A historical review of the highest Test rankings for ALL teams

[jeetu]

Why India was ranked no.1 in 1973 ?

Team stats from 1971-73

[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Draw [/td][td]W/L [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]13 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]4 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]18 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]31 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]1.285 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]18 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]0.666 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]12 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]0.25 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]New Zealand [/td][td]14 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]0 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

Reason - India has best Win Loss record during this time.

Breakdown of India's matches during that time

[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Series [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Tied [/td][td]Draw [/td][td]Start Date [/td][td]Winner [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India in West Indies [/td][td]5 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]2/18/1971 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India in England [/td][td]3 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]7/22/1971 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England in India [/td][td]5 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]12/20/1972 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[/table]

8 out of 13 matches were overseas.

 

[Monsee]

that series was 1979-80 and Pakistan played the full strength team. Asif Iqbal was the captain with Majid, Sadiq, Zaheer, Imran, Miandad, Wasim Raja, Iqbal Qasim, Mudassar all were playing. We lost the 6 match series 2-0

Do you know the meaning of a full strength team?

I would not call it full strength when the most popular member and one of the main batsme/captain backs out due to some issues with board/players, one of the two main fast bowlers (senior one at that) gets dropped due to the new captain, other main fast bowler plays mostly in and out (with injury woes), and not to foregt the umpiring they faced!

Side note: Some of the players like Mudassar, Qasim, Sikandar etc. were just establishing themselves in the team and played most of the matches, so all in all with almost all the batsmen losing form (due to various reasons), that was far from a full strength side

 

[Monsee]

Why India was ranked no.1 in 1973 ?

Team stats from 1971-73

[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Draw [/td][td]W/L [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]13 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]4 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]18 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]31 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]1.285 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]18 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]0.666 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]12 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]0.25 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]New Zealand [/td][td]14 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]0 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

Reason - India has best Win Loss record during this time.

Breakdown of India's matches during that time

[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Series [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Tied [/td][td]Draw [/td][td]Start Date [/td][td]Winner [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India in West Indies [/td][td]5 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]2/18/1971 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India in England [/td][td]3 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]7/22/1971 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England in India [/td][td]5 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]12/20/1972 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[/table]

8 out of 13 matches were overseas.

So even then India bullied at home mostly to be number 1...some things never change except that now a days they suck big time when outside Asia!

 

[Napa]

So even then India bullied at home mostly to be number 1...some things never change except that now a days they suck big time when outside Asia!

Bullied at home? Did you actually read [MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION]'s post? I said India won series in England and WI, and 8 of its 13 Tests were abroad.

 

[Napa]

Yep exactly, since it supports your argument, no matter how silly it is. So a team winning games does not matter at all, good to know especially when the gap is quite significant in winning percentage despite India having played a 100 more tests; this is even more significant since India only managed to win one more test than Pakistan despite that

You would do well to actually look at the numbers before using words like "silly". The figures in the table have India starting at 1932. From 1932 to 1947 were a time when India (which included Pakistan) lost a lot and won ZERO matches. You need to account for that before comparing India and Pakistan's records. Also it matters who the countries play. Winning against countries like Zimb is no big deal.

 

[Hitman]

Tendulkar averaged 41 in that series but he had a string of low scores from what I remember. Cameron Cuffy and Dillon bowled really well.

I was speaking of the 1997 tour.

 

[munda_khi]

You need to first read the post well, I was referring to WI and their tour to India in 1978 or 1979 when they toured India with Fawad Bacchus as their captain; most WI great players had a spat with the board and they were not picked!

in that case my bad

 

[Monsee]

You would do well to actually look at the numbers before using words like "silly". The figures in the table have India starting at 1932. From 1932 to 1947 were a time when India (which included Pakistan) lost a lot and won ZERO matches. You need to account for that before comparing India and Pakistan's records. Also it matters who the countries play. Winning against countries like Zimb is no big deal.

Yeah, I know why you would say that when it took your team forever to win a series against Minnows like Zimbabwe and NZ in their own back yard

We all know how India performs when on the road outside Asia anyway, so you can lecture someone else who don't know that

 

[Tusker]

I assume by now India has overtaken SA. Next up is England. Given that they are ahead by more than 60 months, it should take a decade or more to catch up with them.

Ind - 58
SAF - 61

Looks like that page had the wrong numbers last time I saw it a about 18 months ago. I re-counted it now and we are still 3 months behind.

Nice find , both India and Pakistan were juggling from 6th-7th spot back then. Low point for both countries.

That link was found by you last year

 

[Tusker]

Yeah, I know why you would say that when it took your team forever to win a series against Minnows like Zimbabwe and NZ in their own back yard

We all know how India performs when on the road outside Asia anyway, so you can lecture someone else who don't know that

Brave coming from a Pak fan whose team barely managed to win a series in WI after 50+ yrs

 

[Napa]

Brave coming from a Pak fan whose team barely managed to win a series in WI after 50+ yrs

I don't think beating the current WI team is really beating "The West Indies". WI of the 20th Century was the real thing, which made India's series win in the early 1970s there worth something.

 

[jeetu]

That link was found by you last year

I remembered the link , took me while to figured it out back then. There were just too many pages there to remember the details of each page.

 

[Monsee]

I don't think beating the current WI team is really beating "The West Indies". WI of the 20th Century was the real thing, which made India's series win in the early 1970s there worth something.

LOL, Indian boys talking about history that they barely knew of, that 1971 WI team's bowling was probably much worse than even the current team; they played majority spin bowlers in that series and almost all fast bowlers didn't even have a long enough career except Holder with 40 Tests for an earth shattering 109 wickets. Even most spinners except Gibbs (he strangely only played one test) were barely anything to write home about.

I mean when you employ 14 bowlers in 5 tests (I didn't even list 3-4 part timers here), that tells you the sorry state the bowling was in

Holder: 40 Tests: 109 Wickets
Shillingford: 7 Tests: 15 Wickets
Noriega : 3 Tests: Wickets
Barrett : 6 Tests: 13 Wickets
Lloyd : 110 Tests: 10 Wickets
Carew : 19 Tests: 8 Wickets
Davis : 15 Tests: 2 Wickets
Boyce : 21 Tests: 60 Wickets
Gibbs : 79 Tests: 309 Wickets (played only 1 Test)
Dowe : 4 Tests: 12 Wickets
Inshan Ali : 12 Tests: 34 Wickets
Foster: : 14 Tests: 9 Wickets
Sheperd: : 5 Tests: 19 Wickets
Holford: 24 Tests: 51 Wickets

Now I know why Indians hold that series win so highly LOL

 

[Napa]

LOL, Indian boys talking about history that they barely knew of, that 1971 WI team's bowling was probably much worse than even the current team; they played majority spin bowlers in that series and almost all fast bowlers didn't even have a long enough career except Holder with 40 Tests for an earth shattering 109 wickets. Even most spinners except Gibbs (he strangely only played one test) were barely anything to write home about.

I mean when you employ 14 bowlers in 5 tests (I didn't even list 3-4 part timers here), that tells you the sorry state the bowling was in

Holder: 40 Tests: 109 Wickets
Shillingford: 7 Tests: 15 Wickets
Noriega : 3 Tests: Wickets
Barrett : 6 Tests: 13 Wickets
Lloyd : 110 Tests: 10 Wickets
Carew : 19 Tests: 8 Wickets
Davis : 15 Tests: 2 Wickets
Boyce : 21 Tests: 60 Wickets
Gibbs : 79 Tests: 309 Wickets (played only 1 Test)
Dowe : 4 Tests: 12 Wickets
Inshan Ali : 12 Tests: 34 Wickets
Foster: : 14 Tests: 9 Wickets
Sheperd: : 5 Tests: 19 Wickets
Holford: 24 Tests: 51 Wickets

Now I know why Indians hold that series win so highly LOL

I assume your omitting the greatest all-rounder of all time in your list was an oversight and not deliberate.

 

[Monsee]

I assume your omitting the greatest all-rounder of all time in your list was an oversight and not deliberate.

LOL, obviously an oversight from me, or else how could I skip someone of his calibre and also the fact that he was probably the only consitent and successful bowler with 12+ wickets in the series?

Now back to the main point, if this was the only defence you guys could muster to the point I raised i.e. WI's bowlers and stadard of their quality and performance was frankly appalling to boast so much so as to claim it was a great moment in Indian cricket history etc.

That bowling attack was probably on the level of a minnow level at best

 

[Monsee]

^^^ It was def a good moment in Indian history but not to the point to boast it as follows "I don't think beating the current WI team is really beating "The West Indies". WI of the 20th Century was the real thing, which made India's series win in the early 1970s there worth something."

 

[Napa]

LOL, obviously an oversight from me, or else how could I skip someone of his calibre and also the fact that he was probably the only consitent and successful bowler with 12+ wickets in the series?

Now back to the main point, if this was the only defence you guys could muster to the point I raised i.e. WI's bowlers and stadard of their quality and performance was frankly appalling to boast so much so as to claim it was a great moment in Indian cricket history etc.
That bowling attack was probably on the level of a minnow level at best

The bowling attack was the usual level for a bowling attack for WI during that time. Sobers is of course an all-time great, but a bowler like Noreiga out-performed him with 17 wkts at 29.0 avg compared to Sobers' 12 wkts at 33.41 avg.

The bowling looked poor because the Indian batting led by Gavaskar was phenomenal. It is not often that countries write songs about batsmen from visiting teams.

The Indian bowling did well against batsmen like Lloyd, Kanhai and Sobers. Overall the Indian team did very well, not only winning the series but also coming close to winning the 1st and 5th Tests. That is the kind of performance which carried India to the #1 ranking two years later in 1973.

 

[Monsee]

^^^That still does not warrant the boasting you and others have made re: ""The West Indies". WI of the 20th Century was the real thing, which made India's series win in the early 1970s there worth something."

If that attack was poor (considering how many few test flops were in it) than how could it be better than the current attack which actually has 2-3 established and all others regular bowlers as well?

Also, WI really became WI of the 20th century starting right after their drubbing against Australis by 5-1 margin in 1975-76 I think....not in the early part of 1970's

 

[Tusker]

BUMP
[MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION] is there any way to save the pages for each year on this site ? Iam afraid we might lose this data if the site goes under.

Example: http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1970

To all those were interested, Historical ranking link has been removed from website.
They are also called RETROSPECTIVE RANKINGS

The formula used to create the Reliance ICC Team Rankings has been applied retrospectively by David Kendix, the ICC's official statistician, to allow fans to see where their favourite teams were ranked in the past, before the team rankings were officially introduced.

The table only begins from 1951 for Test cricket and from 1981 for ODI cricket as prior to this date, as there is not enough data available due to the infrequency of matches and the small number of competing teams in the earlier periods.

To all those were interested, while Historical ranking link has been removed from website.

However before this link was removed luckily one site managed to take snapshot of this link and it can be accessed through it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107...cricket.com/match_zone/historical_ranking.php

Below link shows where Pakistan dethrones West Indies for few months to reach No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1988

Below link shows when India first reached No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1973

 

[Napa]

^^^That still does not warrant the boasting you and others have made re: ""The West Indies". WI of the 20th Century was the real thing, which made India's series win in the early 1970s there worth something."

If that attack was poor (considering how many few test flops were in it) than how could it be better than the current attack which actually has 2-3 established and all others regular bowlers as well?

<b>Also, WI really became WI of the 20th century starting right after their drubbing against Australis by 5-1 margin in 1975-76</b> I think....not in the early part of 1970's

Your knowledge of cricket history is very poor. WI cricket came of age much earlier than the mid-1970s, the WI Test team was ranked #1 for 60 straight months from January 1964 to December 1968.

 

[Tusker]

I assume by now India has overtaken SA. Next up is England. Given that they are ahead by more than 60 months, it should take a decade or more to catch up with them.

Overtaken and well ahead of SA now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship#Historical_rankings

              Months    Highest Rating
 Australia	326	143
 West Indies	235	135
 England	        106	125
 India	          72	130
 South Africa	  61	135
 Pakistan	    4	111

 

[jeetu]

BUMP

[MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION] is there any way to save the pages for each year on this site ? Iam afraid we might lose this data if the site goes under.

Example: http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1970

I think this should have the data you need. I saved it couple of years back.
Just open index.html in the folder, it should give you access to rest of the data files.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aW4Oi5cT2ykrd0yX3djgIuZRY76vk4Zo/view

 

[Tusker]

I think this should have the data you need. I saved it couple of years back.
Just open index.html in the folder, it should give you access to rest of the data files.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aW4Oi5cT2ykrd0yX3djgIuZRY76vk4Zo/view

Thanks much! Great work as always

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Your knowledge of cricket history is very poor. WI cricket came of age much earlier than the mid-1970s, the WI Test team was ranked #1 for 60 straight months from January 1964 to December 1968.

I didn’t realise that the period from 1964-68 comprised part of the early 70’s.
Windies lost three series, including at home to England, and drew away to New Zealand immediately before India won that series in 1971.
So to label them as the no. ranked team, or anything close to that is pure fantasy

 

[jeetu]

The biggest achievement of Indian team in early 70's was not beating West Indies away but beating England both home and away.
England was a pretty strong team during that time.
They beat New Zealand away , Australia away and Pakistan at home.
South Africa getting banned was also a factor.

Test series played from 1970 to 1972.
[table=width: 600, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Draw [/td][td]Start Date [/td][td]Winner [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia in South Africa, 1969/70 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1/22/1970 [/td][td]South Africa [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England in Australia, 1970/71 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]11/27/1970 [/td][td]England [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India in West Indies, 1970/71 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]2/18/1971 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England in New Zealand, 1970/71 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2/25/1971 [/td][td]England [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan in England, 1971 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]6/3/1971 [/td][td]England [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India in England, 1971 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]7/22/1971 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]New Zealand in West Indies, 1971/72 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]2/16/1972 [/td][td]drawn [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia in England, 1972 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]6/8/1972 [/td][td]drawn [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England in India, 1972/73 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]12/20/1972 [/td][td]India [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan in Australia, 1972/73 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]12/22/1972 [/td][td]Australia [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[Napa]

I didn’t realise that the period from 1964-68 comprised part of the early 70’s.
Windies lost three series, including at home to England, and drew away to New Zealand immediately before India won that series in 1971.
So to label them as the no. ranked team, or anything close to that is pure fantasy

I was replying to "WI really became WI of the 20th century starting right after their drubbing against Australis by 5-1 margin in 1975-76".

To compare the current WI team which is ranked #8 and just lost a Test to Bangladesh to the one from 1960 to 2000 is nonsense.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

I was replying to "WI really became WI of the 20th century starting right after their drubbing against Australis by 5-1 margin in 1975-76".

To compare the current WI team which is ranked #8 and just lost a Test to Bangladesh to the one from 1960 to 2000 is nonsense.

This is what you posted:

I don't think beating the current WI team is really beating "The West Indies". WI of the 20th Century was the real thing, which made India's series win in the early 1970s there worth something.

The team India beat in 1971, had lost three and drawn one series immediately before that series. So yes they were the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team.
The real West Indies of the 20th century were definitely not the 1971 team.

 

[Napa]

This is what you posted:
The team India beat in 1971, had lost three and drawn one series immediately before that series. So yes they were the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team.
The real West Indies of the 20th century were definitely not the 1971 team.

Losing 3 series does not make a formerly #1 team a #8 team. India has lost 2 series in a row and even if it loses in Australia, it will still be the #1 ranked team. You should check what the ranking of the 1971 WI actually was (it may be found with a bit of research) before making a statement like "So yes they were the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team."

The 1971 WI team still had ATG players and was more like the current Australia team, which has lost 5 of the last 8 series it has played but still capable of beating most teams at home.

 

[Napa]

The team India beat in 1971, had lost three and drawn one series immediately before that series. So yes they were the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team.

The 1971 WI team still had ATG players and was more like the current Australia team, which has lost 5 of the last 8 series it has played but still capable of beating most teams at home.

Thanks to the data provided by [MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION], we have a definitive answer about the 1971 WI team. Feb 1971 (when the Indian series began) the top group was England and Australia, and the second group was NZ and WI. WI was #4, just 3 points behind NZ.



The 1971 WI team looked nothing like the current WI team which is ranked #8, just 1 point ahead of #9 Bangladesh.

Actually, forget about WI. To get a true understanding of how good the 1971 Indian team was, consider that they won the series (starting July 1971) against the #1 team England at their home.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Losing 3 series does not make a formerly #1 team a #8 team. India has lost 2 series in a row and even if it loses in Australia, it will still be the #1 ranked team. You should check what the ranking of the 1971 WI actually was (it may be found with a bit of research) before making a statement like "So yes they were the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team."

The 1971 WI team still had ATG players and was more like the current Australia team, which has lost 5 of the last 8 series it has played but still capable of beating most teams at home.

Again you have comprehension problems. I posted ‘the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team’. Since there were only 6 nations playing test cricket in 1971, being ranked 4 out of 6 but losing to the 5th ranked team at home doesn’t make them a great team.
A few years earlier they were a good team, a few years later they set the benchmark.
Unfortunately, the team India beat were as bad as their modern day counterparts.

 

[Napa]

Again you have comprehension problems. I posted ‘the equivalent of a modern day eighth ranked team’. Since there were only 6 nations playing test cricket in 1971, being ranked 4 out of 6 but losing to the 5th ranked team at home doesn’t make them a great team.
A few years earlier they were a good team, a few years later they set the benchmark.
Unfortunately, the team India beat were as bad as their modern day counterparts.

The 1971 WI team was ranked higher than India and Pakistan and almost on par with the #3 team NZ, whereas the current WI team is behind India, Pakistan, SL and almost level with the #9 team Bangladesh.

In trying to defend the indefensible, the quality of your reasoning is steadily getting worse. No more replies from me.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

The 1971 WI team was ranked higher than India and Pakistan and almost on par with the #3 team NZ, whereas the current WI team is behind India, Pakistan, SL and almost level with the #9 team Bangladesh.

In trying to defend the indefensible, the quality of your reasoning is steadily getting worse. No more replies from me.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

 

[Tusker]

The 1971 WI team was ranked higher than India and Pakistan and almost on par with the #3 team NZ, whereas the current WI team is behind India, Pakistan, SL and almost level with the #9 team Bangladesh.

In trying to defend the indefensible, the quality of your reasoning is steadily getting worse. No more replies from me.

To add to that - WI were #3 just 2 months prior to the start of the Indian series. 12 points ahead of India. I don't recall the last time the current WI team was that far ahead of Pakistan few months before/after a series with WI.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

To add to that - WI were #3 just 2 months prior to the start of the Indian series. 12 points ahead of India. I don't recall the last time the current WI team was that far ahead of Pakistan few months before/after a series with WI.

There’s too much emphasis on these rankings and little explanation of why teams gained points each month without playing any games.
In the above posted snippet, West Indies gained 4 points, as did India, whilst neither played any games. Worst still both were coming of defeats in their previously completed series. India easily beaten at home by Aussies, West Indies losing to England.
Can someone explain how this works?

 

[Buffet]

There’s too much emphasis on these rankings and little explanation of why teams gained points each month without playing any games.
In the above posted snippet, West Indies gained 4 points, as did India, whilst neither played any games. Worst still both were coming of defeats in their previously completed series. India easily beaten at home by Aussies, West Indies losing to England.
Can someone explain how this works?

Ranking periods take 3-4 years of performance. Both teams may have done poorly in periods falling between 3-4 years. Those performances may have dropped from ranking and only the recent 3 years may be included in rolling cut off date.

I haven't looked at all data of past, but this is one way to gain points despite not playing anything.

 

[goran]

The only criteria to compare two teams should be their all time head-to-head records. How they performed against other teams is irrelevant since it depends on too many factors and doesn't give a clear picture. The Indian fans here are well aware that they are way behind Pakistan on head-to-head stats, so they keep bringing up these kind of rubbish stats from time to time.

 

[Sidilicious]

The only criteria to compare two teams should be their all time head-to-head records. How they performed against other teams is irrelevant since it depends on too many factors and doesn't give a clear picture. The Indian fans here are well aware that they are way behind Pakistan on head-to-head stats, so they keep bringing up these kind of rubbish stats from time to time.

I am assuming you are talking about Test cricket, because in LOI cricket, its clear that WC trophy are the only stat worth considering.

And H2H gives us nothing, especially when 2 team have not played anything against each other for a decade, and another decade before that. The best way to judge a team is by its rankings for a period of 3-4 years. For a longer period, or even when judging for the entire history, a more holistic approach needs to be taken. Home record + Away Record. For asian countries, their records in SENA. For non asian countries, their asian record. A team cannot be considered a strong unit if it keeps dropping series at home.

As of now, Pakistan is still slightly ahead of India for me. The rankings in tests are
1. Aus
2. SA
3. WI
4. Pak
5. Eng
6. Ind

But if India can pull of a series win in Australia and then again dominate teams at home for another 2-3 year, and Pakistan fails to dominate teams at home and not win an away series in SENA, India will have overtaken Pakistan. Depending on how England performs in the next few years they could overtake Pakistan and WI and remain over India. If WI does not improve performances, they will be relegated to 6th, despite having one of the most dominant teams in the history of cricket.

 

[Napa]

Why India was ranked no.1 in 1973 ?

Reason - India has best Win Loss record during this time.

8 out of 13 matches were overseas.

Also, they had a series win against the #1 ranked team England in England. Not often the #1 team gets beaten at home.

 

[Napa]

The only criteria to compare two teams should be their all time head-to-head records. How they performed against other teams is irrelevant since it depends on too many factors and doesn't give a clear picture. The Indian fans here are well aware that they are way behind Pakistan on head-to-head stats, so they keep bringing up these kind of rubbish stats from time to time.

The only reason Pakistan leads India in H2H is that the countries did not play for long periods when India was strong, for example in the early 1970s when India was the #1 ranked team, and for the last 10 years. If India had played Pakistan post 2010 no doubt India would be far ahead in the H2H given that it is ranked #1 and Pakistan #7.

 

[goran]

The only reason Pakistan leads India in H2H is that the countries did not play for long periods when India was strong, for example in the early 1970s when India was the #1 ranked team, and for the last 10 years. If India had played Pakistan post 2010 no doubt India would be far ahead in the H2H given that it is ranked #1 and Pakistan #7.

We need to accept the things the way they are . Hypothetical scenarios mean nothing. It's not Pakistan's fault that India didn't play against them more often.

 

[goran]

I am assuming you are talking about Test cricket, because in LOI cricket, its clear that WC trophy are the only stat worth considering.

And H2H gives us nothing, especially when 2 team have not played anything against each other for a decade, and another decade before that. The best way to judge a team is by its rankings for a period of 3-4 years. For a longer period, or even when judging for the entire history, a more holistic approach needs to be taken. Home record + Away Record. For asian countries, their records in SENA. For non asian countries, their asian record. A team cannot be considered a strong unit if it keeps dropping series at home.

As of now, Pakistan is still slightly ahead of India for me. The rankings in tests are
1. Aus
2. SA
3. WI
4. Pak
5. Eng
6. Ind

But if India can pull of a series win in Australia and then again dominate teams at home for another 2-3 year, and Pakistan fails to dominate teams at home and not win an away series in SENA, India will have overtaken Pakistan. Depending on how England performs in the next few years they could overtake Pakistan and WI and remain over India. If WI does not improve performances, they will be relegated to 6th, despite having one of the most dominant teams in the history of cricket.

I agree with you that Pakistan have been pretty awful for more than a decade and are no match for this current Indian side. But things can change and there is no guarantee that India will always remain stronger than Pakistan. That's why this method of comparing two teams is flawed as you can't pick and choose.

 

[Napa]

We need to accept the things the way they are . Hypothetical scenarios mean nothing. It's not Pakistan's fault that India didn't play against them more often.

It is not a hypothetical scenario that India hasn't played Pakistan when it was ranked #1.

 

[goran]

It is not a hypothetical scenario that India hasn't played Pakistan when it was ranked #1.

You are missing the point here. I am not denying that India have been a better team than Pakistan for a decade or so. But to say that they have always been better historically is completely illogical when the head-to-head stats say otherwise.

 

[Napa]

You are missing the point here. I am not denying that India have been a better team than Pakistan for a decade or so. But to say that they have always been better historically is completely illogical when the head-to-head stats say otherwise.

You have not been paying attention to what I said. I did not say "they have always been better historically". I said the H2H record is misleading because India and Pakistan did not play during periods of time when India was strong and Pakistan weak, like the early 1970s and the last ten years.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

You have not been paying attention to what I said. I did not say "they have always been better historically". I said the H2H record is misleading because India and Pakistan did not play during periods of time when India was strong and Pakistan weak, like the early 1970s and the last ten years.

The same applies during the 90’s when Pakistan were the stronger side

 

[goran]

You have not been paying attention to what I said. I did not say "they have always been better historically". I said the H2H record is misleading because India and Pakistan did not play during periods of time when India was strong and Pakistan weak, like the early 1970s and the last ten years.

You forgot that no series was played between India and Pakistan from 1989 to 1999 when Pakistan were much stronger. According to your logic, the H2H could have been tilted even more in favor of Pakistan if they had played regularly during that time.

 

[Ab Fan]

Considering that India have stayed at no.1 ranking in tests for five years now and were no.1 back in early 70s for 15 months, India are only behind Australia and England as the test nation of all-time.

My ranking would be:-

Australia
England
India
South Africa
Pakistan
West Indies
New Zealand
Sri Lanka

 

[tyron_woodley]

Considering that India have stayed at no.1 ranking in tests for five years now and were no.1 back in early 70s for 15 months, India are only behind Australia and England as the test nation of all-time.

My ranking would be:-

Australia
England
India
South Africa
Pakistan
West Indies
New Zealand
Sri Lanka

india eventually will displace England who are the most overrated team of all time. England post 60s when the competition actually got tougher due to more involvement from teams around the world have been pretty awful. Their best period was between 2010-2012 where they dominated for a grand total of 1.5 years or so.