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

[jeetu]

The summary of teams that have held the highest rating from 1952 to the present by whole month periods, are: (including unofficial test ranking)
[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Total Months [/td][td]Highest Rating [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Australia [/td][td]326 [/td][td]143 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] West Indies [/td][td]235 [/td][td]135 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] England [/td][td]106 [/td][td]125 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] India [/td][td]68 [/td][td]130 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] South Africa [/td][td]61 [/td][td]135 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Pakistan [/td][td]4 [/td][td]111 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

New Zealand and Sri Lanka never reached test No.1 ranking.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

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.

Three wins really.
He was touting a team like that as an ATG team.

 

[RamLakhan]

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.

Well he calls us youth and he is not even living in past exactly, he is living in delusion! It is a pure myth that older bowlers were fast & furious! It is just the game which is in front of us which puts us into delusion! We have seen what happens when a pitch is under-prepared or extravagantly grasses are grown! (Even Lakmal looks lethal! Binny looks fabulous to eyes! I guess similar sort of thing was happening in the past!) Teams were just learning & coping up to the demands of cricket, that's why some teams were looking dominant compared to other teams! Things are getting saturated now, and more so in future.

And why this kind of demand for dominance? Shouldn't we be happy about teams being competitive and neck'n'neck instead of boring domination? (As a true "Cricket" fan?) Why this insecurity, and why such demands & claims so much in PP? It just goes to indicate the insecurity and the lack of matching up the needs (Pakistan team) and nothing else! Instead of cribbing like this and living in past (not just PP even Pak ex-cricketers, board, media everyone want to live in past and keep bringing up old domination, old players, old MoUs, agreements, etc which takes nowhere! Instead they can do some constructive work to improve their team & chances of bringing back cricket to their country!)

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Just to expand on my earlier point.

You can get a high ranking - even Number 1 - without ever playing away. India has.

The model should be:

Home Test series loss - 0 points
Neutral venue loss - 0 points
Away loss - 0 points
Home drawn series - 1 point
Neutral drawn series - 2 points
Away drawn series - 3 points
Home series victory - 3 points
Neutral series victory - 4 points
Away series victory - 5 points

That would reward the teams that make the effort to arrive early and prepare properly.

Just read this. You are a very good poster but your model is utter rubbish. It doesn't take into account the ranking of opposition nor does it mean you lose points for losing a series. The only tweak to the current points system is the need to consider home and away tests.

 

[Napa]

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.

Your "Indian friends" are very well aware that you make up criteria that suits your purpose, which is why they think of your posts as comic relief.

Drawing a mind-numbing 65% (22 out of 34) games played is a sign of Test supremacy? Only in Junaid's world!

In another thread we have another Pakistani supporter [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION] arguing that draws are really "useless". So my fellow "Indian friends" to help you understand I am spelling it out the "rules":

If India draws, then draws are really "useless".
If Pakistan draws, then draws show "Test supremacy".

Joking aside, there are objective measures decided by international bodies about how teams should be ranked. We "Indians" of course ascrible greater value to these measures than idiosyncratic views of a PP poster.

1) The ranking criteria followed by ICC which has the Indian team ranked #1 for 22 months and continuing (will likely stretch to at least 36 months) compared to IK's team ranked #1 for 2 months. India ahead.

2) The traditional method (used in football, chess and many other sports) of assigning 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. This has the current Indian team at (23 x 2 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 0)/34 = 1.56. For IK's Pakistan this would be (9 x 2 + 22 x 1 + 3 x 0)/34 = 1.18. (Note: in my earlier post I had wrongly counted Pakistan's total number of matches from SL 85/86 to India 89/90 as 32, it is actually 34, the same as India has played in its last 11 complete series). India ahead.

3) In recent times the trend has been to value a win as more than twice a draw (for example in the football WC), and assign it 3 points. That would have India at (23 x 3 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 0)/34 = 1.94 and Pakistan at (9 x 3 + 22 x 1 + 3 x 0)/34 = 1.44. India decisively ahead.

I note that you have still not responded to my calling you out on the following falsehood:

Junaids: "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."

Napa: "More rubbish! India would have been #1 if it were not for the washed out final Test against WI on Aug 22nd 2016, <b>PRIOR</b> 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."

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.

Really, you are so far off the mark and your bias so transperant, that I question taking time to respond to your posts with facts.

 

[Napa]

Three wins really.
He was touting a team like that as an ATG team.

Yes, 3 wins overseas and 6 at home out of a total of 34 (during his streak of not losing a series). A total of 9 wins, that is 26%. And he this that is better than the current Indian team which has won 68% of of its last 34 games before the current series started )

 

[Mamoon]

It is a shame to see credible, knowledgeable posters attempt mental gymnastics to discredit the rankings of this Indian team.

Their performance over the last 6 Tests in South Africa and England in this year shows why they are number 1 - they were blown away in one match only, and have won twice while competing very well in the other games.

In addition, they are by far the most dominant team at home. There is no team in the world today that can go to India and draw a series, let alone win.

This is one of best Asian Test teams in history, and the clear number 1 today. Maybe things are different according to PP rankings, but they are not worth a dime in the real world.

 

[Varun]

This is one of best Asian Test teams in history, and the clear number 1 today. Maybe things are different according to PP rankings, but they are not worth a dime in the real world.

The 2002 - 2010/11 team was better IMO.

 

[the_outsider]

It is a shame to see credible, knowledgeable posters attempt mental gymnastics to discredit the rankings of this Indian team.

Their performance over the last 6 Tests in South Africa and England in this year shows why they are number 1 - they were blown away in one match only, and have won twice while competing very well in the other games.

In addition, they are by far the most dominant team at home. There is no team in the world today that can go to India and draw a series, let alone win.

This is one of best Asian Test teams in history, and the clear number 1 today. Maybe things are different according to PP rankings, but they are not worth a dime in the real world.

Just to drive home [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]'s point:

India have played 27 tests at home in the last 5~ years.

They have won 21 of them.
And have lost 1 match.

That's a W/L ratio of 21.

Australia's best ever W/L ratio at home over any 5 year period is around 16.

India has taken home dominance to a whole new level.

 

[RamLakhan]

Nobody knows much about Imran Khan's test team (especially the dominance part of it). Only thing they know is Pakistan won 1 lucky World Cup (I don't call it as fluke) under him, he was a good leader and he had some good players especially fast bowlers in his arsenal. Likewise India has several good leaders who made impression & impact similar (or even bigger) than him. Kapil was as good as him (won the world cup), Ganguly rebuilt a strong Indian team, Dhoni is known to everyone and now Kohli is doing a good job with a decent team, he has lots to learn still!

Pakistan is a decent cricketing team (especially their natural talent)! But some of out of the box outrageous level of hyping them up is big comedy, and deliberately putting down other teams (basically India) I am sure the Pakistan cricket legacy is soon drying up from public memory (just like WI team), and seeing the supremacy of Indian cricket (not dominance - I won't say that controversial word here ) they feel insecure & try to mix up things!

 

[Khan12]

Lol Kapil as good as imran. Pakistan world cup was lucky and India one not. Pakistan is a decent team I wonder what that makes india who we have beaten more then they have. Let India even draw a test series outside India then call them what you want.

 

[rollingstoned]

We are not a great #1 but on the evidence available we are the best team around because of utter dominance at home and commendable competitiveness away. Don't see what is hard to see about that. Almost everyone is getting dicked out of their comfort zone right now.

 

[Tusker]

Sorry, but this post betrays your youth.

The players of the 1980’s were full-time professionals. .

Thats just a blatant lie

"For us, if we didn't play, we didn't get paid. There was no contract. So, we had to play. It didn't matter if we had game after game, consecutive games within two or three days… we would have played, we wanted to play"

guess who said that.

Source:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...eenidge-desmond-haynes-talk-their-partnership

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).

Have you found out how many of these 500 FPS cameras were used the calibration and other details ? Also how do you know Hawkeye uses 25 FPS cameras ? Got any credible sources ?

 

[ManFan]

Your "Indian friends" are very well aware that you make up criteria that suits your purpose, which is why they think of your posts as comic relief.

Drawing a mind-numbing 65% (22 out of 34) games played is a sign of Test supremacy? Only in Junaid's world!

In another thread we have another Pakistani supporter [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION] arguing that draws are really "useless". So my fellow "Indian friends" to help you understand I am spelling it out the "rules":

If India draws, then draws are really "useless".
If Pakistan draws, then draws show "Test supremacy".

Joking aside, there are objective measures decided by international bodies about how teams should be ranked. We "Indians" of course ascrible greater value to these measures than idiosyncratic views of a PP poster.

1) The ranking criteria followed by ICC which has the Indian team ranked #1 for 22 months and continuing (will likely stretch to at least 36 months) compared to IK's team ranked #1 for 2 months. India ahead.

2) The traditional method (used in football, chess and many other sports) of assigning 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. This has the current Indian team at (23 x 2 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 0)/34 = 1.56. For IK's Pakistan this would be (9 x 2 + 22 x 1 + 3 x 0)/34 = 1.18. (Note: in my earlier post I had wrongly counted Pakistan's total number of matches from SL 85/86 to India 89/90 as 32, it is actually 34, the same as India has played in its last 11 complete series). India ahead.

3) In recent times the trend has been to value a win as more than twice a draw (for example in the football WC), and assign it 3 points. That would have India at (23 x 3 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 0)/34 = 1.94 and Pakistan at (9 x 3 + 22 x 1 + 3 x 0)/34 = 1.44. India decisively ahead.

I note that you have still not responded to my calling you out on the following falsehood:

Junaids: "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."

Napa: "More rubbish! India would have been #1 if it were not for the washed out final Test against WI on Aug 22nd 2016, <b>PRIOR</b> 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."



Really, you are so far off the mark and your bias so transperant, that I question taking time to respond to your posts with facts.

For the record, I did not say draws in general were useless.

I specifically stated that “draws in series that were lost” and not “draws in series that were drawn” were useless.

 

[ManFan]

This Indian team is the undisputed number one team in Test Cricket today.

 

[Napa]

Just to drive home [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]'s point:

India have played 27 tests at home in the last 5~ years.

They have won 21 of them.
And have lost 1 match.

That's a W/L ratio of 21.

Australia's best ever W/L ratio at home over any 5 year period is around 16.

India has taken home dominance to a whole new level.

Over a similar period of 5 years, starting with SL in Pakistan in 1985/86 and ending with India in Pakistan 1989/90, Pakistan at home won 5 Tests and lost 1 for a W/L ratio of 5.

The last series against India was notable for having neutral umpires and saw a 0-0 result. The fearsome pace trio of Khan, Akram and Younis were generally ineffective, with India piling up scores like 303/3, 398/7, 509 etc.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/series/60560.html

 

[Napa]

For the record, I did not say draws in general were useless.

I specifically stated that “draws in series that were lost” and not “draws in series that were drawn” were useless.

Fair enough, I stand corrected

 

[the_outsider]

Over a similar period of 5 years, starting with SL in Pakistan in 1985/86 and ending with India in Pakistan 1989/90, Pakistan at home won 5 Tests and lost 1 for a W/L ratio of 5.

The last series against India was notable for having neutral umpires and saw a 0-0 result. The fearsome pace trio of Khan, Akram and Younis were generally ineffective, with India piling up scores like 303/3, 398/7, 509 etc.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/series/60560.html

This is the first time that I'm seeing 3 consecutive tests that failed to make it to the 4th innings.

Any particular reason why this was so?

 

[Tusker]

Your "Indian friends" are very well aware that you make up criteria that suits your purpose, which is why they think of your posts as comic relief.

Drawing a mind-numbing 65% (22 out of 34) games played is a sign of Test supremacy? Only in Junaid's world!

In another thread we have another Pakistani supporter [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION] arguing that draws are really "useless". So my fellow "Indian friends" to help you understand I am spelling it out the "rules":

If India draws, then draws are really "useless".
If Pakistan draws, then draws show "Test supremacy".

Joking aside, there are objective measures decided by international bodies about how teams should be ranked. We "Indians" of course ascrible greater value to these measures than idiosyncratic views of a PP poster.

1) The ranking criteria followed by ICC which has the Indian team ranked #1 for 22 months and continuing (will likely stretch to at least 36 months) compared to IK's team ranked #1 for 2 months. India ahead.

2) The traditional method (used in football, chess and many other sports) of assigning 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. This has the current Indian team at (23 x 2 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 0)/34 = 1.56. For IK's Pakistan this would be (9 x 2 + 22 x 1 + 3 x 0)/34 = 1.18. (Note: in my earlier post I had wrongly counted Pakistan's total number of matches from SL 85/86 to India 89/90 as 32, it is actually 34, the same as India has played in its last 11 complete series). India ahead.

3) In recent times the trend has been to value a win as more than twice a draw (for example in the football WC), and assign it 3 points. That would have India at (23 x 3 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 0)/34 = 1.94 and Pakistan at (9 x 3 + 22 x 1 + 3 x 0)/34 = 1.44. India decisively ahead.

I note that you have still not responded to my calling you out on the following falsehood:

Junaids: "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."

Napa: "More rubbish! India would have been #1 if it were not for the washed out final Test against WI on Aug 22nd 2016, <b>PRIOR</b> 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."



Really, you are so far off the mark and your bias so transperant, that I question taking time to respond to your posts with facts.

Thats a great post !! Especially the example of chess ! What is the timeframes for both teams that you have used for the numbers ?

 

[Napa]

This is the first time that I'm seeing 3 consecutive tests that failed to make it to the 4th innings.

Any particular reason why this was so?

Total number of overs bowled:

1st Test: 384
2nd Test: 361
3rd Test: 381
4th Test: 271

It doesn't appear there was loss of playing time due to weather except for the 4th Test, which likely would have been a draw or maybe even and Indian victory (it had a 74 run first innings lead) if the full complement of 100 more overs had been bowled.

The reason that the 4th Test came closest to a result was due to a 5-fer picked up by Vivek Razdan which gave India its 1st innings lead. Thanks to the sycophancy that marked Dungarpur's BCCI, Razdan didn't play in another Test series.

The bowling in the first 3 Tests was generally toothless, both for the Indians and the Pakistanis.

 

[Napa]

Thats a great post !! Especially the example of chess ! What is the timeframes for both teams that you have used for the numbers ?

Pakistan during IK's streak of no series losses, starting with SL 1985/86 and ending with India 1989/90. Total of 34 games.

India's 34 games prior to the current unfinished series, starting with the SL 2015 series.

 

[Napa]

Have you found out how many of these 500 FPS cameras were used the calibration and other details ? Also how do you know Hawkeye uses 25 FPS cameras ? Got any credible sources ?

A friend of my grandma insisted that carrier pigeons were a more reliable mode of communication than email.

 

[Ab Fan]

I cant say if it is the weakest or not but two things I would like to say:-

1) They need to justify their no.1 ICC ranking and prove whether they deserved to be no.1 one by winning a test series in one of Aus/SA/NZ/Eng. If they dont then this team is not something fans should be proud of.

2) Indian team of 2007-2011(till WC) was the greatest Indian team I have seen. They were dominant at home(you dont need to win every match at home to be dominant) and very good away(won series in England, New Zealand, West Indies, drew in SA and if not for umpiring, their performance in Australia 2007 deserved much better reading than this. That is the true meaning of being competitive. You atleast go and win or draw the series.

That is what a no.1 team should be. Not the one for whom the standards of being called competitive is so low that unless they get pawned by opposition, it is termed a competitive series(even though they fail to take the series to even final test of that very series like in SA).

 

[Napa]

I cant say if it is the weakest or not but two things I would like to say:-

1) They need to justify their no.1 ICC ranking and prove whether they deserved to be no.1 one by winning a test series in one of Aus/SA/NZ/Eng. If they dont then this team is not something fans should be proud of.

What the heck? There can only be one #1. Or do you belong to the school of thought which says there is no #1, which logically is nonsense as there has to be some team that is the best.

If not India then who?

Do offer a country other than India as a "deserving" #1 and you will see how easily they will be knocked down.

 

[Ilan Bluestone]

Needless hubris.

They're a good team. Not the best ever but not the worse ever.

Why we need to devalue everything Indians do..

 

[Ilan Bluestone]

I think if most people accept that India is a crap team and Pakistan is better test team than India and that rankings are totally flawed we will have world peace.

If we were ranked number one, flawless system, India number one, meritritious.

 

[Ab Fan]

What the heck? There can only be one #1. Or do you belong to the school of thought which says there is no #1, which logically is nonsense as there has to be some team that is the best.

If not India then who?

Do offer a country other than India as a "deserving" #1 and you will see how easily they will be knocked down.

I consider India as the best team in the world currently. Even it was me who made a thread," If not India, then who is no.1 team in the world currently?" and I made this thread on the same day when India lost the 2nd test vs England when many posters here were calling out India as a team who are back into 90s era and just cant win overseas and other things.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?275250-If-not-India-then-who-is-the-truly-deserving-number-1-ranked-team

However, for me, a truly deserving no.1 team is the one who not only dominates at home but also does well away(i.e. win atleast one series against a top opposition away from home and doesn't get thrashed everywhere else). There gotta be atleast one series a deserving no.1 team should be proud of.

Since the Australian team dominance between 95-07, South Africa had a period where they dominated teams across different conditions and lost basically just 2-3 series over a 7-8 year period. That's what a no.1 ranking team should be like.

India to their credit had a period of 2007-11(till WC) when they were dominant at home and very good away. Even England between 2009-2012 went through that phase where they went on to win test series in Australia and India and very quite good in other series as well.

These are the teams and their respective periods which I will rate higher than the current ranked no.1 team who is yet to produce a series which they can be proud of. Current Indian team dont have that kind of series yet. They had the chance in SA but they bottled it and the start was quite mediocre in England as well. However, I do agree that among the current teams in the world, India is the best test team going around but that means zilch if you cant beat a top opposition in their backyard.

 

[Tusker]

Pakistan during IK's streak of no series losses, starting with SL 1985/86 and ending with India 1989/90. Total of 34 games.

India's 34 games prior to the current unfinished series, starting with the SL 2015 series.

You actually gave 2 extra wins for Imrans team I think. Pity much ?

Link : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval1=span;team=7;template=results;type=team


Thats Won-7 Lost-5 Drawn-22 = (7*2 + 22*1)/34 = 36/34 = 1.0588 Link : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval1=span;team=7;template=results;type=team


For india ( Including the last test ) = (24*2 + 7*1)/37 = 55/37 = 1.4864 Link:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=team


If before Eng Series : (23*2 + 5*1 ) /34 = 51/34 = 1.5


Thats nearly a 50% better rating than Imrans team. The reason for that is very simple. We have won more matches than Imran Drew !! But then you are arguing with someone who thinks Draws are almost equal to wins

You will now get told how the Chess and footabll bodies dont know anything about ranking

A friend of my grandma insisted that carrier pigeons were a more reliable mode of communication than email.

arguing with these guys you get the sense that time runs in different direction for these guys

 

[Napa]

You actually gave 2 extra wins for Imrans team I think. Pity much ?

Link : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...anval1=span;team=7;template=results;type=team

You are right, it is 7 and not 9. I was counting the 2 home victories against SL, but Miandad and not Imran was captain then.

 

[Junaids]

Three wins really.
He was touting a team like that as an ATG team.

You completely miss the point.

They drew three Test series - Home and Away - with the GOAT Test Team.

The difference between the Imran Khan 1985-1992 Pakistanis and the modern Indians is that nobody beat them in a home or away series for eight years, except for a single 1-0 defeat in Australia.

No one.

And even though they had the good or bad fortune to be active at the same time as the GOAT Test Team, they didn’t lose to them either.

As I wrote earlier, it’s the same as if India now went unbeaten from South Africa in January 2018 through to 2025.

It also highlights the relative worthlessness of Home wins. Imran Khan actually refused to play in the Home series v England, Australia and New Zealand because he considered wins on home turf to be cheap.

And for the home series that he did play - notably the tours by India in 1989 and the West Indies in 1990 - he refused to play unless neutral umpires officiated.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

You completely miss the point.

They drew three Test series - Home and Away - with the GOAT Test Team.

The difference between the Imran Khan 1985-1992 Pakistanis and the modern Indians is that nobody beat them in a home or away series for eight years, except for a single 1-0 defeat in Australia.

No one.

And even though they had the good or bad fortune to be active at the same time as the GOAT Test Team, they didn’t lose to them either.

As I wrote earlier, it’s the same as if India now went unbeaten from South Africa in January 2018 through to 2025.

It also highlights the relative worthlessness of Home wins. Imran Khan actually refused to play in the Home series v England, Australia and New Zealand because he considered wins on home turf to be cheap.

And for the home series that he did play - notably the tours by India in 1989 and the West Indies in 1990 - he refused to play unless neutral umpires officiated.

Also in Greek mythology Achilles captured a beautiful princess Briseis and fell in love with her.

But when the enemy captured her and took her, Achilles became depressed and refused to fight.

 

[Buffet]

IK's team ranked #1 for 2 months. India ahead.

When did IK's team got to rank 1?

 

[AMSS]

When did IK's team got to rank 1?

current ranking methodology applied retrospectively gives imran's team a 2 month reign at the top sometime between 1986-1989.

 

[Mamoon]

Imran Khan led Pakistan to a defeat in Sri Lanka in 1986. No wonder he did not like playing against minnows.

 

[Buffet]

current ranking methodology applied retrospectively gives imran's team a 2 month reign at the top sometime between 1986-1989.

Thanks.

 

[Napa]

When did IK's team got to rank 1?

August 1988 to September 1988

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

 

[AlizeeFan]

You completely miss the point.

They drew three Test series - Home and Away - with the GOAT Test Team.

The difference between the Imran Khan 1985-1992 Pakistanis and the modern Indians is that nobody beat them in a home or away series for eight years, except for a single 1-0 defeat in Australia.

No one.

And even though they had the good or bad fortune to be active at the same time as the GOAT Test Team, they didn’t lose to them either.

As I wrote earlier, it’s the same as if India now went unbeaten from South Africa in January 2018 through to 2025.

It also highlights the relative worthlessness of Home wins. Imran Khan actually refused to play in the Home series v England, Australia and New Zealand because he considered wins on home turf to be cheap.

And for the home series that he did play - notably the tours by India in 1989 and the West Indies in 1990 - he refused to play unless neutral umpires officiated.

You know secret of not losing games for that team?


3-4 days of cricket ending up as drawn games.

If I tell someone that a normal match (not affected by rain) has been drawn in 2018, people will expect at least 400-440 overs in that match.

What if I tell you a match has only 200-350 overs (2-4 days) of cricket and match is drawn, would you be surprised at the result?

Out of 23 games which were drawn in during 1985-1992, only 6 had more than 400 overs. 17 had less than 400 overs.

9 had less 340 overs - less than 4 days of cricket.

Compare that to England tour of India in 2016. England lost 2 games playing 400-430 overs and 2 with 330-370 overs.

If English team had similar luxury of Imran's team they would have returned from India with series result of 0-0.

Of course if you watched those games, then you would know that those great undefeated matches were due to shortened games rather than the quality of the team.

 

[Buffet]

You know secret of not losing games for that team?


3-4 days of cricket ending up as drawn games.

If I tell someone that a normal match (not affected by rain) has been drawn in 2018, people will expect at least 400-440 overs in that match.

What if I tell you a match has only 200-350 overs (2-4 days) of cricket and match is drawn, would you be surprised at the result?

Out of 23 games which were drawn in during 1985-1992, only 6 had more than 400 overs. 17 had less than 400 overs.

9 had less 340 overs - less than 4 days of cricket.

Compare that to England tour of India in 2016. England lost 2 games playing 400-430 overs and 2 with 330-370 overs.

If English team had similar luxury of Imran's team they would have returned from India with series result of 0-0.

Of course if you watched those games, then you would know that those great undefeated matches were due to shortened games rather than the quality of the team.

So despite many complaining about overs bowled in current era, previous era was really ridiculous. 9 tests out of 23 had less than 4 days of cricket? You learn something new everyday.

 

[Tusker]

You know secret of not losing games for that team?


3-4 days of cricket ending up as drawn games.

If I tell someone that a normal match (not affected by rain) has been drawn in 2018, people will expect at least 400-440 overs in that match.

What if I tell you a match has only 200-350 overs (2-4 days) of cricket and match is drawn, would you be surprised at the result?

Out of 23 games which were drawn in during 1985-1992, only 6 had more than 400 overs. 17 had less than 400 overs.

9 had less 340 overs - less than 4 days of cricket.

Compare that to England tour of India in 2016. England lost 2 games playing 400-430 overs and 2 with 330-370 overs.

If English team had similar luxury of Imran's team they would have returned from India with series result of 0-0.

Of course if you watched those games, then you would know that those great undefeated matches were due to shortened games rather than the quality of the team.

Great Post ! Please Tag me if you ever get a response from Junaids.

 

[AlizeeFan]

So despite many complaining about overs bowled in current era, previous era was really ridiculous. 9 tests out of 23 had less than 4 days of cricket? You learn something new everyday.

Not 9, but 6. That's like 25% of the matches.

Moreover those are 23 drawn games - which means match had maximum possible overs. 75% of the matches had less than 4 days of cricket.

Giving credit to captain for shortened game is like giving team credit for saving the washed out matches in modern cricket.



Imran's team saved 1986 home series against WI 1-1

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...3rd-test-west-indies-tour-of-pakistan-1986-87

3rd test, WI needed 3 wickets and only 384 overs were bowled in the match. At least 50 overs less than expected number of overs. Perhaps [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] wants to give credit to team for wasting those overs by some methods which we are unaware of.



Something similar happened in 1990 against WI. Series was 1-1 drawn.
3rd test, WI needed 4 wickets and 1 breakthrough would have enough to nail the tailenders.

Total number of overs bowled in the match - 274

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...3rd-test-west-indies-tour-of-pakistan-1990-91

If overs requirements were applied in same way what we have these days, both series would have ended 2-1 in favor of WI.


Only reason those teams saved those series for years was lack of overs and nothing else.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Great Post ! Please Tag me if you ever get a response from Junaids.

Doubt that [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will ever tell you these things, even though he claims to have watched those matches.

Either he has been taking PP for a ride by claiming to have watched those matches or deliberately ignored this point for his agenda.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Imran Khan led Pakistan to a defeat in Sri Lanka in 1986. No wonder he did not like playing against minnows.

Ouch! That's not gonna go down well with folks here

 

[Napa]

Also in Greek mythology Achilles captured a beautiful princess Briseis and fell in love with her.

But when the enemy captured her and took her, Achilles became depressed and refused to fight.

Nice literary reference, PP provides serendipitous pleasures

 

[kuskash]

Imran Khan led Pakistan to a defeat in Sri Lanka in 1986. No wonder he did not like playing against minnows.

Oh boy, why do you always have to burst their bubbles with reality. I was not aware of it, thanks.

 

[Napa]

Imran Khan led Pakistan to a defeat in Sri Lanka in 1986. No wonder he did not like playing against minnows.

Great Post ! Please Tag me if you ever get a response from Junaids.

Ouch! That's not gonna go down well with folks here

Oh boy, why do you always have to burst their bubbles with reality. I was not aware of it, thanks.

SL's Colombo 8 wicket victory in in 1986 against IK's team was only its second Test victory. The first was against India a year ago. But no one claims that the 1985 Indian Test team was ATG.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...n-2nd-test-pakistan-tour-of-sri-lanka-1985-86

 

[pakistan cricket fan]

Men the arrogance off some Indian fans and wannebe Pakistani fan in this thread is amazing you would think they are better then west indies off 80s and australia of 2000s

On topic India are rightfully number 1 but they are not that good as some arrogant indian fans and 1 wannebe pakistani fan is saying.

 

[Titan24]

Definitelty the no 1 team with worst opening bolwers and pretty mediocre middle order and openers.

Compare the bowling and batting averages of the teams which were no 1 previously with this Indian team and you guys will know that what I am talking about.

Other than Kohli or if we exaggerate a bit Ashwin none of the players can get into test world xi.

 

[Rahul1]

Men the arrogance off some Indian fans and wannebe Pakistani fan in this thread is amazing you would think they are better then west indies off 80s and australia of 2000s

On topic India are rightfully number 1 but they are not that good as some arrogant indian fans and 1 wannebe pakistani fan is saying.

*wannabe

And no Indian in this thread is saying that we are as good as Australia of 2000s or West Indies of 80s. Please highlight any post which says that.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

To exactly know about the weakest number 1 team. We need to know which number 1 team won the most matches away from home? Has anyone posted those stats in this thread?

 

[cricketindiafan]

Definitelty the no 1 team with worst opening bolwers and pretty mediocre middle order and openers.

Compare the bowling and batting averages of the teams which were no 1 previously with this Indian team and you guys will know that what I am talking about.

Other than Kohli or if we exaggerate a bit Ashwin none of the players can get into test world xi.

Once again, if historically legendary test teams stopped losing to Zimbabwe, SL and WI (some at home) or avoid getting thrashed in India repeatedly despute winning crucial tosses, this 'pathetic' Indian side will not be number 1. But then fantasy and reality tend to be starkly different.

 

[RainMan_]

An excellent thought provoking post from Junaids.

 

[kuskash]

Men the arrogance off some Indian fans and wannebe Pakistani fan in this thread is amazing you would think they are better then west indies off 80s and australia of 2000s

On topic India are rightfully number 1 but they are not that good as some arrogant indian fans and 1 wannebe pakistani fan is saying.

Sorry but where did you get this ideas? I do not see any such posts here.

 

[Sadevdesai]

I agree that the Indians are the weakest #1 Team ...... but ...... what does that make the other Teams ????????????

 

[AlizeeFan]

To exactly know about the weakest number 1 team. We need to know which number 1 team won the most matches away from home? Has anyone posted those stats in this thread?

That's not the point of the thread, so that won't be posted.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not sure why the OP is bringing Imran's team who lost to minnows, Sri Lanka in 1986.

IMO, India has already established them as the best Asian team across all formats over the generations. I had criticism against this team because our standards aren't too low that we are comparing only among Asian teams. I was comparing India's best team to SA's team of 2006-2014 who were a truly no.1 team, even though they couldnt establish the dominance for a longer period like West Indies or Australia did.

Also, this is not even India's best ever team mind you and I can definitely guarantee that this team won't lose to minnows, SL. The best Indian team I saw was between 2007-2011(till WC) as I have said it dozen times.

OP seems to have very low benchmark if he is considering a team that lost matches to minnows in the reckoning. Ofcourse, India is the weakest no.1 team because other Asian teams haven't ever able to maintain no.1 ranking for any certain period of time.

A debate whether India have been the best Asian team wasn't even worth a thread, because other teams have went on to lose matches against minnows.

 

[Ab Fan]

We all know that there has been no outstanding Test cricket team for many years. All the major teams are flawed, and all tend to fail away from home if they fail to arrive early enough to acclimatise.

I thought it was ludicrous when Pakistan briefly held the Number 1 ranking two years ago. But now that I've seen the 2018 Indians, it no longer seems quite so absurd that Misbah had his brief reign over the Test world.

In fact, how on earth did a team as poor as the 2018 Indians become the Number 1 ranked Test team?

<B>The benchmark for the finest Asian team of all time was, as we all know, set by Imran Khan when he returned from long-term injury to resume the Pakistan Test captaincy in March 1985</B>. In the next 7 years until his retirement Pakistan lost just 4 Test matches, 3 of which were in drawn series with the Number 1 ranked West Indies team (the other being in Australia).

That Pakistan team lost 4 Tests in 7 years. India has already lost 4 Tests this year!

And, lest we forget, India has not successfully chased a target of more than 100 to win a Test outside Asia for over 14 years!

So how did we get to the point where a team as poor as the 2018 Indians can hold the Number 1 ranking?

India's financial takeover of cricket has actually followed shortly after the break-up of its best ever teams.

The Indian team of the late 1990's to early 2000's was arguably its strongest ever, built as it was on the batting of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman. They famously lost 2 of their 3 home Tests against Pakistan in 1999-2000, but they did draw away to a weakened Australia in 2003-04, thanks mainly to the absence of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.

India first led the ICC Test Championship in late-2009 to mid-2011 in what was a clear transition period for Australia and South Africa, but few took that lofty rating seriously as the team then lurched from disaster to disaster in Australia and England and even New Zealand in the period 2011-2014.

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.

Yet the problems never disappeared.

This is a "Number 1 team" which lost its last Test series in Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa.

Both India and Pakistan have played 6 Tests in England since 2013.

India has won 1 and lost 5.
Pakistan has won 3 and lost 3.

Much of the problem comes down to arrogance and complacency leading to failure to arrive on Test tours early enough to acclimatise.

But to be totally honest, most of the problem comes down to the low calibre of the players currently representing India.

The openers are such lightweights that they don't even deserve the briefest scrutiny.

But what is Pujara other than a Poor Man's Dravid?

Kohli is, I accept, a fine player but at the same time he is an ignorant Test captain overseas.

Rahane, of course, is a Poor Man's Laxman.

Pandya is not even a Poor Man's Kapil Dev, he is a Poor Man's Chetan Sharma.

Karthik is not even a Poor Man's Kiran More, let alone MS Dhoni.

Ashwin has only ever taken 55 Test wickets outside Asia, at an average of 38.

Ishant Sharma has 125 Test wickets outside Asia at an average approaching 40.

Umesh Yadav has 33 Test wickets outside Asia at an average of over 40.

Mohammad Shami has 68 Test wickets outside Asia at an average of 33.

No wonder they keep losing. This is a team packed full of players who have never achieved anything outside Asia in Test cricket.

Please illustrate how can a team that lost a test match to minnows, Sri Lanka set this benchmark?

 

[ManFan]

People talking about the Sri Lanka loss are forgetting one thing and that is the team under Imran Khan was perhaps the finest Test team Pakistan has had. Every team has one loss that they would like to forget, such as AUS losing to India in 2001 or or the WI in NZ in 1980.

It won the first series in England and India (in the same year, 1987) for its nation and drew three consecutive series with THAT West Indies side. So and so, that even Sir Vivian Richards in a recent interview with Wasim Akram, has stated that it was the only side that constantly threatened their reign as the best team in the world.

It’s true that they were not as great at home as India are right now and that they were not even the best team of their era.

But it is certainly the case that they were ahead of others and perhaps only rivaled by the Indian team of the late 00’s as the best Asian team of all time.

 

[Napa]

Not sure why the OP is bringing Imran's team who lost to minnows, Sri Lanka in 1986.

Because [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] life revolves around firstly dumping on Indian team, secondly boosting up the Pakistani team

Also, this is not even India's best ever team mind you and I can definitely guarantee that this team won't lose to minnows, SL. The best Indian team I saw was between 2007-2011(till WC) as I have said it dozen times.

I think the current Indian team has a superior Test bowling unit.

 

[Ab Fan]

People talking about the Sri Lanka loss are forgetting one thing and that is the team under Imran Khan was perhaps the finest Test team Pakistan has had. Every team has one loss that they would like to forget, such as AUS losing to India in 2001 or or the WI in NZ in 1980.

It won the first series in England and India (in the same year, 1987) for its nation and drew three consecutive series with THAT West Indies side. So and so, that even Sir Vivian Richards in a recent interview with Wasim Akram, has stated that it was the only side that constantly threatened their reign as the best team in the world.

It’s true that they were not as great at home as India are right now and that they were not even the best team of their era.

But it is certainly the case that they were ahead of others and perhaps only rivaled by the Indian team of the late 00’s as the best Asian team of all time.

Aus lost to the Indian team that had built an ATG batting lineup by then and had the bowlers(spinners) to win matches in India. They didnt lost to minnows.

Cant say about WI vs NZ because I didnt follow history. Someone else can come up with it.

 

[Ab Fan]

Because [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] life revolves around firstly dumping on Indian team, secondly boosting up the Pakistani team



I think the current Indian team has a superior Test bowling unit.

The current team batting is quite average for non-Asian countries. There is none even better than Laxman, let alone Dravid or Tendulkar except one i.e. Kohli. And while Kohli has the personality of a captain and inspires his team with runs but he is not tactically good enough.

 

[the_outsider]

People talking about the Sri Lanka loss are forgetting one thing and that is the team under Imran Khan was perhaps the finest Test team Pakistan has had. Every team has one loss that they would like to forget, such as AUS losing to India in 2001 or or the WI in NZ in 1980.

Your comparison of Pak losing to SL in 1986 and Australia losing to India in 2001 is a bad one.

SL was still very much a minnow in '86.

India, on the other hand had already established itself as a tough team to beat at home by 2001. It's not for no reason that Waugh called that tour "the final frontier".

 

[ManFan]

Your comparison of Pak losing to SL in 1986 and Australia losing to India in 2001 is a bad one.

SL was still very much a minnow in '86.

India, on the other hand had already established itself as a tough team to beat at home by 2001. It's not for no reason that Waugh called that tour "the final frontier".

SL was definitely weaker in 1986 than AUS in 2001 and perhaps equal with NZ of 1980.

The point was that a single Test or Test series loss does not undermine or take away from the overall strength of a team.

It would be like saying since India lost to Australia in Pune, it’s not strong at home. Which would be anything but the truth as India are better at home than any almost any team in Test cricket.

 

[Kroll]

It's a bit difficult to compare modern Test teams to teams of past eras as conditions and some other factors have changed. Nevertheless, I personally wouldn't say they are the weakest number 1 in history. They have one of the best batsman ever to play the game plus a solid bowling lineup which hampered previous Indian teams.

 

[Napa]

The current team batting is quite average for non-Asian countries. There is none even better than Laxman, let alone Dravid or Tendulkar except one i.e. Kohli. And while Kohli has the personality of a captain and inspires his team with runs but he is not tactically good enough.

Mostly agree with you. While the bowling is better, other than Kohli, the current Indian batting leaves a lot to be desired. This is quite unexpected as there are supposed to be fantastic young batsmen waiting in the wings, but we still persist with the oldies.

Also, Kohli's captaincy leaves a lot to be desired. If Ganguly had this team, he would be winning series in SA, Eng, Aus and NZ.

 

[pakistan cricket fan]

*wannabe

And no Indian in this thread is saying that we are as good as Australia of 2000s or West Indies of 80s. Please highlight any post which says that.

Yess wannabe because anything Pakistan wins is FLUKE be it against england drawing 2-2, winning the trophy, Pakistan number 1 in ranking, winning the Tri series and anything india loses is unfortunate and if India wins is wel deserved thats what you call wannebe

And my bad no Indianfan said that
and

 

[pakistan cricket fan]

Sorry but where did you get this ideas? I do not see any such posts here.

you are right my exuses

 

[Tusker]

Doubt that [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] will ever tell you these things, even though he claims to have watched those matches.

Either he has been taking PP for a ride by claiming to have watched those matches or deliberately ignored this point for his agenda.

yup no doubt about that .... unlikely to show up on this thread ... but miracles do happen

 

[shaz619]

I don't think it is fair to call any team that reaches no.1 'weak', but we can compare their strength to others and how well they may have done against past teams which won the mace or became no.1 in the historical rankings. This team is good but the India team which had Tendulkar, Ganguly, VVS Laxman, Dravid, Sehwag, Kumble and Zahir Khan was much better for me.

 

[Napa]

To exactly know about the weakest number 1 team. We need to know which number 1 team won the most matches away from home? Has anyone posted those stats in this thread?

Bhai, you are confused again. If you want to "exactly know about the weakest number 1 team" then you should be asking "We need to know which number 1 team won the <b>least</b> matches away from home?" and not "We need to know which number 1 team won the<b> most</b> matches away from home?"

Anyway, this obsession with away matches is simply a attempt to dump of the current Indian team. Being a dud at home is worse than being a dud abroad. A strong team should firstly be able to dominate at home in conditions its batsmen are used to.

 

[giri26]

India is not the greatest Team but again, all teams are poor at the moment. India have done well and deserve to be number 1. There is nothing called the weakest number 1. You are number one based on the competition. At this point, the competition around the world isn't that great. If other teams pick up and emulate what India has done at home, then India will be dethroned. Unfortunately, the other teams aren't good enough to do that at the moment. India has been whitewashing teams for fun at home (Except for Australia) over the last few years. India beat SL 3-0 in SL and beat WI without having any slip ups.

They won a Test in SA and now have won one in England as well with a chance to win the series, albeit very slim.

 

[docteurmanish]

India is not the greatest Team but again, all teams are poor at the moment. India have done well and deserve to be number 1. There is nothing called the weakest number 1. You are number one based on the competition. At this point, the competition around the world isn't that great. If other teams pick up and emulate what India has done at home, then India will be dethroned. Unfortunately, the other teams aren't good enough to do that at the moment. India has been whitewashing teams for fun at home (Except for Australia) over the last few years. India beat SL 3-0 in SL and beat WI without having any slip ups.

They won a Test in SA and now have won one in England as well with a chance to win the series, albeit very slim.

you are right.

what you are seeing is a team in evolution .
rahul and gabbar are just abt settling down

pant is ready to be the gilly ...

either vihari or shaw or gill is going to occupy the middle order slot if nair doesnt make it.

india invested in sharma which has set them back . think if they even get gill or shaw or vihari performing , this is an ascendent team

india will draw 2-2 in england and win 2-1 in australia . never seen a better bowling unit and amazimg bowling backup - guys like sundar and j yadav would walk into most one day and test teams but for ashwin chahal and chinaman ..

as regards indian team in 2011etc - yes batting was good but the tracks were much less docile and sehwag was the reason the middle order looked good - he demoralised many oppositions

 

[Oligochaetes]

The summary of teams that have held the highest rating from 1952 to the present by whole month periods, are: (including unofficial test ranking)
[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Total Months [/td][td]Highest Rating [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Australia [/td][td]326 [/td][td]143 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] West Indies [/td][td]235 [/td][td]135 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] England [/td][td]106 [/td][td]125 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] India [/td][td]68 [/td][td]130 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] South Africa [/td][td]61 [/td][td]135 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] Pakistan [/td][td]4 [/td][td]111 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

New Zealand and Sri Lanka never reached test No.1 ranking.

Going by this table, Pakistan has been the weakest. Lowest rating and retaining the position for the least time.

 

[Napa]

People talking about the Sri Lanka loss are forgetting one thing and that is the team under Imran Khan was perhaps the finest Test team Pakistan has had. Every team has one loss that they would like to forget, such as AUS losing to India in 2001 or or the WI in NZ in 1980.

IK's team was a great team, and when it held the #1 ranking it was well deserved. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. What annoyed me was [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] selectively citing stats (only number of losses and ignoring number of wins) to claim that IK's team was much better than the current #1 team, which he labelled the "weakest ever #1 team".

The excellent analysis performed by [MENTION=88991]AlizeeFan[/MENTION] points out the real reason why losses (and also wins) were so rare during IK's time was far fewer overs being bowled in a match. Of course, Junaids is going to ignore such analysis, just like he won't admit that he wrongly accused the Indian team of reaching the #1 spot in October 2016 by "gorging on home Tests".

 

[RamLakhan]

I agree that the Indians are the weakest #1 Team ...... but ...... what does that make the other Teams ????????????

They are useless minnows unfit to play cricket!

 

[Mamoon]

I think this discussion has ran its course. There is no objective metric by which one can conclude that Imran’s Test team was the best Asian Test team of all time and consequently, better than Kohli’s team.

The more you dig deeper, the more you realize that Imran’s Test team is overrated by certain PPers today.

It may not be a popular opinion, but I would back Kohli’s team to beat Imran’s team more often than not on a result-oriented pitch, but I suppose that Imran’s team would be able to carve out more draws.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Looking at India's batting, yeah they probably are. I don't remember Aus, SAF or Eng being this weak when they were no.1.

 

[RainMan_]

Looking at India's batting, yeah they probably are. I don't remember Aus, SAF or Eng being this weak when they were no.1.

Keep in mind that they r playing against 5th ranked team that has dropped countless dollies in this series, but India is still getting humiliated in this fashion.

 

[Romali_rotti]

India is easily the strongest no.1 team over the last 4 odd years or so in my opinion. Look at ENG they could not even sniff a victory in India, atleast India made it competitive here.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Keep in mind that they r playing against 5th ranked team that has dropped countless dollies in this series, but India is still getting humiliated in this fashion.

Given that Pakistan has regularly ragdolled England in England since the 90s, it's shameful to see India unable to win more than a single test in a series. Mid 00s - early 10s South Africa would've shredded this England team to nothingness.

 

[Hasan123]

No current team is chasing this down let's be honest.