In hindsight, India's victory over England in the 3rd Test is not such a big thing

[saeed5646]

We're lucky we aren't playing India in tests, they would humiliate us in Asia.

They can't be fake number 1 when they've beaten every team at home (no draws) in the last 4-5 years. If Pakistan had done the same, you would have had a case for the claim of "inflated by home wins".

Pakistan couldn't even beat a minnow like Zimbabwe and they have been getting whitewashed in Aus and SA mercilessly whereas India have been competitive in both of these away tours and been the best touring side in the last 5 years or so. Yes they're nowhere near as good as Australia and WI's great sides but they deserve their number 1 ranking.

Pakistan are not in the same league as Aus, SA, NZ and Eng let alone the number 1 side.

not we only you

is anything pakistan do well ?

 

[gazza619]

We're lucky we aren't playing India in tests, they would humiliate us in Asia.

They can't be fake number 1 when they've beaten every team at home (no draws) in the last 4-5 years. If Pakistan had done the same, you would have had a case for the claim of "inflated by home wins".

Pakistan couldn't even beat a minnow like Zimbabwe and they have been getting whitewashed in Aus and SA mercilessly whereas India have been competitive in both of these away tours and been the best touring side in the last 5 years or so. Yes they're nowhere near as good as Australia and WI's great sides but they deserve their number 1 ranking.

Pakistan are not in the same league as Aus, SA, NZ and Eng let alone the number 1 side.

If Pakistan had also played 90 tests at home since 2000, we would have also been in top 3 very easily.
India has played 27 more home tests than Pakistan so it is not a level playing field sorry.

 

[topspin]

not we only you

is anything pakistan do well ?

I don't want to see my team get thrashed and humiliated by our arch rivals and it would ruin our record against them.

 

[saeed5646]

We're lucky we aren't playing India in tests, they would humiliate us in Asia.

They can't be fake number 1 when they've beaten every team at home (no draws) in the last 4-5 years. If Pakistan had done the same, you would have had a case for the claim of "inflated by home wins".

Pakistan couldn't even beat a minnow like Zimbabwe and they have been getting whitewashed in Aus and SA mercilessly whereas India have been competitive in both of these away tours and been the best touring side in the last 5 years or so. Yes they're nowhere near as good as Australia and WI's great sides but they deserve their number 1 ranking.

Pakistan are not in the same league as Aus, SA, NZ and Eng let alone the number 1 side.

Well well history said we have better test record against india so do you want another anay do type series surely say this to your board to have some guts
Many indian fans admit about the failure in overseas test and their side is not one the best so not much to say here
India have lost a odi to kenya does that mean they can lose to them again?trust me india record in SA and aus is also not much great either that too after playing numerious series against them in recent years
Pakistan will be playing there much waited home test series against two of them so we will see where we stand

 

[topspin]

If Pakistan had also played 90 tests at home since 2000, we would have also been in top 3 very easily.
India has played 27 more home tests than Pakistan so it is not a level playing field sorry.

This would be a valid argument if Pakistan's win rate decreased in UAE however it is actually the opposite and I'll tell why because the dead nature of UAE tracks completely negate deficiencies batting against pace bowling - which was an unfortunate feature of Misbah's team.

Also I started watching cricket nearly 20 years ago.

 

[gazza619]

This would be a valid argument if Pakistan's win rate decreased in UAE however it is actually the opposite and I'll tell why because the dead nature of UAE tracks completely negate deficiencies batting against pace bowling - which was an unfortunate feature of Misbah's team.

Also I started watching cricket nearly 20 years ago.

Pakistan played 63 tests at home/UAE combined.
India played 90 tests in India.

 

[RainMan_]

Well well history said we have better test record against india so do you want another anay do type series surely say this to your board to have some guts
Many indian fans admit about the failure in overseas test and their side is not one the best so not much to say here
India have lost a odi to kenya does that mean they can lose to them again?trust me india record in SA and aus is also not much great either that too after playing numerious series against them in recent years
Pakistan will be playing there much waited home test series against two of them so we will see where we stand

Not really sure what's the topic of the debate here. Not interested about ancient history, but In last 10 years India have been playing a different level of cricket and they have left Pakistan in dust in every single format. Only a person with a dysfunctional brain would compare the undisputed no 1 team with a team that resides at the bottom of the pile with minnows like WI, SL.

Current Pakistan team is no match for India. The sooner u'll understand this simple fact, the better it will be for u. U simply just can't compare a team that has an win loss ratio of 1.96 with a team that has win loss ratio of. 90. Its just absurd. The way India hammers every single team in their home ground is almost unparallel to anything we have witnessed in recent past. Teams consider it an achievement if they can draw a test in India


If u compare this with Pak who just got hammered by minnow SL, lost to associate level team WI and got smashed by New Zealand in their adopted home ground UAE u'll see that the difference between these two teams is so large that even writting the neme of these two teams in a single sentence might look bit absurd to the neutrals.

 

[the_outsider]

So Mr Rocket scientist, since 1 Jan 2000 Pakistan has played 31 tests at home, 32 at neutral venue. India has played 90 tests at home.
The fake no.1 test team can not compare to Pakistan.

India's played 1.38 times more home matches compared to Pak.

India has also played 1.24 times more matches than Pak in Eng, SA, AUS and NZ.

India has played more home matches than Pak simply because India has played more matches than Pakistan.

Since 2009, Pakistan has played 154 tests. And India has played 195. The ratio? 1.26.

So as you can see, the ratio remains quite constant across everything.

If you're going to do an analysis, do it comprehensively. Your simple one of aggregate tests does not cut it.

 

[the_outsider]

After the end of this series, India would have played 1.28 times more matches than Pak in SENA and even if we lose the next 2 matches we would still be #1.

The ranking system is fine. You just can't accept reality.

 

[gazza619]

India's played 1.38 times more home matches compared to Pak.

India has also played 1.24 times more matches than Pak in Eng, SA, AUS and NZ.

India has played more home matches than Pak simply because India has played more matches than Pakistan.

Since 2009, Pakistan has played 154 tests. And India has played 195. The ratio? 1.26.

So as you can see, the ratio remains quite constant across everything.

If you're going to do an analysis, do it comprehensively. Your simple one of aggregate tests does not cut it.

You do not understand the simple fact that if India has played 27 more tests at home, they have effectively won majority of those 27 tests..

So earlier some random Indian was providing analysis since 2000 (for some stupid reason). And now you are analysing facts since 2009 (God knows why).

 

[the_outsider]

So earlier some random Indian was providing analysis since 2000 (for some stupid reason). And now you are analysing facts since 2009 (God knows why).

Firstly, that was a typo on my part. Those numbers are not from 2009. They are in fact from 2000, the criteria you had set.

Since 2000,
India has played 195 tests and Pakistan have played 154.


Secondly, it is not India's fault that they play more test matches than Pakistan. Take that up with the PCB.

The point of my analysis was to show you that the spread is even i.e.

While India has played 1.38 times more home matches than Pakistan
They have also played 1.28 times more matches in SENA.

Which means that there is no disproportion. It's simple math.

You do not understand the simple fact that if India has played 27 more tests at home, they have effectively won majority of those 27 tests

And lastly, the fact that India can win 27 out of 27 home matches is a strength that India has developed. It isn't an excuse for you to point out any bias.

Nobody is stopping Pakistan from being unbeatable at home. Every team is free to be good enough to be unbeatable at home. But they haven't been able to do that. Only India has.

India has lost only 2 series since 2000 at home (Aus is 2nd with twice as many losses).

If it was so easy to win home games then every team would be unbeaten at home for the last 6 years. But only 1 team is.

 

[gazza619]

Firstly, that was a typo on my part. Those numbers are not from 2009. They are in fact from 2000, the criteria you had set.

Since 2000,
India has played 195 tests and Pakistan have played 154.


Secondly, it is not India's fault that they play more test matches than Pakistan. Take that up with the PCB.

The point of my analysis was to show you that the spread is even i.e.

While India has played 1.38 times more home matches than Pakistan
They have also played 1.28 times more matches in SENA.

Which means that there is no disproportion. It's simple math.



And lastly, the fact that India can win 27 out of 27 home matches is a strength that India has developed. It isn't an excuse for you to point out any bias.

Nobody is stopping Pakistan from being unbeatable at home. Every team is free to be good enough to be unbeatable at home. But they haven't been able to do that. Only India has.

India has lost only 2 series since 2000 at home (Aus is 2nd with twice as many losses).

If it was so easy to win home games then every team would be unbeaten at home for the last 6 years. But only 1 team is.

Firstly nobody is at fault if India has played 27 more tests than Pakistan at home.
Pakistan would have also won the majority of home games if they had played more games.
I am just stating that it has not been a level playing field (for what ever the reasons have been).
Secondly India can not claim to be undisputed when it has not played Pakistan sorry that’s just a fact!

 

[the_outsider]

Firstly nobody is at fault if India has played 27 more tests than Pakistan at home.
Pakistan would have also won the majority of home games if they had played more games.
I am just stating that it has not been a level playing field (for what ever the reasons have been).
Secondly India can not claim to be undisputed when it has not played Pakistan sorry that’s just a fact!

Pakistan would have won the majority of the games? Based on what fact?

Since 2000, Pakistan's W/L ratio in Pak & UAE is 1.75. India's ratio is 4.25.

In the last 6 years Pakistan's W/L ratio at home is 1.66. India's is 8.

1.66 vs 8, man. Pakistan would have won 20% of the matches India wins even even they played those extra 27 games at home.

Stop grasping at straws man. India is number #1 because it has earned its place.

And if Pakistan was ranked #2 or #3 or even #4 I could still understand you saying that India can't claim to be the best if they don't play Pakistan.
But Pakistan is ranked #7, man. Nobody's buying that.

 

[gazza619]

Pakistan would have won the majority of the games? Based on what fact?

Since 2000, Pakistan's W/L ratio in Pak & UAE is 1.75. India's ratio is 4.25.

In the last 6 years Pakistan's W/L ratio at home is 1.66. India's is 8.

1.66 vs 8, man. Pakistan would have won 20% of the matches India wins even even they played those extra 27 games at home.

Stop grasping at straws man. India is number #1 because it has earned its place.

And if Pakistan was ranked #2 or #3 or even #4 I could still understand you saying that India can't claim to be the best if they don't play Pakistan.
But Pakistan is ranked #7, man. Nobody's buying that.

Can you give numbers how are you arriving to these ratios?

 

[the_outsider]

Can you give numbers how are you arriving to these ratios?

You can cross-check them on Cricinfo statsguru if you like.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...span;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=team

You can also check these stats since 2013 to see what home dominance really means.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team

This is why India is #1. Because for the last 6 years, this is how huge the gap has been between India and every other team in the world.

 

[the_outsider]

Pakistan would have won the majority of the games? Based on what fact?

Since 2000, Pakistan's W/L ratio in Pak & UAE is 1.75. India's ratio is 4.25.

In the last 6 years Pakistan's W/L ratio at home is 1.66. India's is 8.

1.66 vs 8, man. Pakistan would have won 20% of the matches India wins even even they played those extra 27 games at home.

Stop grasping at straws man. India is number #1 because it has earned its place.

And if Pakistan was ranked #2 or #3 or even #4 I could still understand you saying that India can't claim to be the best if they don't play Pakistan.
But Pakistan is ranked #7, man. Nobody's buying that.

Btw I miscalculated. India's W/L ratio in the last 6 years is not 8. It is 21.

 

[kuskash]

Btw I miscalculated. India's W/L ratio in the last 6 years is not 8. It is 21.

It means 1.66 V/S 21. That’s huge difference. Rightfully at rank 7 then.

 

[the_outsider]

It means 1.66 V/S 21. That’s huge difference. Rightfully at rank 7 then.

The next best record at home is Aus with a W/L ratio of 5. Every other team is under 3.75. And 6 out of the top 10 teams have a W/L ratio under 2.

 

[the_outsider]

India has lost only 1 match at home in the last 6 years.

P - W - D - L
27 - 21 - 5 - 1

That 1 loss came against Australia in Pune, 2017.

 

[batnbowl]

I know India won the test match and Indian fans like us are really happy. But is it that big a deal though? England is losing few tests at home almost every summer. Even much weaker teams like Pakistan (7th rank) and WI(10th rank) have recently won a test match each in England. So as a no.1 test team this was very much expected from India. What will matter is if India can win this series. If not, this win means nothing.

on the contrary irrespective of whether India win the series this win is significant cause of the way they beat england. Their bowlers were too quick, accurate and moved the ball enough to get 20 wickets.....and the batsmen in the 3 test adapted well to english conditions - not to mention the catching - hardly dropped any - unlike England who spilled what 14/15 catches which is ridiculous. If we don't pull up our socks and sort out our issues the series will be lost.

 

[ManFan]

India has lost only 1 match at home in the last 6 years.

P - W - D - L
27 - 21 - 5 - 1

That 1 loss came against Australia in Pune, 2017.

I’m not trying to have a go at India but since I didn’t watch that match, how the hell did they gift 12 wickets for 70 runs to Steve O’ Keefe?

 

[Rahul1]

Firstly, that was a typo on my part. Those numbers are not from 2009. They are in fact from 2000, the criteria you had set.

Since 2000,
India has played 195 tests and Pakistan have played 154.


Secondly, it is not India's fault that they play more test matches than Pakistan. Take that up with the PCB.

The point of my analysis was to show you that the spread is even i.e.

While India has played 1.38 times more home matches than Pakistan
They have also played 1.28 times more matches in SENA.

Which means that there is no disproportion. It's simple math.



And lastly, the fact that India can win 27 out of 27 home matches is a strength that India has developed. It isn't an excuse for you to point out any bias.

Nobody is stopping Pakistan from being unbeatable at home. Every team is free to be good enough to be unbeatable at home. But they haven't been able to do that. Only India has.

India has lost only 2 series since 2000 at home (Aus is 2nd with twice as many losses).

If it was so easy to win home games then every team would be unbeaten at home for the last 6 years. But only 1 team is.

Dude don't bring logic into this. The entire world would be happy if everyone accepts that Pakistan is the greatest team in the world.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

India has lost only 1 match at home in the last 6 years.

P - W - D - L
27 - 21 - 5 - 1

That 1 loss came against Australia in Pune, 2017.

Six years would also include the two losses to England. More like 5-5.5 years.

 

[MP2011]

Pakistan would have also won the majority of home games if they had played more games.

You sure about that? If you couldn't even beat SL of all teams at home, on what basis could you boast about being disadvantaged by playing lesser home tests? As for UAE not being your 'home', well it is for foreseeable future even if I'd love to see regular test cricket in Pakistan.

In fact stats prove that Pakistan is far more successful in UAE than it was in Pakistan. So don't think that excuse will cut either.

As for your lack of home tests as compared to India, take that up with PCB which is the only one at fault as it keeps playing 2-tests series.