Test Team World Rankings

[aussie]

It's good to see people debating so vigorously on the definition of number 1.

Regarding injuries and hence facing teams not at full strength does that mean Australia wins the Ashes in 2005 at 1-0 as McGrath was injured during in the tests the Aussies lost in that series?
Anyway hypotheticals are just that hypotheticals, India are officially number 1 according to the ICC with the rankings being based on performances over the last 2-3 years.

It will be good if this proposed ICC Test championship gets underway, then hopefully the status of number 1 will be more clearly defined.

I have always felt ENG may still have won or a drawn series. Just like IND 2001 where AUS batsmen where exposed technically to spin with AUS full-strenght attack playing. The same say ENGs batsmen exposed AUS batsmen to quality swing bowling in Ashes 05.

So thus even if McGrath was full fit throughout to support Warne, which would have made the series scores low scoring. The lack of consistent enough support from the rest of the attack may have on key occassion enabled ENG to score extra key runs, where as ENG quicks basically had no weak links & gave AUS bats nothing. That may have swung the series ENGs way still.

 

[heathrf1974]

I have always felt ENG may still have won or a drawn series. Just like IND 2001 where AUS batsmen where exposed technically to spin with AUS full-strenght attack playing. The same say ENGs batsmen exposed AUS batsmen to quality swing bowling in Ashes 05.

So thus even if McGrath was full fit throughout to support Warne, which would have made the series scores low scoring. The lack of consistent enough support from the rest of the attack may have on key occassion enabled ENG to score extra key runs, where as ENG quicks basically had no weak links & gave AUS bats nothing. That may have swung the series ENGs way still.

You're probably correct. I was just mentioning this hypothetical to point out the silliness of taking into account injuries when discussing rankings.

 

[aussie]

You're probably correct. I was just mentioning this hypothetical to point out the silliness of taking into account injuries when discussing rankings.

No.

As i already said before. Unless a test team is a legendary one with tremendous proven quality back-up like Windies 76-91 or AUS 95-2006/07 for eg. Then the average team cannot be expected to perform at the best of their ability if they lose key players who are basically the heardbeat of their sides, since the adequate bench-strenght back-up for them is normally not around.

Perfect modern example of this would be S Africa. If they lose Dale Steyn for a test series, that alone cannot reduce the effectiveness ENORMOUSLY.

 

[silentstriker]

Because thats what # 1 (undisputed/unequivocal) means

I love how you are arguing against the English language. Keep on keeping on mate.

I wish you success and you have my solidarity in this great battle of yours.

 

[aussie]

I love how you are arguing against the English language. Keep on keeping on mate.

I wish you success and you have my solidarity in this great battle of yours.

Okay so you are saying it wasn't an undisputed fact or some form of ambiguity surrounded past great teams such as:

- WI 76-91
- WI 63-68
- AUS 95-2006/07
- ENG 51-58

Claims to being the clear # 1.?

 

[Shri]

I love how you are arguing against the English language. Keep on keeping on mate.

I wish you success and you have my solidarity in this great battle of yours.

 

[taipan1]

The bottom line is that the present Indian team will never be viewed as one of the great teams.

Apart from beating a weak NZ team away, about 3 years back, they haven't played outside the sub-continent for years.

 

[Jono]

Okay so you are saying it wasn't an undisputed fact or some form of ambiguity surrounded past great teams such as:

- WI 76-91
- WI 63-68
- AUS 95-2006/07
- ENG 51-58

Claims to being the clear # 1.?

Haha no. He's saying that there is a difference between being the undisputed #1, and just being #1.

An undisputed #1 is someone like Federer back from 2004-2006. He was the best player in the world, without a shadow of a doubt.

However Hewitt was #1 back in 2002. He wasn't miles better than Agassi, Safin, Haas, Henman etc. But he was still #1.

He wasn't an undisputed great like Sampras before him, or Bjorn Borg before that. But he was still the best player in the world at a point when tennis was very even.

The same can be said of test cricket right now.

 

[vcs]

The bottom line is that the present Indian team will never be viewed as one of the great teams.

Apart from beating a weak NZ team away, about 3 years back, they haven't played outside the sub-continent for years.

Have you been time-travelling?

 

[Jono]

The bottom line is that the present Indian team will never be viewed as one of the great teams.

Apart from beating a weak NZ team away, about 3 years back, they haven't played outside the sub-continent for years.

2009 was last year mate.

 

[taipan1]

Have you been time-travelling?

And that means?

 

[Shri]

The bottom line is that the present Indian team will never be viewed as one of the great teams.

Apart from beating a weak NZ team away, about 3 years back, they haven't played outside the sub-continent for years.

Lol fail.

 

[Teja.]

Okay so you are saying it wasn't an undisputed fact or some form of ambiguity surrounded past great teams such as:

- WI 76-91
- WI 63-68
- AUS 95-2006/07
- ENG 51-58

Claims to being the clear # 1.?

What do previous great teams have to do with being the best team atm?

Sigh..

 

[Shri]

And that means?

Back to the future? Time traveling? Ring a bell?

 

[Jono]

What do previous great teams have to do with being the best team atm?

Sigh..

Reckon time to stop the debate. We've made our points about the difference between being #1 and being an undisputed #1, not much more can be said.

End it here I think.

 

[Shri]

Reckon time to stop the debate. We've made our points about the difference between being #1 and being an undisputed #1, not much more can be said.

End it here I think.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Don't give up ****!

 

[taipan1]

So apart from that great victory against NZ what exactly have India done on the road recently?

 

[Teja.]

Reckon time to stop the debate. We've made our points about the difference between being #1 and being an undisputed #1, not much more can be said.

End it here I think.

Only posted so I could post the Larissa Riquleme's busty facepalm tbh.

For some reason, the link didn't work though, posted from a different site now.

 

[vcs]

Beaten England, same as your lot. Also beat them at home, unlike you.

Beat Australia at home.. when was the last time you managed that?

Ah... now I understand why you're so fixated on what India did away from home.

 

[Jono]

So apart from that great victory against NZ what exactly have India done on the road recently?

No one is saying we've done anything on the road other than in NZ (though we did beat England in 2007 too). Why are you stating the same thing we are stating?

I have no problems with someone thinking South Africa are the #1 team. I also have no problems with someone saying India are the #1 team. I don't have a problem if someone says they can't split them either.

I do have a problem with someone saying that there can be no #1 team because neither team is as good as Australia 2000-2005 or the West Indies 80s team.