Is India the weakest "Number 1 Test team" in history?

[Mamba Red]

Yes they are, India might win this test match and watch all the Indians saying how great they are even when they lose the series.

Indians are a joke, will never win a test series in SA or Australia and will get pumped every time they tour overseas.

 

[kuskash]

Yes they are, India might win this test match and watch all the Indians saying how great they are even when they lose the series.

Indians are a joke, will never win a test series in SA or Australia and will get pumped every time they tour overseas.

Which teams have won consistently in AUS or SA? Sorry for you brother if India win this test.

 

[Peshwa]

Your proficiency in able to spin statistics to your desired outcome should be commended, you surely have a future in politics.

As far as I understand, the game of cricket is not only about losing, it is also about winning, but you totally ignore wins as they do not suit your desired result.

Yes, over their streak of not losing a series (bookended by defeats to NZ and AUS) that started with the 85/86 SL series and ended with the 89/90 series against India, it is true that Pakistan lost only 3 matches.

However during the same time, they won only 9 matches out of a total of 32 matches played.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=7;type=team

In comparison, in the last 11 series (34 matches) it has played prior to the current series, the Indian team has won a whopping 23 games.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=6;type=team

Let that sink in. Over approximately the same number of games, your idols at their very peak won 9/32 = 28% of the matches they played. Over approximately the same number of games, the current India team has won 68% of their games.



More rubbish! India would have been #1 if it were not for the washed out final Test against WI on Aug 22nd 2016, PRIOR to the home series against NZ, Eng and Aus. The fact that these teams toured India when it was already near the top meant that India stretched its #1 lead a long way.

Your idols were able to hold on to their #1 spot for a grand total of 2 months. In comparison the current Indian team is ranked #1 for 22 months already, with no end in sight.



Oh yes, more cherry-picked stats. Only England matters...

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=132715]Varun[/MENTION]

Still waiting for a reply from Sir [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

 

[BlackShadow]

I am surprised that people are even considering Pakistan's 2 weeks of #1 ranking in this thread. They achieved it by not playing in Eng, Australia and South Africa for nearly 5 years. Their true position was #6 or #7 and they got there ever since they started touring again.

 

[BlackShadow]

India gave South Africa the fight of the season in their 2-1 loss on doctored pitches and India have done very well in England despite a depleted side. English tour isn't over yet and it is yet to be seen how this team performs in Australia.

If anything, India deserves to be given credit for performing like this on what are traditionally two of the three toughest tours for an Asian side.

 

[Napa]

Still waiting for a reply from Sir [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Wake me up when that happens

India gave South Africa the fight of the season in their 2-1 loss on doctored pitches and India have done very well in England despite a depleted side. English tour isn't over yet and it is yet to be seen how this team performs in Australia.

If anything, India deserves to be given credit for performing like this on what are traditionally two of the three toughest tours for an Asian side.

I am inclined to believe [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] that this thread is just a bait.

 

[BlackShadow]

Wake me up when that happens



I am inclined to believe [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] that this thread is just a bait.

Just noticed that it is a [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] thread, my bad.

 

[Napa]

We have a much better record in NZ, ditto WI, and obviously England in terms of win loss ratio...now coming to Australia and SA, I believe India has won a grand total of 1 test each more than Pakistan despite playing more frequently and having played much more test there. Whether you consider draws as doing better than us is neither here or there since they are not as good as wins; they are more about moral victories and we all know how much that accounts for!

So, please advise where is it that we suck big time and that India has flourished in terms of wins?

If you consider draws as moral victories and hence boast about them, then that is your cup of tea, not many consider them huge achievements especially since India is still a hugely disappointing touring team.

Interesting, you seem to consider draws and losses to be the same. A rather idiosyncratic view to say the least.

 

[Major]

I am surprised that people are even considering Pakistan's 2 weeks of #1 ranking in this thread. They achieved it by not playing in Eng, Australia and South Africa for nearly 5 years. Their true position was #6 or #7 and they got there ever since they started touring again.

pakistan got no.1 rnking after playing in England.

 

[Tusker]

pakistan got no.1 rnking after playing in England.

Not really. It was after India played in WI

 

[Napa]

Imran's team tied a series with arguably the greatest test team of all time- WI. The current Indian team would be lucky to win one session vs the WI team.

By no means was 1987/88 WI team anything like the great WI team of the early 1980s. The early 1980s WI team had the greatest bowling attack of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Croft. By 1987/88 when Pakistan drew a series in the WI, 3 of these 4 pacers had retired and were replaced by a set of weaker bowlers. Marshall, the 4th pacer did not play in the game Pakistan won, and neither did Viv Richards. Also gone were batsmen like Clive Lloyd.

Pakistan won the first game against the severely depleted WI team. After Richards and Marshall returned to the side, Pakistan came within a wicket (with 30 runs remaining) of losing the second Test, and finally lost the third Test to draw the series.

 

[BlackShadow]

pakistan got no.1 rnking after playing in England.

You are right.

My point is that from since Amir ban to 2016, a period of roughly 6 years, Pakistan played ZERO matches in Australia, ZERO matches in England and 3 matches in SA.

Most of Pakistan Cricket was restricted to UAE, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and WI .. and that's basically what drove Pakistan to the top of the rankings. India, Aus, England and SA kept on losing points touring each other and losing heavily, but that away cycle never existed for Pakistan, making it all to gain and nothing to lose scenario.

 

[Napa]

Its ludicrous and even you know it.

Pakistan will have a fair chance to go up the rankings when it plays Australia and South Africa later this year and if they win they will.

Its that simple.

You dont win matches and sit at 7th in the table.

Nor do you lose matches and get to 1.

Basic mathematics is hard to argue against but here you have posters (even yourself being a medicine man) defying logic and making subjective comparisons about which team should be really number 1 because rankings are NOT showing WHAT you BELIEVE.

Its absolutely shambolic that people are actually even considering a 7th ranked team better than 1.

An admirable effort to inject a dose of reality into this surreal thread

 

[Tusker]

By no means was 1987/88 WI team anything like the great WI team of the early 1980s. The early 1980s WI team had the greatest bowling attack of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Croft. By 1987/88 when Pakistan drew a series in the WI, 3 of these 4 pacers had retired and were replaced by a set of weaker bowlers. Marshall, the 4th pacer did not play in the game Pakistan won, and neither did Viv Richards. Also gone were batsmen like Clive Lloyd.

Pakistan won the first game against the severely depleted WI team. After Richards and Marshall returned to the side, Pakistan came within a wicket (with 30 runs remaining) of losing the second Test, and finally lost the third Test to draw the series.

Must you always rudely inject cruel facts into the discussion?

 

[Rahul1]

We have a much better record in NZ, ditto WI, and obviously England in terms of win loss ratio...now coming to Australia and SA, I believe India has won a grand total of 1 test each more than Pakistan despite playing more frequently and having played much more test there. Whether you consider draws as doing better than us is neither here or there since they are not as good as wins; they are more about moral victories and we all know how much that accounts for!

So, please advise where is it that we suck big time and that India has flourished in terms of wins?

If you consider draws as moral victories and hence boast about them, then that is your cup of tea, not many consider them huge achievements especially since India is still a hugely disappointing touring team.

We have won 4 series IN West Indies. And you just 1. How exactly is your record much better?

 

[Rahul1]

By no means was 1987/88 WI team anything like the great WI team of the early 1980s. The early 1980s WI team had the greatest bowling attack of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Croft. By 1987/88 when Pakistan drew a series in the WI, 3 of these 4 pacers had retired and were replaced by a set of weaker bowlers. Marshall, the 4th pacer did not play in the game Pakistan won, and neither did Viv Richards. Also gone were batsmen like Clive Lloyd.

Pakistan won the first game against the severely depleted WI team. After Richards and Marshall returned to the side, Pakistan came within a wicket (with 30 runs remaining) of losing the second Test, and finally lost the third Test to draw the series.

Why do you have to burst the bubble.

 

[Smbhayi]

What a thread.. India is weakest 1, Australia is weakest 5 or 6, SA is weakest Xth, and Uganda is weakest...

 

[barah_admi]

Lol you know how sensitive these Indians are when they have to bring up 1988...oh guys, relax. You will probably win this test, use it like the SA test win and declare you are the best ever. Who cares if you lose yet another non Asian test series or are too afraid to play Pakistan?

 

[Rahul1]

Lol you know how sensitive these Indians are when they have to bring up 1988...oh guys, relax. You will probably win this test, use it like the SA test win and declare you are the best ever. Who cares if you lose yet another non Asian test series or are too afraid to play Pakistan?

At least we win here and there. Your team has been getting beaten black and blue in the last 6 series in Australia and South Africa but of course you don't want to talk about that.

 

[barah_admi]

At least we win here and there. Your team has been getting beaten black and blue in the last 6 series in Australia and South Africa but of course you don't want to talk about that.

If you want to talk about that, start a thread on it. This thread is about India being test number one but failing to repeatedly beat the big boys. Feel free to comment on that and stay on topic. Thanks babbu jee

 

[Napa]

Lol you know how sensitive these Indians are when they have to bring up 1988...oh guys, relax. You will probably win this test, use it like the SA test win and declare you are the best ever. Who cares if you lose yet another non Asian test series or are too afraid to play Pakistan?

"Indians" did not bring in the 1987/88 Pakistan team, it was the benchmark for the OP.

If you want to talk about that, start a thread on it. This thread is about India being test number one but <b>failing to repeatedly beat the big boys</b>. Feel free to comment on that and stay on topic. Thanks babbu jee

Back in the real world:

SA in India lost 0-3, but could only beat India 2-1 at home: India wins

Eng in India lost 0-4, but maybe will win or even lose the series with India winning at least one Test: India wins again

 

[Napa]

Must you always rudely inject cruel facts into the discussion?

Why do you have to burst the bubble.

I plead guilty. I am booking my ticket the Hague to appear before the International Court to answer for my crimes against humanity

 

[big_gamer007]

Damn [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] is single handedly pawning all comers. Junaids at his best opening such threads to troll and then disappearing from it just to watch [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] own pakistani fans

 

[Major]

Not really. It was after India played in WI

read the post quoted and understand the context

 

[Major]

You are right.

My point is that from since Amir ban to 2016, a period of roughly 6 years, Pakistan played ZERO matches in Australia, ZERO matches in England and 3 matches in SA.

Most of Pakistan Cricket was restricted to UAE, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and WI .. and that's basically what drove Pakistan to the top of the rankings. India, Aus, England and SA kept on losing points touring each other and losing heavily, but that away cycle never existed for Pakistan, making it all to gain and nothing to lose scenario.

stop rephrasing.

I dont careabout Amir, with him or without him, we played in England and gave a good performance and after that we got no.1 position.

If Pakistan did not draw the England series they would had not got the no.1 position in test, which was justified.

Pakistan losing its no.1 status was also justified.

 

[Napa]

Damn [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] is single handedly pawning all comers. Junaids at his best opening such threads to troll and then disappearing from it just to watch [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] own pakistani fans

Makes you wonder if [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is a double agent setting up the Pakistanis

 

[Major]

Also i would like to add, there is nothing wrong with the ranking system.

Stop having the colonial mind set that oh if we beat the English Men, or Australia men or South African men then we are truly a good side.

Those sides can't even play spin to save their lives.

Atleast countries like India or Pakistan or Srilanka could fight back on a seaming wicket.

The moment the pitch starts turning and you bring in spinners, Australians and the ENglish start panicking. The panic is also spread off the field where reports start coming in of complains against the wicket etc.

The reason why the no.1 ranking doesnt hold value is because of the Australian dominance. The 1999-2008 team was beating teams home and away. It was a ridiculous team. It used to be everyone's top priority to beat the Australians. They were always the no.1 side

Hence, when Australia was removed from the no.1 side and other nations start getting to the top position, it didn't feel genuine due us being used to seeing Australia dominate GLOBAL cricket as a no.1 side.

Today, all cricketing countries are mostly the same. The South Asian Bloc are masters of spin cricket, and the white men bloc are masters of pace bowling cricket. If either one of them went to the opposite bloc to play cricket, they lose badly.

South Africa puts up a fight, but they are known chokers. THey throw away good matches and series.

Any team that gets the no.1 rank rightly deserves it.

 

[troodon]

Whenever [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] says something, the opposite seems to happen very soon.

 

[big_gamer007]

Makes you wonder if [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is a double agent setting up the Pakistanis

Haha yea I have a feeling he just might be. He enjoys starting such threads and then sitting back and see people argue amongst each other. Truly a master troll

 

[ManFan]

By no means was 1987/88 WI team anything like the great WI team of the early 1980s. The early 1980s WI team had the greatest bowling attack of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Croft. By 1987/88 when Pakistan drew a series in the WI, 3 of these 4 pacers had retired and were replaced by a set of weaker bowlers. Marshall, the 4th pacer did not play in the game Pakistan won, and neither did Viv Richards. Also gone were batsmen like Clive Lloyd.

Pakistan won the first game against the severely depleted WI team. After Richards and Marshall returned to the side, Pakistan came within a wicket (with 30 runs remaining) of losing the second Test, and finally lost the third Test to draw the series.

Set of weak bowlers?

So an attack of Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson is weak?

 

[ManFan]

Got to love how Indians are trying to discredit the 88’ tour of the WI by Pakistan.

When India just four months earlier lost a Test at home to an attack composed of Walsh, Benjamin, and Patterson.

 

[Napa]

Set of weak bowlers?

So an attack of Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson is weak?

I did not say "weak", I said "weaker". Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson were definitely a weaker set of bowlers compared to Marshall, Garner and Holding, the famous trio that whitewashed England in England in 1984. Patterson actually had an awful Test bowling average of 31. 1984 was the great WI team of the 1980s, not the 1987/88 version.
[MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION] next?

 

[Rahul1]

Set of weak bowlers?

So an attack of Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson is weak?

Ambrose made his international debut during that series. Unless you think that dismissing Steve Smith in 2010 is the same as dismissing him in 2018 then i dont know what to say.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Ambrose made his international debut during that series. Unless you think that dismissing Steve Smith in 2010 is the same as dismissing him in 2018 then i dont know what to say.

And as far as i know ambrose avgd 40+ in his starting 2-3 years.

 

[ManFan]

Ambrose made his international debut during that series. Unless you think that dismissing Steve Smith in 2010 is the same as dismissing him in 2018 then i dont know what to say.

Steve Smith was a bowler who debuted at #8 in 2010 as a replacement for Warne in the team. It was after his ousting and focusing on being a batsman that he became the Steve Smith we all know and love.

Ambrose come in as a genuine fast bowling replacement for Joel Garner, who about six months later in Australia, ended up taking twenty-six wickets!

Not to mention before the Test series against Pakistan, in the ODI’s, he took eight wickets in his first two matches showing that he was more than good enough when he arrived on the scene.

The Pakistani batsmen, especially Miandad, just played him better in the Test series.

 

[Mamoon]

Over the 6 Tests in South Africa and England this year, India has proved why they are the best team in the world and deserve the #1 ranking.

They have only been outclassed in one Test, and that too without two frontline bowlers and England getting much better conditions to bat.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

And as far as i know ambrose avgd 40+ in his starting 2-3 years.

Oh sorry he avgd 40+ in his second year

 

[ManFan]

I did not say "weak", I said "weaker". Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson were definitely a weaker set of bowlers compared to Marshall, Garner and Holding, the famous trio that whitewashed England in England in 1984. Patterson actually had an awful Test bowling average of 31. 1984 was the great WI team of the 1980s, not the 1987/88 version.
[MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION] next?

Garner and Holding has retired by that point with Holding famously saying that he was fit enough for ODI’s but wanted to focus on Test cricket.

The West Indies responded with Walsh, Ambrose, and Patterson (the forgotten speedster who had success in Australia and India) had already made his debut two years prior in England.

While Walsh has made his debut against Australia in 1984, meaning he had four years of international experience when Pakistan arrived to play at his home!

And he had just come off a tour of India, where he took twenty-six wickets at 16.80 a piece. So he was neither a rookie or out-of-form.

 

[Napa]

Garner and Holding has retired by that point with Holding famously saying that he was fit enough for ODI’s but wanted to focus on Test cricket.

The West Indies responded with Walsh, Ambrose, and Patterson (the forgotten speedster who had success in Australia and India) had already made his debut two years prior in England.

While Walsh has made his debut against Australia in 1984, meaning he had four years of international experience when Pakistan arrived to play at his home!

And he had just come off a tour of India, where he took twenty-six wickets at 16.80 a piece. So he was neither a rookie or out-of-form.

You have a tendency to keep arguing even when the facts are completely against you. Are you really trying to argue that Walsh, Ambrose, and Patterson were as good as Holding, Garner and Marshall???

Or that the absence of Viv Richards from the team did not have a massive impact in the only game that Pakistan won???

 

[ManFan]

You have a tendency to keep arguing even when the facts are completely against you. Are you really trying to argue that Walsh, Ambrose, and Patterson were as good as Holding, Garner and Marshall???

Or that the absence of Viv Richards from the team did not have a massive impact in the only game that Pakistan won???

I did not say that one attack was better than the other but that the three replacements were as capable of the ones being replaced.

And no one denies that Marshall and Vivian Richards’ absence helped Pakistan win.

 

[Napa]

I did not say that one attack was better than the other but that the three replacements were as capable of the ones being replaced.

And no one denies that Marshall and Vivian Richards’ absence helped Pakistan win.

Fair enough, our opinions are quite close then.

 

[ManFan]

Fair enough, our opinions are quite close then.

Yes but just as the scoreboard shows that Pakistan lost the 3rd Test due to the 9th wicket partnership (and not biased umpiring) so does the 1st Test show that Pakistan won and inflicted the first loss for the WI at home in ten years (and not due to key players being absent).

Coming to the present day...

India is deservingly ranked first because they have been very consistent at home (dominantly so) and competitive abroad (if rather unlucky).

The notion of India being home-track-bullies which is why they deserve to be ranked lower is rubbish when Pakistan just lost at home to SL.

Right now, India is the team to beat in Test cricket.

 

[Napa]

Yes but just as the scoreboard shows that Pakistan lost the 3rd Test due to the 9th wicket partnership (and not biased umpiring) so does the 1st Test show that Pakistan won and inflicted the first loss for the WI at home in ten years (and not due to key players being absent).

Coming to the present day...

India is deservingly ranked first because they have been very consistent at home (dominantly so) and competitive abroad (if rather unlucky).

The notion of India being home-track-bullies which is why they deserve to be ranked lower is rubbish when Pakistan just lost at home to SL.

Right now, India is the team to beat in Test cricket.

Fair points again, though I would like to point out biased home umpiring was quite rampant at that time, and kudos to IK for helping bring change to the system.

 

[ManFan]

Fair points again, though I would like to point out biased home umpiring was quite rampant at that time, and kudos to IK for helping bring change to the system.

Yes, in fact, he specifically mentions the 4th Innings of the 3rd Test Match at Bridgetown during his ICC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture in 2010.

We are forever thankful to him for pushing the initiative of neutral umpires as cricket fans.

 

[topspin]

Also i would like to add, there is nothing wrong with the ranking system.

Stop having the colonial mind set that oh if we beat the English Men, or Australia men or South African men then we are truly a good side.

Those sides can't even play spin to save their lives.

Atleast countries like India or Pakistan or Srilanka could fight back on a seaming wicket.

The moment the pitch starts turning and you bring in spinners, Australians and the ENglish start panicking. The panic is also spread off the field where reports start coming in of complains against the wicket etc.

The reason why the no.1 ranking doesnt hold value is because of the Australian dominance. The 1999-2008 team was beating teams home and away. It was a ridiculous team. It used to be everyone's top priority to beat the Australians. They were always the no.1 side

Hence, when Australia was removed from the no.1 side and other nations start getting to the top position, it didn't feel genuine due us being used to seeing Australia dominate GLOBAL cricket as a no.1 side.

Today, all cricketing countries are mostly the same. The South Asian Bloc are masters of spin cricket, and the white men bloc are masters of pace bowling cricket. If either one of them went to the opposite bloc to play cricket, they lose badly.

South Africa puts up a fight, but they are known chokers. THey throw away good matches and series.

Any team that gets the no.1 rank rightly deserves it.

Except for Misbah because he couldn't even win a series in Zimbabwe, got whitewashed in Aus, NZ and SA. Number 1 was due to a strong home season without hardly any overseas tours.

 

[ManFan]

Except for Misbah because he couldn't even win a series in Zimbabwe, got whitewashed in Aus, NZ and SA. Number 1 was due to a strong home season without hardly any overseas tours.

He won a series in BD, NZ, and SL before drawing in ENG.

 

[topspin]

He won a series in BD, NZ, and SL before drawing in ENG.

It was a weak NZ team that has nothing on the one that we've seen in the last 3 - 4 years.

 

[ManFan]

It was a weak NZ team that has nothing on the one that we've seen in the last 3 - 4 years.

Bro, it doesn’t matter.

By that same logic, the SL side that he beat was much stronger than the current one.

He was strong in Asia, WI, and ENG while being poor in Oceania and SA.

 

[Napa]

India then went back to basics, gorging themselves on home series in doctored conditions, and worked their way back to the Number 1 rating by October 2016.

Indians doctor pitches.

The allegation of "doctored" pitches shows a lack of analysis. In the last NZ, Eng, Aus series in India, the Indian team scored 700+ in 1 innings, 600+ in 2 innings, 500+ in 1 innings and 400+ in 3 innings.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/series/10715/nz-in-india-test-series-2016-17
http://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/series/10731/eng-in-india-test-series-2016-17
http://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/series/10840/border-gavaskar-trophy-2016-17

The lesson is that you could score a lot of runs on these pitches, IF you knew how to play spin. If you can't play spin, it is not the responsibility of Indians to provide you pitches to cover up your weakness.
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=99648]cricketworm[/MENTION]

 

[big_gamer007]

The allegation of "doctored" pitches shows a lack of analysis. In the last NZ, Eng, Aus series in India, the Indian team scored 700+ in 1 innings, 600+ in 2 innings, 500+ in 1 innings and 400+ in 3 innings.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/series/10715/nz-in-india-test-series-2016-17
http://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/series/10731/eng-in-india-test-series-2016-17
http://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/series/10840/border-gavaskar-trophy-2016-17

The lesson is that you could score a lot of runs on these pitches, IF you knew how to play spin. If you can't play spin, it is not the responsibility of Indians to provide you pitches to cover up your weakness.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=99648]cricketworm[/MENTION]

Mate it's simple the pitches on which Australians or English can't score runs are considered as Doctored pitches.

English still think its 1800's when they used to rule us. Times have changes no one gives two hoots what these guys think the place to be and team to beat is India in India which everyone from Steve Waugh to Ricky Ponting and now Justin Langer have realized.

Also to add to the point doctored pitches are ones where you change the pitch to behave differently from what the environment/soil provides. Indian environment/soil has always been friendly to spin bowling since 1932 so doctored pitches would be when we somehow make bouncy or seaming(is it even possible) conditions..

 

[Monsee]

Interesting, you seem to consider draws and losses to be the same. A rather idiosyncratic view to say the least.

Take this path >>>>> to Comprehension 101...enrollment closing soon!

 

[Monsee]

We have won 4 series IN West Indies. And you just 1. How exactly is your record much better?

As I mentioned earlier comprehension is not your strongest suit, you take a word or sentence out of context and start jumping up and down; win/loss is about number of test wins, not series wins; in that regard, based on the number of tests played and test wins, we have fared better than your team, simple. No PHD required to follow the logic

 

[Napa]

Take this path >>>>> to Comprehension 101...enrollment closing soon!

As I mentioned earlier comprehension is not your strongest suit, you take a word or sentence out of context and start jumping up and down; win/loss is about number of test wins, not series wins; in that regard, based on the number of tests played and test wins, we have fared better than your team, simple. No PHD required to follow the logic

Pathetic attempts to evade the issue after having been called out and having no good counter argument to offer.
[MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION]

 

[Rahul1]

Pathetic attempts to evade the issue after having been called out and having no good counter argument to offer.
[MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION]

Today I learned a new thing. That winning some matches here and there is more important than series wins. [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

 

[Monsee]

Simpletons, when the debate is about win/loss and number of matches won...where the heck does series wins come in to the discussion?

Show me where I sais series wins are worse than winning tests here and there or that draws are not better than losses?

You guys like to whine and cry after putting words in other poeple's mouth, debating such brilliant folks is useless!

 

[the_outsider]

This is the stat for home record for every team in the last 6 years.

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

And this is the stat from Australia's best period of home dominance in their history when they were undefeated at home throughout.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval2=span;team=2;template=results;type=team

The greatest cricket team of all time peaked at a W/L ratio of about 15 at home.
India's W/L ratio in the last 6 years has been 21.

As for overseas, in the last 6 years, India has the second highest W/L ratio overseas for any team.

I hope this finally puts to rest this ridiculous thread.

 

[Mp812]

I plead guilty. I am booking my ticket the Hague to appear before the International Court to answer for my crimes against humanity

Pretty sure if guilt is accepted and or surrenders they arrange transportation. You brought facts to burst a big bubble. War crimes can be forgiven but this......ouch

 

[Napa]

Pretty sure if guilt is accepted and or surrenders they arrange transportation. You brought facts to burst a big bubble. War crimes can be forgiven but this......ouch

As long as I am forgiven in the hearts of humans

 

[batnbowl]

Impressed to see how the Indian Batsmen (not just Kohli) adapted to english conditions in the 3rd test and their bowlers seem to be far better suited to our wickets....

Series has finally come alive.

 

[Napa]

This is the stat for home record for every team in the last 6 years.

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

And this is the stat from Australia's best period of home dominance in their history when they were undefeated at home throughout.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval2=span;team=2;template=results;type=team

The greatest cricket team of all time peaked at a W/L ratio of about 15 at home.
India's W/L ratio in the last 6 years has been 21.

As for overseas, in the last 6 years, India has the second highest W/L ratio overseas for any team.

I hope this finally puts to rest this ridiculous thread.

Of course it won't. You can provide all the stats you want but posters like the OP of this thread [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will lie low and won't answer. However in a few weeks or months they will start another ridiculous thread trying to put India down.
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION]

 

[kuskash]

Of course it won't. You can provide all the stats you want but posters like the OP of this thread [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will lie low and won't answer. However in a few weeks or months they will start another ridiculous thread trying to put India down.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION]

Its a pattern for some posters, to hide when India does better but will be chest thumping when India start to do poor such as [MENTION=538]bilal[/MENTION], [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], [MENTION=139867]dauntless[/MENTION], etc.

They will say they were busy and have more important things to do but all of a sudden they will be free when Kohli or India does poor, lol.

 

[the_outsider]

Of course it won't. You can provide all the stats you want but posters like the OP of this thread [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will lie low and won't answer. However in a few weeks or months they will start another ridiculous thread trying to put India down.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION]

I've heard of this illness. It's called selective amnesia.

Let us all pray for the well-being of our brothers.

 

[Tusker]

Of course it won't. You can provide all the stats you want but posters like the OP of this thread [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will lie low and won't answer. However in a few weeks or months they will start another ridiculous thread trying to put India down.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION]

Standard hit-and-run guerrilla technique ... no point wasting time hoping for a constructive debate with these guys.

 

[Junaids]

Of course it won't. You can provide all the stats you want but posters like the OP of this thread [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will lie low and won't answer. However in a few weeks or months they will start another ridiculous thread trying to put India down.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION]

But nothing has changed.

I’ve been arguing for the last four years that we live in a mediocre era with no outstanding teams.

England have been awful under Trevor Bayliss, but India have managed to lose six consecutive away series in Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa which shows that they are a truly pathetic Number 1 Team.

This is not ODI cricket. The thing that is paramount in Test cricket is not losing series - ever.

Saleem Malik’s 1990’s Pakistanis had a better win lose match ratio than Imran Khan’s 1985-92 Team.

But Imran’s team had one series defeat - by 1-0 - in eight years, even though they played three series v the GOAT West Indians.

And so we all consider Imran’s team to be the GOAT Asian Test Team.

India lost in South Africa in January 2018. Their only way to equal Imran Khan’s Pakistanis is to come back in 2025 having not lost a single series since January 2018.

Until they do so they are not qualified to even discuss nonsense like Number 1 status.

 

[Napa]

But nothing has changed.

I’ve been arguing for the last four years that we live in a mediocre era with no outstanding teams.

Ah, you are finally back. First I note that you have no answer to the main points I raised, that is your idols won 28% of their matches, whereas as the current Indian team that you have been busy dumping on won 68%. And that your idols were ranked #1 for 2 months compared to the 22 months and continuing for the present Indian team. It is rather cowardly to not acknowledge and try to defend a rebuttal or at least acknowledge that you were mistaken.

Modern teams, like modern athletes are simply better than ones from decades ago. It is just that all teams are better.

England have been awful under Trevor Bayliss, but India have managed to lose six consecutive away series in Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa which shows that they are a truly pathetic Number 1 Team.

This is not ODI cricket. The thing that is paramount in Test cricket is not losing series - ever.

You need to understand that #1 means just that, "better than all other teams". It is a relative and not an absolute standard. India may be lose series abroad, but nothing compares to the royal spanking they hand out to visiting teams. Hence they are the undisputed #1 team by a wide margin.

Saleem Malik’s 1990’s Pakistanis had a better win lose match ratio than Imran Khan’s 1985-92 Team.

But Imran’s team had one series defeat - by 1-0 - in eight years, even though they played three series v the GOAT West Indians.

And so we all consider Imran’s team to be the GOAT Asian Test Team.

You must be using the royal "we", as in "Junaids considers Imran's team", because certainly reasonable people don't.

You think it is a big achievement to draw a series in WI? That too winning only one game against the WI which had its best bowlers of the era Holding and Garner retired, and the remaining best bowler Marshall and their best batsman Richards missing from the team.

The actual Asian GOAT team was one which ACTUALLY WON (not merely draw) a series in WI in 1970/71 and followed it up with a series win against England IN ENGLAND. That is why Mankad and Gavaskar's team was ranked #1 for 15 months, whereas IK's Pakistani team was ranked #1 for only 2 months.

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

India lost in South Africa in January 2018. Their only way to equal Imran Khan’s Pakistanis is to come back in 2025 having not lost a single series since January 2018.

Being a "draw master" and winning only 28% of your matches does not in any way, shape or form make you better than a team that wins 68% of their matches.

Until they do so they are not qualified to even discuss nonsense like Number 1 status.

The problem with you Junaids, is that you can be shown that 2 + 2 = 4 in ten different ways (put two apples next to two more etc. etc.) but you will rise once again like a phoenix from the ashes and with a straight face say "there are definitely 7 apples there...".
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=132715]Varun[/MENTION] [MENTION=146727]Rahul1[/MENTION] [MENTION=147270]the_outsider[/MENTION] [MENTION=141093]big_gamer007[/MENTION]

 

[Napa]

India then went back to basics, gorging themselves on home series in doctored conditions, and worked their way back to the Number 1 rating by October 2016.

More rubbish! India would have been #1 if it were not for the washed out final Test against WI on Aug 22nd 2016, PRIOR to the home series against NZ, Eng and Aus. The fact that these teams toured India when it was already near the top meant that India stretched its #1 lead a long way.

Also, you had no answer to my rebuttal to your "gorging themselves on home series", so you pretended that the rebuttal was never made.

 

[Snow]

But nothing has changed.

I’ve been arguing for the last four years that we live in a mediocre era with no outstanding teams.

England have been awful under Trevor Bayliss, but India have managed to lose six consecutive away series in Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa which shows that they are a truly pathetic Number 1 Team.

This is not ODI cricket. The thing that is paramount in Test cricket is not losing series - ever.

Saleem Malik’s 1990’s Pakistanis had a better win lose match ratio than Imran Khan’s 1985-92 Team.

But Imran’s team had one series defeat - by 1-0 - in eight years, even though they played three series v the GOAT West Indians.

And so we all consider Imran’s team to be the GOAT Asian Test Team.

India lost in South Africa in January 2018. Their only way to equal Imran Khan’s Pakistanis is to come back in 2025 having not lost a single series since January 2018.

Until they do so they are not qualified to even discuss nonsense like Number 1 status.

LOL What?

 

[Junaids]

I just don’t think many of our Indian friends on this forum understand that Test supremacy is about being unbeaten, not about proportion of matches won.

Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards’ West Indies lost one series in 19 years, by a 1-0 margin.

Imran Khan’s Pakistan list one series in 8 years, by a 1-0 margin.

I’m sorry, but having already lost a series in 2018, India can’t claim any status or achievement at all until 2025 - and only then if they save this series in England and lose no more series in those seven years.

 

[the_outsider]

I just don’t think many of our Indian friends on this forum understand that Test supremacy is about being unbeaten, not about proportion of matches won.

No that is not the criteria because it's the only way you can claim IK's Pak team to be the no. 1 team.

If I go by your criteria, the Australian team of the 90s & 2000s is not a number 1 test team because they lost in India, England and SA (?)

So unless you are claiming that IK's Pak was a better team than 90s/2000s Australia, you should come up with another argument.

And btw "dominance" by definition is about winning and not drawing. So you're wrong about that too. Test supremacy is totally dependent on W/L ratio.

 

[RamLakhan]

I just don’t think many of our Indian friends on this forum understand that Test supremacy is about being unbeaten, not about proportion of matches won.

Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards’ West Indies lost one series in 19 years, by a 1-0 margin.

Imran Khan’s Pakistan list one series in 8 years, by a 1-0 margin.

I’m sorry, but having already lost a series in 2018, India can’t claim any status or achievement at all until 2025 - and only then if they save this series in England and lose no more series in those seven years.

I don't think this is any criteria for calling a team as No.1... I don't think anyone has designed such thing! I don't think there is any other official/bigger body other than ICC who can say who is No.1 and based on what criteria! It could be some Junaid's criteria of hall of fame or PP Genius criteria...! Nobody gives such significance to past anymore these days! The giant West Indies Team from past is no more today! Sad demise, unfortunate, but that's the reality! I think even Pakistanis are suffering from the same insecurity (Weakened team, No Home matches, etc!) hence wants to live in past!

If it still matters then let us bring up another famous anti-PP criteria... The World Cup streak between India and Pakistan! (Still if India finally loses in coming world cup!) I don't think any team (including West Indies, Australia, etc) have achieved this feat against any specific team (not sure against minnows!) Even Australia have lost to NZ in last world cup at league stage (that is the only combination which I thought of!) How about this? What credit/accolades you want to give being a neutral (not a rival ) for this achievement? No. Zenith or No. Infinity? Probably no other team is going to achieve this for centuries to come (forget 8 or 16 years)...

 

[Peshwa]

I just don’t think many of our Indian friends on this forum understand that Test supremacy is about being unbeaten, not about proportion of matches won.

Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards’ West Indies lost one series in 19 years, by a 1-0 margin.

Imran Khan’s Pakistan list one series in 8 years, by a 1-0 margin.

I’m sorry, but having already lost a series in 2018, India can’t claim any status or achievement at all until 2025 - and only then if they save this series in England and lose no more series in those seven years.

So even if India win each and every test match by an inning till 2025 they can't claim any supremacy bcoz they lost a series in 2018

And one can claim the dominance by being unbeaten or in other words even by drawing matches

Have to tell you i always enjoy reading ur posts...most entertaining poster on this forum.

 

[Junaids]

No that is not the criteria because it's the only way you can claim IK's Pak team to be the no. 1 team.

If I go by your criteria, the Australian team of the 90s & 2000s is not a number 1 test team because they lost in India, England and SA (?)

So unless you are claiming that IK's Pak was a better team than 90s/2000s Australia, you should come up with another argument.

And btw "dominance" by definition is about winning and not drawing. So you're wrong about that too. Test supremacy is totally dependent on W/L ratio.

No, you are quite correct.

The Laxman/Dravid driven defeat in India ruined the McGrath/Warne team’s claim to be the greatest ever.

The Lloyd/Richards team and even the Imran team - and the Ali Bacher South Africans - were not conquered.

I don’t care how many series India win by wide margins, and I don’t consider a 2-1 loss away much better than a 3-0 loss.

The sign of a great Test Team is that it doesn’t lose series, anywhere, against anyone.

The only series the West Indies lost in 19 years they lost by losing a Test by 1 wicket.

The only Test series that Imran lost after he regained the captaincy in 1985 was due to a loss at the MCG by 43 runs.

Teams which go around losing like every major team today have no claim to being special. It’s my gripe with Trevor Bayliss - his England loses Tests it should draw.

 

[the_outsider]

No, you are quite correct.

The Laxman/Dravid driven defeat in India ruined the McGrath/Warne team’s claim to be the greatest ever.

The Lloyd/Richards team and even the Imran team - and the Ali Bacher South Africans - were not conquered.

I don’t care how many series India win by wide margins, and I don’t consider a 2-1 loss away much better than a 3-0 loss.

The sign of a great Test Team is that it doesn’t lose series, anywhere, against anyone.

The only series the West Indies lost in 19 years they lost by losing a Test by 1 wicket.

The only Test series that Imran lost after he regained the captaincy in 1985 was due to a loss at the MCG by 43 runs.

Teams which go around losing like every major team today have no claim to being special. It’s my gripe with Trevor Bayliss - his England loses Tests it should draw.

There is a lot of space between being "as good as 70s Windies" and "worst #1 team ever".

Nobody is claiming India is as good as 90s Australia or 70s Windies.

But India is one of the better #1 ranked teams in history.



As I told you earlier, if you look up the word "dominance" in the dictionary, you'll see it means "to overpower". Drawing a match/series does not mean that you have managed to overpower the opponent. You have only matched them with equal force.

So a dominant #1 side must have a very high W/L ratio. Otherwise they don't even fall under the definition of "dominant".

 

[RamLakhan]

It is unfortunate that people bring up old teams and compare it with this Indian team so ruthlessly! Just to undermine their performances, just to eradicate the credit completely! Let us admit that it is difficult to have that kind of dominance as in past with today's cameras, DRS, media, pressure, etc! Everyone knows how Umpires were biased those days! And I wholeheartedly admit that we had a weaker team in the past inferior to Australia, West Indies, England, Pakistan, South Africa even to NZ for some extent (though we have impressive record against them, but still let me give up and tell that we were inferior to even NZ!) But that doesn't mean that today we are not strong and we don't deserve any credit for today's achievements!

Somebody like even Pandya (with today's gym/muscles, skills) could have easily exploited reverse swing with stronger teeth than Waqar Younis in those days See how stupid it becomes, when you compare between eras! India (of today) would have won all their home matches in 1st day's 2 sessions in that era! India of today would have exploited the slow/dead approach of those days and attacked intensively and beaten the hell out of the opposition!

Hence please keep the discussion of eras separately, and accept that India can do only this much today and they are best of the lot today! (If you want more clue, see in education field... The number of pass percentage is much much more than the number of pass-outs in the past! The competition is high today, the guides/books/syllabus all is planned before, so it becomes easier for students! Just like the TV Analysis, Broad bats, Helmets, etc are making it easier for everyone to compete!)

If it is all about the clashes of era, then India is in par with West Indies. WI are a rubbish team today and gigantic team in the past exploiting the weakish competitive world of those days, as India was also a rubbish team in the past while winning the intense competition of today where even a team like Afghanistan can be effective (just like lots of universities today for students to ponder!)

 

[Junaids]

It is unfortunate that people bring up old teams and compare it with this Indian team so ruthlessly! Just to undermine their performances, just to eradicate the credit completely! Let us admit that it is difficult to have that kind of dominance as in past with today's cameras, DRS, media, pressure, etc! Everyone knows how Umpires were biased those days! And I wholeheartedly admit that we had a weaker team in the past inferior to Australia, West Indies, England, Pakistan, South Africa even to NZ for some extent (though we have impressive record against them, but still let me give up and tell that we were inferior to even NZ!) But that doesn't mean that today we are not strong and we don't deserve any credit for today's achievements!

Somebody like even Pandya (with today's gym/muscles, skills) could have easily exploited reverse swing with stronger teeth than Waqar Younis in those days See how stupid it becomes, when you compare between eras! India (of today) would have won all their home matches in 1st day's 2 sessions in that era! India of today would have exploited the slow/dead approach of those days and attacked intensively and beaten the hell out of the opposition!

Hence please keep the discussion of eras separately, and accept that India can do only this much today and they are best of the lot today! (If you want more clue, see in education field... The number of pass percentage is much much more than the number of pass-outs in the past! The competition is high today, the guides/books/syllabus all is planned before, so it becomes easier for students! Just like the TV Analysis, Broad bats, Helmets, etc are making it easier for everyone to compete!)

If it is all about the clashes of era, then India is in par with West Indies. WI are a rubbish team today and gigantic team in the past exploiting the weakish competitive world of those days, as India was also a rubbish team in the past while winning the intense competition of today where even a team like Afghanistan can be effective (just like lots of universities today for students to ponder!)

Sorry, but this post betrays your youth.

The players of the 1980’s were full-time professionals. The sports science behind fast bowling was more advanced then that it is now. The pace of fast bowlers has been proven to have been quicker then than now - even the speed guns were twenty times more accurate then (500 frames per second) than now (25 frames per second).

No modern Test Team would survive two days against the 1976-1991 West Indians.

Cricket has split into two formats: a high bat speed one on grassless flat wickets and a low bat speed one on harder surfaces. I’m sure modern players would win T20 matches against unaccustomed 1970’s and 1980’s players, but they would be massacred in Tests.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The real weak no.1 teams in recent times have been England and Pakistan. England got hammered even at home by the Saffers and lost their no.1 ranking and could hold on to it only for a year. PAK got it only because rain affected India's match with the windies. And lost it a couple of months later , losing a test to Windies at home. Our home dominance is unmatched and we have won series away in Lanka and windies. Nobody thinks we are windies of the 80's or OZ of 95-05. But currently, no team can be compared to us right now .

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

If anyone is trying to say that imran's team of 80s was better than mighty aussies of 2000 then he is surely delusional.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

There is a lot of space between being "as good as 70s Windies" and "worst #1 team ever".

I can't believe something this simple needs to be pointed out. Delusional thread. Honestly pretty embarassing to read.

 

[kuskash]

No, you are quite correct.

The Laxman/Dravid driven defeat in India ruined the McGrath/Warne team’s claim to be the greatest ever.

The Lloyd/Richards team and even the Imran team - and the Ali Bacher South Africans - were not conquered.

I don’t care how many series India win by wide margins, and I don’t consider a 2-1 loss away much better than a 3-0 loss.

The sign of a great Test Team is that it doesn’t lose series, anywhere, against anyone.

The only series the West Indies lost in 19 years they lost by losing a Test by 1 wicket.

The only Test series that Imran lost after he regained the captaincy in 1985 was due to a loss at the MCG by 43 runs.

Teams which go around losing like every major team today have no claim to being special. It’s my gripe with Trevor Bayliss - his England loses Tests it should draw.

You are pointing that Imran lost only one test away, but lets not be blinded by this comedy king, he has grand total of 3 tests win overseas, not series, tests only.

So there is a difference between how many lost and drew compared to how many actually won.

Example: A team lost only one test does not mean they won rest of the tests. Big difference.

 

[jeetu]

This is the table i got from wikipedia page.
Table is sorted by highest rating achieved by team when they were no.1

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Start [/td][td]End [/td][td]Total Months [/td][td]Highest rating [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] India [/td][td]Jan-16 [/td][td]Feb-16 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]110 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Pakistan [/td][td]Aug-16 [/td][td]Oct-16 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]111 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] India [/td][td]Aug-16 [/td][td]Aug-16 [/td][td]4 days [/td][td]112 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Australia [/td][td]Feb-16 [/td][td]Aug-16 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]118 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] South Africa [/td][td]Aug-09 [/td][td]Nov-09 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]122 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Australia [/td][td]May-14 [/td][td]Jul-14 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]123 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] England [/td][td]Aug-11 [/td][td]Aug-12 [/td][td]12 [/td][td]125 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] India [/td][td]11-Oct-16 [/td][td]present [/td][td]22 [/td][td]125 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] India [/td][td]Nov-09 [/td][td]Aug-11 [/td][td]21 [/td][td]130 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] South Africa [/td][td]Jul-14 [/td][td]Jan-16 [/td][td]18 [/td][td]130 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] South Africa [/td][td]Aug-12 [/td][td]May-14 [/td][td]21 [/td][td]135 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Australia [/td][td]Jun-03 [/td][td]Jul-09 [/td][td]74 [/td][td]143 [/td][/tr]
[/table]