Please do it.Me IMO.
Yes, that is while facing an Australian team struggling to re define its identity post the warne, mgrath era. Also facing a srilankan team with a struggling murali and mendis. A South African squad which has been incredibly inconsistent. Bangladesh hardly counts.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!
Why ?What's your real name and where are you from, Sir Alex, if you don't mind me asking?
India start as favourites - Graeme Smith | Cricket News | India v South Africa 2009/10 | Cricinfo.comYes, that is while facing an Australian team struggling to re define its identity post the warne, mgrath era. Also facing a srilankan team with a struggling murali and mendis. A South African squad which has been incredibly inconsistent. Bangladesh hardly counts.
India have won most consistently recently and do deserve their no 1 ranking, but there is no one who can out and out say they are clearly the no 1 team in the world. Going into any test series against Australia or South Africa, you wouldnt label them favorites, even at home, and that says a heck of a lot.Indian bowling some serious flaws, apart from Zaheer Khan, India do not have another class bowler, Harbajhan is a good bowler and I quite like him but I wouldnt put him up there with Kumble. They need to address this bowling problem and somehow find a couple of more strike pace or spinning options.
I cannot recall a phase where one test side was the no 1 team in the world for an extended period of time that didnt have menacing intimidating strike bowlers.
It is quite sad actually because their batting line up seems very balanced and one which can adapt and perform in all conditions.
I think at the end of the day, you have to consider the fact that Australia and South Africa over the past 2 years have been trying to find their feet while India has consistently building up this squad for the past 5 years or more and have been playing upto their potential.
Yes, but human initiative involves more than just mathematical models.The mathematical model is a product of the human initiative.
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?SA came in with 100% resources. India managed to hold on with just 70% resouces or even less, without the spin dens. Definitely India for me. They may not have done 100% for meriting that. But SA did not either.
Haha yeah, you've touched on some of the points I was just making.Don't necessarily think you're wrong, but India beat England and NZ away. Funnily enough though, how far back do we go? That team that beat England is so different to the current team (that team didn't have Sehwag or Gambhir for starters!)
I think winning away and losing at home doesn't necessarily make a team better, rather just an oddity. It's awesome beating Australia and England away, and drawing with India, but then losing to Australia at home in the return and drawing with England just suggests they're either on-or-off and fairly inconsistent.
SA really should have just beaten England 2-1 or something and cleared it all up. Or England should just have not lost the 4th test and cleared it up as well.
India have lost just 2 series' at home in the last 22 years (1 of which was a smash-and-grab and the other which was one where they were substantially disadvantaged by injuries and infighting). That is incredible. India have been the ultimate challenge at home for a long time now.Right now, out of the three, India are the only ones undefeated at home.
I think that's the biggest point out of this all.Not fair to compare them to the Aussie and WI teams that ruled for a decade.
Yeah I agree South Africa have been pretty stable, but I wouldnt say theyve been as certain about their line up as India. I mean apart from Kallis, and Amla recently, everyones been a bit inconsistent, there are a lot of questions with respects to the other batsmen in the line up. The spin department has also been subject to a lot of questions.Mohammad over the last 2 years how have South Africa tried 'finding their feet'?
Definitely Australia have been in transition, and definitely India have been building up to this moment. But so have South Africa.
Only Ntini (dropped but almost feels like a retirement) and Pollock were their genuine seniors lost. India lost Ganguly and Kumble.
The rest are either players being dropped (e.g. Gibbs) or young players promoted (e.g. Parnell, Morkel, Duminy).
To me, SA and India have been building for this moment for the last 5+ years. They're pretty much at the same spot... just that India are slightly ahead.
Ultimate challenge for other teams maybe, but IMO the toughest opponents at home over the last 20 years or so has easily been OZIndia have lost just 2 series' at home in the last 22 years (1 of which was a smash-and-grab and the other which was one where they were substantially disadvantaged by injuries and infighting). That is incredible. India have been the ultimate challenge at home for a long time now.
On the other hand, they've never been much of a force away. Even since 2001 when they've begun to win away matches consistently for the first time ever, they've still won just 9 serious Tests outside the subcontinent (plus a couple in series' against Sri Lanka which they've lost anyway and a couple in Pakistan which won them a series) - no-one is going to be claiming that the series in Zimbabwe in 2005/06 means a thing. They have won one very notable series victory, in England in 2007, and another couple of credible ones, in West Indies in 2006 and New Zealand in 2008/09, but in both cases they were helped by the home side failing to actually use their home advantage. That was what made their victory in England in 2007 so impressive - it was a series in proper English conditions, and although they were fortunate to escape in the First Test thanks to poor Umpiring, they still out-England-ed England in their exploitation of conditions.
They were denied the last time and were the better team in 2004. They have been better than any other team at touring Australia.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.