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

[Faisal1985]

Sad the way Pakistan is being treated at the moment...

But i hope for better days..........

 

[Sanz]

love how every thread has to have an indian-pakistani spice thrown in to it and mr sanz is always there.

 

[Debris]

My scorecard says you have to beat the number 1 country in their country to become number 1. SA did it to Australia but Australia returned the favour so it is Australia until they lose at home again.

 

[Richard]

So what happens if all of the stronger teams are invincible at home?

Yes - yet again it just emphasises the absurdity of the idea that there always has to be a number-one.

 

[Cevno]

My scorecard says you have to beat the number 1 country in their country to become number 1. SA did it to Australia but Australia returned the favour so it is Australia until they lose at home again.

So both are still not no 1. since they have not beaten India at home,who currently sit at no 1.

 

[Debris]

So both are still not no 1. since they have not beaten India at home,who currently sit at no 1.

No, India were never number 1 as they have yet to beat Australia in Australia. Did not get a crack at SA before Australia took it back but them's the breaks.

 

[Debris]

So what happens if all of the stronger teams are invincible at home?

Yes - yet again it just emphasises the absurdity of the idea that there always has to be a number-one.

Well technically one of them will still be number 1 but I agree that you often don't have a clear number 1 (as now). Might be a long time before we see the absolute dominance of the past three decades. Two sides with freakish amounts of talent.

 

[Richard]

Only two of the past three-and-a-bit decades have seen a side purveying utter dominance - West Indies 1976-1986, and Australia 1996/97-2006/07. For the decade in between that there was again no clear number-one for most of the time and certainly no dominant force; and the same has applied again the last 2-3 years.

Long may it continue TBH.

 

[Debris]

Only two of the past three-and-a-bit decades have seen a side purveying utter dominance - West Indies 1976-1986, and Australia 1996/97-2006/07. For the decade in between that there was again no clear number-one for most of the time and certainly no dominant force; and the same has applied again the last 2-3 years.

Long may it continue TBH.

Bah, stop spoiling my excellent arguments with your nit-picking facts. I will concede that West Indies were tailing off and Austalia still on the rise in that middle period.

 

[AaronK]

No surprises there.. most indian members voted for india lol

but I voted for Aus..I think they still have the potential to beat anytime.. anywhere around the world..

 

[jeevan]

My scorecard says you have to beat the number 1 country in their country to become number 1. SA did it to Australia but Australia returned the favour so it is Australia until they lose at home again.

Cool, wish you luck in starting your own international cricketing organization and applying your scorecard. We're OK with the one we have, thx. (Not perfect, but livable).

It isn't going to be that easy for you to do this, but them's the breaks.

 

[AaronK]

^ why u sound effended by his answer mate.. everyone has thier opinion..

I voted for Aus as well.. believe me dude.. Aus is my least favorite team to win.. but they win because they are better cricketers..they have a better system and their system produce better cricketers..

lets leave this fact aside that india has the strongest bating line up right now..both sehwag and Gambir are my favorite cricketers (Sachin is a living legend that wil my all time best XI in any formate of the game).. they are the best openers right now.. but the fragile Indian bowling is the only reason that forced me to vote for Aus... face it.. test matches are win by bowlers.. not batsman..I don't think the indian bowling line up is good enough to take 20 wickets in any part of the world..

 

[Jono]

I agree India's bowling isn't particularly crash hot and encouraging at the minute... on paper.

But they still keep winning man.

 

[jeevan]

^ why u sound effended by his answer mate.. everyone has thier opinion..

I voted for Aus as well.. believe me dude.. Aus is my least favorite team to win.. but they win because they are better cricketers..they have a better system and their system produce better cricketers..

lets leave this fact aside that india has the strongest bating line up right now..both sehwag and Gambir are my favorite cricketers (Sachin is a living legend that wil my all time best XI in any formate of the game).. they are the best openers right now.. but the fragile Indian bowling is the only reason that forced me to vote for Aus... face it.. test matches are win by bowlers.. not batsman..I don't think the indian bowling line up is good enough to take 20 wickets in any part of the world..

Not really offended, just thought his/her criterion fairly arbitrary, on top of which his/her tone was fairly presumptuous. Of course s/he's entitled to his opinion, just as much as any one else.

Of course, there isn't a dominant team atm which will lead to a divergence on who any one person thinks might be the first among equals. But if you're going to declare one of them #1 on some obviously flawed approach, then well, (in my opinion) it will require the creation of a new cricketing system because this one has already agreed to a ranking system that is far more nuanced than what this person is suggesting (and the situation is also far more nuanced as well).

If, for e.g. as Richard is suggesting - one says that the present situation is too nuanced to capture in a single table of numbers - I wouldn't be dismissing that thought, as I do not live in a black & white world.

 

[jeevan]

I agree India's bowling isn't particularly crash hot and encouraging at the minute... on paper.

But they still keep winning man.

Looking back over the last 3-4 years (i.e. for the purposes of the present ranking) they've certainly won tests all over. But looking forward - Kumble's are somewhat hard shoes to fill. In Kumble's absence - they've won tests vs several teams at home but only played BD,NZ away.(Ironic that they may miss him abroad!)

To be more certain of winning abroad, one of Ishant / Sree has to sort themselves out (not something to count on) or someone else has to emerge (also not something to count on).

 

[Richard]

I agree India's bowling isn't particularly crash hot and encouraging at the minute... on paper.

But they still keep winning man.

India's spin bowling is definately damn good, even if Mishra doesn't seem to be doing as well as might be hoped recently. They should still easily be able to win plenty of Tests on turning decks. It's non-turners (and those which aren't rank seamers) that should see them merely constitute a lot of draws.

 

[Richard]

If, for e.g. as Richard is suggesting - one says that the present situation is too nuanced to capture in a single table of numbers - I wouldn't be dismissing that thought, as I do not live in a black & white world.

TBH, I'm suggesting that Test cricket in general is too nuanced to be captured in a single table of numbers. I'm not a fan of Test ranking systems really.

As I say, teams are ever-changing things and sometimes a result from 6 months ago can be near-irrelevant, never mind one from 3-4 years ago.

 

[Debris]

Cool, wish you luck in starting your own international cricketing organization and applying your scorecard. We're OK with the one we have, thx. (Not perfect, but livable).

It isn't going to be that easy for you to do this, but them's the breaks.

Well, what was the point of this thread if you are going to take that attitude. Was it not to argue alternatives to the current rankings system which really make not a lot of sense. I thought a boxing analogy of "to become the champ you have to knock out the champ" was as good a theory as any. Certainly more understandable than the current mess. I assume you are trying to speak for the current cricket establishment.

 

[Cruxdude]

India's spin bowling is definately damn good, even if Mishra doesn't seem to be doing as well as might be hoped recently. They should still easily be able to win plenty of Tests on turning decks. It's non-turners (and those which aren't rank seamers) that should see them merely constitute a lot of draws.

True. On flat tracks this will be a big impediment to the team. It does help to have guys ike Steyn or a Mitchell Johnson on those pitches. But outside India I think this pace attack should do decently well or atleast the difference between opposition pacers and ours won't be huge. Who knows maybe helpful tracks abroad can spark a revival in Ishant. This is one reason I am quietly confident of India doing well in SA this time. Hope it goes well.

 

[jeevan]

Well, what was the point of this thread if you are going to take that attitude. Was it not to argue alternatives to the current rankings system which really make not a lot of sense. I thought a boxing analogy of "to become the champ you have to knock out the champ" was as good a theory as any. Certainly more understandable than the current mess. I assume you are trying to speak for the current cricket establishment.

To come up with deeper insights and discussions leading to a better system or better understanding of the situation, I would think.

Best approach to use in any discussions is to develop a carefully considered argument and present it with a certain degree of (can't think of a better word) humility. Might get away with arrogance if your point is clear and compelling. But if you come with a mediocre argument and an attitude....

(And boxing is very very far away from being a sport to emulate, imho).

BTW like every one else, I speak for myself. Would be presumptive in the extreme to speak for the establishment, plus don't agree with them all the time.