hopefor:
Your system of 3 points for a win etc. would be acceptable if all teams played each other for equal number of Tests over a certain cycle of time.
The maximum number of Tests India gets to play against any nation is 4 while England gets 5 Tests against Aus every 2nd year along with 4 against SA and WI.
Even then, I would like to add negative points for a Test loss.
Even then, there's the factor of relative team strength to be taken care of.
The Aussies of 2007 that whitewashed the English are hardly the Aussies of 2009 or 2011 that lost so badly to them.
So giving the same number of points for the English for defeating the Aus of 2011 as if they had defeated the Aus of 2007 is an outright disgrace.
Similarly, when India defeated England of 2007, they defeated a mid-level team and hence didn't get many points of it.
In fact, when India defeated NZ in 2009 and WI in 2011 (last tour), they have actually lost points.
They should have whitewashed the WI in 2011 to avoid losing points.
That shows how robust the system is. To simply denigrate something just because you cannot understand that is childish behavior. It was created by mathematicians and for your information the ICC have also provided an ICC Predictor Tool that tells you how the rankings may change depending on the result of upcoming series.
So stop whining about the ranking just because India are on top. England haven't stated that beating India is their goal- they have stated that they want to be No.1 and that shows how much they desire it and how much prestige they attach to the ranking.
Once the Test Championship is unveiled in the 2012 or 2013, then the rankings may be similar to the FIFA Football ranking wherein being the World Champion is more prestigious than being No.1 in the rankings.
As for India being called a great team, they do not have to be compared with the WI of the 80s or the Aussies of 2000s since there have been other great teams over the years.
The Invincibles of 1948 didn't dominate for years together- they only won a seminal Ashes series in a remarkable manner.
Yet they are celebrated even now.
The great Aus team of the early 70s was also celebrated but they didn't dominate for decades.
So stop comparing this Indian team to the WI or Aus team even before they haven't played for that long. Nobody is asking you to judge this Indian team- just accept that India are No.1 deservedly.
Some more things I forgot to mention in the last comment.
The Indian batting without Sehwag is truly weaker than with him, but that does not mean Mukund will be a pushover.
India still have legends in Dravid, Tendulkar and Co. and will make merry on pitches they have scored hundreds before.
Let's not forget that India have faced strong sides before- sides like the all-conquering Aussies, SA sides etc. with oodles of talent and fiery bowlers and have come out with their heads held high, and at times as victors too.
So hyping up this English team, which is the one of very few from that nation that is well selected and in form.
But let not facts come in the way of discussing English strengths.
So you defeated an inexperienced SL lineup whose veterans had not played a single game- ODI or Test in England for 5 years and whose rookies had never even set foot on English shores, whose bowlers had never seen English conditions.
And you defeated an Aus side that couldn't even win a Test against India even after having them at 126/8 chasing 215, with that Aus side missing its best bowler as well.
And you defeated a Pak side devoid of Test quality batsmen (like Mo Yo or Younis Khan) and reeking with spot-fixing and other corrupt activities.
And you levelled a series against an SA side carrying excess baggage like Ntini and missing Dale Steyn and without any decent backup bowler.
So is this the achievement of this eminent English team that demands the No.1 ranking as its birthright?
Just because Cook and Trott have been feasting on poor/inexperienced bowling attacks like SL or Aus on flat pitches like Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney, Lords, Cardiff etc.?
Just because you have two decent batsmen and two bowlers in excellent form albeit against poor batsmen?
Against SA this English attack was floored.
So 4 series- against SA, Pak, Aus and SL forms the basis of this push for the World No.1 Test spot!
Hilarious! The Indian side has been slogging on tough pitches everywhere in the world- sparrring against SA in titanic tussles on juicy pitches apart from the many other series where India held the nerve to win or draw.
This England side is a good one no doubt, but definitely this bowling attack is poorer than the ones SA command.
I will confidently say SA will easily win against England if they played a series today and the same will be what India will do.
India will win.
India and SA are the two best sides in the world, in that order and the misconception that England are the pre-eminent side will be washed away at the end of this series.
Quite exactly, i agree with rex .
The ONLY problem with the current ranking system is that its complex.just like d/l method.otherwise its best me think and i almost agree with all its ranking.
Football is a simple game, thus there's simple point rule, whereas cricket is a complex sport and as such simple point rule may be not the solution.
Just like dl method, the current ranking system includes different variables like home,away,strength of opposition,etc.
So i think its unfair criticism,unless you have some better option.
When was the last time india lost a series?
How many series has dhoni lost?
Since last indian series loss,how many series has other team lost,eg how many times australia,indias preceder has lost series?
There is already a plan for the ICC to create a World Championship, presumably for this to be fair the teams will need to play an equal number of games both against the strongest and the weakest.
In fact India and England will be playing a five test series in the near future.
"And you levelled a series against an SA side carrying excess baggage like Ntini and missing Dale Steyn and without any decent backup bowler."
Steyn missed one test in that series, not the one England won.
Morkel played all 4
hoggy:
Steyn missed the first Test and in the 2nd he was clearly still recovering from injury.
Morkel all alone is not anywhere close to being as good as when he bowls in tandem with Steyn.
It's like both bowlers set up the batsmen in the opposite ways- Morkel sets them back with his back-of-a-length rising deliveries and Steyn snares with fullish out-swingers.
Conversely, Steyn forces batsmen to play on the front foot and Morkel snares them with rising balls.
And let's not forget, England narrowly saved two Tests and the result should have read 3-1 or 2-1 which would have been a clearer reflection of relative team strengths.
In the first Test, when England were 1 wicket away from a loss, Smith could have used Steyn but all he had was Ntini who was lumbering along badly.
In the 2nd Test, when SA could have used a decent backup bowler to relieve Steyn, especially after his return from injury, they had Ntini- who was smashed all around the park going wicketless at 4 per over which contributed to the innings victory of England.
In the 3rd Test, which was another draw, they had de Wet who was not up to scratch.
With all due respect to the English team, if they had played in India's stead in December 2010 or even faced the same SA that India faced, they would have been blown away.
The English can keep carping all they want about how they drew in SA 1-1 but it was surely 3-1 if not for SA's misfortune.
The English still carp about how rain saved India at Lords in 2007, but frankly, even if India had lost the 1st Test, they dominated the next two and would have won the 3rd Test if Dravid had not played safe.
If the series was 1-1, then Dravid would have enforced the follow-on and won the Oval Test and the series.
The only thing that has changed about this English side is that they have defeated the Aussies in the Ashes both home and away, which they haven't done in a very long time.
But this Aussie team is one of the poorest in its history so there's nothing to be so proud about.
I agree that England are a good unit but let's not hype them up as some revival of the Invincibles of 1948 Aus fame.
This Indian team has faced tougher teams in tougher conditions- example Aus of the 2000s and the recent SA tussles along with some others too.
I wouldnt discredit english achievement based upon some hypothetical reasoning like someone heres doing.
England have performed really well past 2 years and are deservedly the no.3 team in the world,just like india are no.1
there are many would have's,could have's in retrospective analysis,but that shouldnt discredit anyone's achievement.
England have all the resources to aspire to be the best team in the world.
If india has done it.,england certainly can,all thats needed is will power and hard work.
Having said so, however india start the series as clear favourite to me.
Because:
dhoni has never lost a series,not only he's pretty good captain, but damn lucky as well.
.
Though both english and indian batting line up is damn good and settled, however indian lineup is more experienced and i would put my money in englands collapse.
.
In favourable bowling condition, indian bowling=english,if not better.
.
Indian are pretty good at mental disintigration of opposition and umpire alike.ask harper,symond,pietersen,graeme smith and co for example.
Sign in if you want to comment
Battle of the World Champions
Page 2 of 2
posted on 14/7/11
hopefor:
Your system of 3 points for a win etc. would be acceptable if all teams played each other for equal number of Tests over a certain cycle of time.
The maximum number of Tests India gets to play against any nation is 4 while England gets 5 Tests against Aus every 2nd year along with 4 against SA and WI.
Even then, I would like to add negative points for a Test loss.
Even then, there's the factor of relative team strength to be taken care of.
The Aussies of 2007 that whitewashed the English are hardly the Aussies of 2009 or 2011 that lost so badly to them.
So giving the same number of points for the English for defeating the Aus of 2011 as if they had defeated the Aus of 2007 is an outright disgrace.
Similarly, when India defeated England of 2007, they defeated a mid-level team and hence didn't get many points of it.
In fact, when India defeated NZ in 2009 and WI in 2011 (last tour), they have actually lost points.
They should have whitewashed the WI in 2011 to avoid losing points.
That shows how robust the system is. To simply denigrate something just because you cannot understand that is childish behavior. It was created by mathematicians and for your information the ICC have also provided an ICC Predictor Tool that tells you how the rankings may change depending on the result of upcoming series.
So stop whining about the ranking just because India are on top. England haven't stated that beating India is their goal- they have stated that they want to be No.1 and that shows how much they desire it and how much prestige they attach to the ranking.
Once the Test Championship is unveiled in the 2012 or 2013, then the rankings may be similar to the FIFA Football ranking wherein being the World Champion is more prestigious than being No.1 in the rankings.
As for India being called a great team, they do not have to be compared with the WI of the 80s or the Aussies of 2000s since there have been other great teams over the years.
The Invincibles of 1948 didn't dominate for years together- they only won a seminal Ashes series in a remarkable manner.
Yet they are celebrated even now.
The great Aus team of the early 70s was also celebrated but they didn't dominate for decades.
So stop comparing this Indian team to the WI or Aus team even before they haven't played for that long. Nobody is asking you to judge this Indian team- just accept that India are No.1 deservedly.
posted on 14/7/11
Some more things I forgot to mention in the last comment.
The Indian batting without Sehwag is truly weaker than with him, but that does not mean Mukund will be a pushover.
India still have legends in Dravid, Tendulkar and Co. and will make merry on pitches they have scored hundreds before.
Let's not forget that India have faced strong sides before- sides like the all-conquering Aussies, SA sides etc. with oodles of talent and fiery bowlers and have come out with their heads held high, and at times as victors too.
So hyping up this English team, which is the one of very few from that nation that is well selected and in form.
But let not facts come in the way of discussing English strengths.
So you defeated an inexperienced SL lineup whose veterans had not played a single game- ODI or Test in England for 5 years and whose rookies had never even set foot on English shores, whose bowlers had never seen English conditions.
And you defeated an Aus side that couldn't even win a Test against India even after having them at 126/8 chasing 215, with that Aus side missing its best bowler as well.
And you defeated a Pak side devoid of Test quality batsmen (like Mo Yo or Younis Khan) and reeking with spot-fixing and other corrupt activities.
And you levelled a series against an SA side carrying excess baggage like Ntini and missing Dale Steyn and without any decent backup bowler.
So is this the achievement of this eminent English team that demands the No.1 ranking as its birthright?
Just because Cook and Trott have been feasting on poor/inexperienced bowling attacks like SL or Aus on flat pitches like Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney, Lords, Cardiff etc.?
Just because you have two decent batsmen and two bowlers in excellent form albeit against poor batsmen?
Against SA this English attack was floored.
So 4 series- against SA, Pak, Aus and SL forms the basis of this push for the World No.1 Test spot!
Hilarious! The Indian side has been slogging on tough pitches everywhere in the world- sparrring against SA in titanic tussles on juicy pitches apart from the many other series where India held the nerve to win or draw.
This England side is a good one no doubt, but definitely this bowling attack is poorer than the ones SA command.
I will confidently say SA will easily win against England if they played a series today and the same will be what India will do.
India will win.
India and SA are the two best sides in the world, in that order and the misconception that England are the pre-eminent side will be washed away at the end of this series.
posted on 14/7/11
Quite exactly, i agree with rex .
The ONLY problem with the current ranking system is that its complex.just like d/l method.otherwise its best me think and i almost agree with all its ranking.
Football is a simple game, thus there's simple point rule, whereas cricket is a complex sport and as such simple point rule may be not the solution.
Just like dl method, the current ranking system includes different variables like home,away,strength of opposition,etc.
So i think its unfair criticism,unless you have some better option.
When was the last time india lost a series?
How many series has dhoni lost?
Since last indian series loss,how many series has other team lost,eg how many times australia,indias preceder has lost series?
posted on 14/7/11
There is already a plan for the ICC to create a World Championship, presumably for this to be fair the teams will need to play an equal number of games both against the strongest and the weakest.
In fact India and England will be playing a five test series in the near future.
posted on 14/7/11
"And you levelled a series against an SA side carrying excess baggage like Ntini and missing Dale Steyn and without any decent backup bowler."
Steyn missed one test in that series, not the one England won.
Morkel played all 4
posted on 14/7/11
hoggy:
Steyn missed the first Test and in the 2nd he was clearly still recovering from injury.
Morkel all alone is not anywhere close to being as good as when he bowls in tandem with Steyn.
It's like both bowlers set up the batsmen in the opposite ways- Morkel sets them back with his back-of-a-length rising deliveries and Steyn snares with fullish out-swingers.
Conversely, Steyn forces batsmen to play on the front foot and Morkel snares them with rising balls.
And let's not forget, England narrowly saved two Tests and the result should have read 3-1 or 2-1 which would have been a clearer reflection of relative team strengths.
In the first Test, when England were 1 wicket away from a loss, Smith could have used Steyn but all he had was Ntini who was lumbering along badly.
In the 2nd Test, when SA could have used a decent backup bowler to relieve Steyn, especially after his return from injury, they had Ntini- who was smashed all around the park going wicketless at 4 per over which contributed to the innings victory of England.
In the 3rd Test, which was another draw, they had de Wet who was not up to scratch.
With all due respect to the English team, if they had played in India's stead in December 2010 or even faced the same SA that India faced, they would have been blown away.
The English can keep carping all they want about how they drew in SA 1-1 but it was surely 3-1 if not for SA's misfortune.
The English still carp about how rain saved India at Lords in 2007, but frankly, even if India had lost the 1st Test, they dominated the next two and would have won the 3rd Test if Dravid had not played safe.
If the series was 1-1, then Dravid would have enforced the follow-on and won the Oval Test and the series.
The only thing that has changed about this English side is that they have defeated the Aussies in the Ashes both home and away, which they haven't done in a very long time.
But this Aussie team is one of the poorest in its history so there's nothing to be so proud about.
I agree that England are a good unit but let's not hype them up as some revival of the Invincibles of 1948 Aus fame.
This Indian team has faced tougher teams in tougher conditions- example Aus of the 2000s and the recent SA tussles along with some others too.
posted on 15/7/11
I wouldnt discredit english achievement based upon some hypothetical reasoning like someone heres doing.
England have performed really well past 2 years and are deservedly the no.3 team in the world,just like india are no.1
there are many would have's,could have's in retrospective analysis,but that shouldnt discredit anyone's achievement.
England have all the resources to aspire to be the best team in the world.
If india has done it.,england certainly can,all thats needed is will power and hard work.
Having said so, however india start the series as clear favourite to me.
Because:
dhoni has never lost a series,not only he's pretty good captain, but damn lucky as well.
.
Though both english and indian batting line up is damn good and settled, however indian lineup is more experienced and i would put my money in englands collapse.
.
In favourable bowling condition, indian bowling=english,if not better.
.
Indian are pretty good at mental disintigration of opposition and umpire alike.ask harper,symond,pietersen,graeme smith and co for example.
Page 2 of 2