struggled there.

Just looking back but England haven't toured there since 2011/12 - is that right ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

SA truly is a freakish side in the bowling department atm. Even if we lose in england, I don't think its going to be this bad like in SA.

This hasn't even been bad. India have been more competitive than most would have expected.

 

[oblongballs]

Really, this is a question I have been pondering over for quite a while now.

India have won 3 test matches outside sub-continent and lost 17 since 2011 England tour (out of the three, two came against W.I in 2016), In last 7 years they played 23 tests in England, Australia, N.Z and S.A combined and won only 1, lost 17. Guess winning havoc at home and in Sri Lanka is good enough to make you Number 1 test side in the world now-a-days...

Does it indicate a general declination in the overall performance of all sides? We all know about the great Australian side but even the earlier Indian generation that became no. 1 won a lot of test matches outside sub-continent. From 2002 to 2010 they won 13 test matches outside sub-continent.

Do they give you more points if you are winning overseas or do they not? Or is it that nobody's winning away from home these days? India being the strongest at home grabbing all the points?

I often wonder this too. I mean, the way the rankings are supposed to work, is that a team winning over a lower ranked team, get less points when compared to beating a higher ranked side. India's test wins have all been over lower ranked sides. On top of that, they are supposed to lose more points when losing to lower ranked sides. Anyway, that's what I seem to remember, but it takes a hell of a lot of losses for India to lose their top 1 or 2 spots, and then they jump back up faster than one can blink.

A few years ago, they were ranked 6th in tests after going years without a win...they jumped back to one in no time. The way the point system is built, that should not have happened.

Hence, forget official rankings. Since the end of Smith era SA, there hasnt been a genuine team you can point to and call number one, or even close to it. If this Aus side wins in SA and then the UAE, we can finally crown a geunine number one.

 

[GotSpin]

That 3-0 whitewash in Sri Lanka is the low point of Australian cricket in my lifetime. There was nothing to salvage from that series really.

Losing to South Africa at home was far more forgivable than that Sri Lanka series.

Yeah that was just so so bad

 

[Gob]

Was pretty chuffed with SA's victory in Sri Lanka in 2014 considering how Australia struggled there.

Just looking back but England haven't toured there since 2011/12 - is that right ?

Wasn't there a series just after the ashes 2015 won by England

 

[OverratedSanity]

The thing people miss about India's schedule, is that yes, the long home season helps us get to number 1 by playing a lot at home. But bookeding the home season, the team is constantly overseas on brutal back to back tours. Like in 2013/14, India toured SA, NZ, England and Australia basically one after the other. It's going to be the same this year.

It's two sides, you get a long home season followed by non-stop touring, which is tough not just on the rankings which will plummet, but on the players' form. If you hit a bad patch in the middle of some of these away tours it's difficult to recover.

 

[Slifer]

I often wonder this too. I mean, the way the rankings are supposed to work, is that a team winning over a lower ranked team, get less points when compared to beating a higher ranked side. India's test wins have all been over lower ranked sides. On top of that, they are supposed to lose more points when losing to lower ranked sides. Anyway, that's what I seem to remember, but it takes a hell of a lot of losses for India to lose their top 1 or 2 spots, and then they jump back up faster than one can blink.

A few years ago, they were ranked 6th in tests after going years without a win...they jumped back to one in no time. The way the point system is built, that should not have happened.

Hence, forget official rankings. Since the end of Smith era SA, there hasnt been a genuine team you can point to and call number one, or even close to it. If this Aus side wins in SA and then the UAE, we can finally crown a geunine number one.

Genuine number one?? No. India are the genuine number one team atm. Oz winning in RSA is business as usual afaic. Winning UAE on the other hand will help their case. For Oz to be genuine number one they'll have to absolutely smash RSA away, win in UAE, smash India at home. And in the future win in England and redeem themselves in SL, Bangladesh and India. I doubt they'll be touring ban/ SL anytime soon.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

They became number 1 by winning more matches than the rest and losing fewer. End of discussion.

 

[Spark]

They became number 1 by winning more matches than the rest and losing fewer. End of discussion.

I debated with myself about making basically this post a few times when I opened this thread; I'm kind of glad someone made it.

"Why is ____ #1" is in my experience one of the least interesting topics of discussion that periodically comes up in CC. Mostly because it always carries a very obvious unspoken/spoken assumption that ____ should not, actually, be #1, but of course no convincing case for why a different team should be rated higher is ever given.

 

[stephen]

Yeah India have the best record at the moment, particularly over the last two years. The real question is about whether they're good enough to maintain it on the away leg of the schedule.

 

[Furball]

That 3-0 whitewash in Sri Lanka is the low point of Australian cricket in my lifetime. There was nothing to salvage from that series really.

Losing to South Africa at home was far more forgivable than that Sri Lanka series.

Starc coming of age as a Test bowler.

 

[Victor Ian]

India is the title holder, but, to use the boxing term, not undisputed. Few teams become undisputed number one. To do that you need to basically win all your home games and most of your away games. Since Australia stopped being undisputed champion, not long after the retirement of all the greats, this number 1 has been a merry go round. No one can hold it for too long. Maybe South Africa can get their **** together. Perhaps Australia will. Pakistan will be due to hold it for a few weeks out of nowhere in typical WTF style and England will have a spell where they push for a claim. Then India will be due to claim it again and resurrect this thread.

I wonder what has been the longest stretch of there being no clear undisputed number 1?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Wasn't there a series just after the ashes 2015 won by England

No, 2012 was the last one where England drew 1-1 thanks to KP in the second test.

I often wonder this too. I mean, the way the rankings are supposed to work, is that a team winning over a lower ranked team, get less points when compared to beating a higher ranked side. India's test wins have all been over lower ranked sides. On top of that, they are supposed to lose more points when losing to lower ranked sides. Anyway, that's what I seem to remember, but it takes a hell of a lot of losses for India to lose their top 1 or 2 spots, and then they jump back up faster than one can blink.

A few years ago, they were ranked 6th in tests after going years without a win...they jumped back to one in no time. The way the point system is built, that should not have happened.

It's not no time lol. I know every year it feels like the year went by faster and we're already almost done with January 2018 but India earned their way at the top from number 6/7 at the start of 2015 by not losing a series in 2 years. When India played South Africa in October 2015, India were ranked 6/7 and South Africa were ranked number 1. So when India win that series 3-0, they earn a massive number of points.

 

[weldone]

I debated with myself about making basically this post a few times when I opened this thread; I'm kind of glad someone made it.

"Why is ____ #1" is in my experience one of the least interesting topics of discussion that periodically comes up in CC. Mostly because it always carries a very obvious unspoken/spoken assumption that ____ should not, actually, be #1, but of course no convincing case for why a different team should be rated higher is ever given.

Basically our minds are still obsessed with WI of the 80s and Australia of the 00s - number 1s who had sheer dominance. So, we don't accept any other no. 1 who doesn't have that kind of dominance.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'm not opposed to India being number one I believe South Africa are more worthy. But the general point is there is no outright dominant team.

 

[Furball]

I'm not opposed to India being number one I believe South Africa are more worthy. But the general point is there is no outright dominant team.

No they aren't.