INDIA number 1 test team in the world in ICC rankings

As someone who is of Indian origin, India have continued to provide amazing inspiration.

Now for their latest act, they have proved that you don't necessarily need to win that many test series or even test matches to be the best in the world.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/962775.html

I'm pretty sure they've been whitewashed more in the last 4 years than they've won series. Great stuff.

I will bite

They are number one by a single point, to me that says there isn't a number one. So the ranking show it as it is, a number of teams close together that on their day can beat each other

I also think under the system, 100 is supposed to represent a par performance, so being number one on 110 again supports the fact of there not being one dominant team. I seem to recall the great Australian teams having scores around 140 and being miles ahead, something we didn't need a ranking system to tell us

So all a bit of fun, a point of interest but nothing more

I said las year that the system is broken. Australia got to #1 having lost more tests in the preceding 12 months than we had in the last n amount of years. However in this exact case I suppose if there absolutely needs to be a #1 India isn't the worst shout. They do have a series win over the former #1s and did win in Sri Lanka. I can't remember what series they won before that tbh, but they can't be worse than us!

Thing is at the moment nobody has an unblemished recent record...

India have been clobbered in Australia and home and away to England ; Australia were whitewashed in India and UAE and lost in England ; England totally slaughtered on last trip to Australia , lost in UAE and failed to win in NZ or West Indies...and SA have now lost their last series to India , Australia and now England.

Somebody has to be top ; but it doesn't mean a lot at the moment...

India is the No.1 team PERIOD

one can rationalize, philosophize, theorize...fact...India is the No.1 team per the rules of the ranking system.

and until Mid Feb when Aus travel to NZ.....this will not change
and should Aus even a draw a test match with NZ ( and that's quite likey giiven that the conditions will be NZ conditions) their will lag further behind India

KP_fan wrote:India is the No.1 team PERIOD

one can rationalize, philosophize, theorize...fact...India is the No.1 team per the rules of the ranking system.

and until Mid Feb when Aus travel to NZ.....this will not change
and should Aus even a draw a test match with NZ ( and that's quite likey giiven that the conditions will be NZ conditions) their will lag further behind India

Of course they are No.1 but the point is are they the best test team in the world at present? Debatable. Australians would be miffed at that claim as they recently thrashed India. As has been said earlier many teams could make justifiable claims but there are no real stand out teams at present but by default (if you will) India stand at No.1.

Yep its all quite meaningless. When did this trend of updating the ratings after each match start anyway?

It used to be at least at the end of a series, and also there was an annual award, does that even still exist?

I've never put much stock in these ratings, all I know or care about is that England are currently better than South Africa and that Australia are better than India or that we can't win on the subcontinent.

yes No. 1 means they are the best team in the world now

this is per the ICC rules for calculating the best team.

we can not selectively accept the ranking when we like them

KP_fan wrote:yes No. 1 means they are the best team in the world now

this is per the ICC rules for calculating the best team.

we can not selectively accept  the ranking when we like them

No being No.1 means that the system's points system at this time puts them top of the table. If you honestly believe that is a true depiction then how do you explain away India's recent thrashing against Australia? Hardly a trait you'd expect to see from a team pertaining to call themselves the best in the world is it?

I think every one will get a fair ride at the #1 train. Like Hammer said though, I'm more concerned with series victories. If we beat Australia later this year we could be ranked below Djibouti for all I care

England have a glorious chance to kick on over the next year - Sri Lanka and Pakistan at home, followed by trips to Bangladesh and India away.

It should be 4 victories out of 4.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:yes No. 1 means they are the best team in the world now

this is per the ICC rules for calculating the best team.

we can not selectively accept  the ranking when we like them

No being No.1 means that the system's points system at this time puts them top of the table. If you honestly believe that is a true depiction then how do you explain away India's recent thrashing against Australia? Hardly a trait you'd expect to see from a team pertaining to call themselves the best in the world is it?

so what's a true depiction of No.1 ?

Aus ?...they got whitewashed in UAE and Ind on their last two tours
SA?....they got whitewashed in India?

I can't get in the least worked up about No 1 ranking. Sometimes there is a team that is clearly the best in the world and sometimes there isn't. So, really I agree with VTR's comment near the beginning of the thread.

kingraf wrote:I think every one will get a fair ride at the #1 train. Like Hammer said though, I'm more concerned with series victories. If we beat Australia later this year we could be ranked below Djibouti for all I care

Yes, there's a lot in that.

Australia didn't exactly thrash India in the last series it was that they defeated India....... The thrashing happened in the visit prior to that. And in return, India absolutely mauled them when they came calling....... England were hopeless in Australia 2 years ago, then they lost at home to Sri Lanka, lost away to Pakistan too. Couldn't put New Zealand away at home. And above all that, kept the West Indies interested in test cricket with a West Indies like performance when they went there the last time!. Of course they got the better of Australia at home and now smashing South Africa and didn't give India too many chances after the first 2 tests in the last series.
The Saffers lost a couple of series back-to-back against England at home and India away,lost to Australia at home not too long ago, didn't even performed with conviction against Bangladesh away.
Australia were destroyed in their last visit to India, lost the away Ashes this ear and didn't have anything to celebrate when they went to the UAE. Of they rosted England when they played at home the last time and defeated South Africa away and continues to do well at home.
So its been a mixed record for all of them, and with their recent away win over Sri Lanka and home win over then number 1 side, it is India's time at the top. I wish they would have had some fine away performances to add to the number 1 ranking like they did it the last time, but I'd certainly take this.......

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I can't get in the least worked up about No 1 ranking.  Sometimes there is a team that is clearly the best in the world and sometimes there isn't.  So, really I agree with VTR's comment near the beginning of the thread.

Very much so.

Rankings of very little interest to me. How good a team is currently and what's important is determined by how well it's doing in its current series. Anything more is for history to judge.

KP_fan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:yes No. 1 means they are the best team in the world now

this is per the ICC rules for calculating the best team.

we can not selectively accept  the ranking when we like them

No being No.1 means that the system's points system at this time puts them top of the table. If you honestly believe that is a true depiction then how do you explain away India's recent thrashing against Australia? Hardly a trait you'd expect to see from a team pertaining to call themselves the best in the world is it?

so what's a true depiction of No.1 ?

Aus ?...they got whitewashed in UAE and Ind on their last two tours
SA?....they got whitewashed in India?

My point is that there isn't a stand out team around at the moment that I could look at and say they are the best team in the world. India hold the ranking of No.1 but if you did a worldwide poll of cricket fans around the world I think you'd get a widely varied answer to who they think is the best team in the world. There isn't a team around that you can say with conviction that they are the best - say like Australia were for a number of years.

For instance I can't see any team beating England in England as the Anderson/Broad factor is huge, likewise I can't see Australia being beaten at home nor are India an easy proposition in India. England beating South Africa away is probably the biggest series win of the past 2 years.

I do agree that there is no "heads and shoulders above the rest" team...like the imposing Windies of 80s and Aus of 90s and 2000s or SA of 2010s...

and that there are too many teams close to each other and generally good at home....

BUT...that doesn't mean we don't applaud the moment one team breaks from the pack and edges ahead....even if they are not an imposing all time great.....
It's not right to dilute that moment ( or a few months ) of achievement...the No.1 has earned the moment fair, within the rules....

India has had some good achievements.....they earned ICC points by:

1) Drawing 2 tests in Aus when they were low and Aus No.1
2) by not just winning but white washing No.1 aus 3-0 and SA 4-0...not easy to whitewash the no.1 ranked sides.
3) and then by winning an overseas series in lanka which is never easy.

They aren't the greatest side but did what was necessary to get to No.1

Don't get me wrong KP - it is an achievement to be pleased and proud about but they should look on this as a time to kick on and do some real eye-opening stuff that will have the whole world saying yes India are the best test team in the world.

KP_fan wrote:I do agree that there is no "heads and shoulders above the rest" team...like the imposing Windies of 80s and Aus of 90s and 2000s or SA of 2010s...

and that there are too many teams close to each other and generally good at home....

BUT...that doesn't mean we don't applaud the moment one team breaks from the pack and edges ahead....even if they are not an imposing all time great.....
It's not right to dilute that moment ( or a few months ) of achievement...the No.1 has earned the moment fair, within the rules....

Fair enough if you want to applaud the moment and no disputing it's within the rules. It's just not particularly meaningful for some of us.

I support both India in England... this article was partly tongue in cheek if you read what I said.
Not to demean India, but personally I feel Australia are the number 1 team in the world.

Test cricket does seem to be increasingly dominated by home teams (with the exceptions of teams who are woefully out of form like South Africa and Sri Lanks).
You'd fancy England, India, Australia, NZ to win most test matches in their home.

Some possible interesting match-ups for me which could really help decide who's number 1:
New Zealand vs Australia in New Zealand
India vs Pakistan in UAE
India vs South Africa in South Africa
Australia vs India in India
England vs New Zealand in New Zealand


I know we just had the Ashes in England, but honestly I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from it as frankly both teams were doing a Jekyll and Hyde act during the series, every match was a battering and yet it ended 3-2.

I suppose if I had one gripe about India it is that they, more than any other country, will create pitches solely to suit their strengths - spin bowling. Now I know that is fair enough as it is the way of the world but all it really does is virtually assure they can't be beaten at home but it then stifles their own pace attack which doesn't help when they go abroad and often get beaten comfortably. It may suit them better if they went more down the middle road and also created pitches to encourage their seamers and therefore enhance their chances when they go overseas where pitches are far more likely to be suited to seam attacks.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I suppose if I had one gripe about India it is that they, more than any other country, will create pitches solely to suit their strengths - spin bowling. Now I know that is fair enough as it is the way of the world but all it really does is virtually assure they can't be beaten at home but it then stifles their own pace attack which doesn't help when they go abroad and often get beaten comfortably. It may suit them better if they went more down the middle road and also created pitches to encourage their seamers and therefore enhance their chances when they go overseas where pitches are far more likely to be suited to seam attacks.

I think most countries do it to be frank.
I still remember that incredible green pitch England prepared against India (think it was somewhere in north England). Ball swings a lot, which suits England's pace bowlers.
Australia have fast bouncy surfaces, South Africa somewhere in the middle of Aus and Eng but suits their pace bowlers... etc.

India it may be slightly more obvious, as watching cricket outside the subcontinent it seems more odd to see the ball spinning as much as it does.

In terms of a tip for India to improve, I think personal they should tell their test players to spend time playing county cricket in England. It helped Zaheer a lot, and could help the technique of their batsman against pacy swing bowling.

I guess any team which can win both away and at home would carry more meaning with the No.1 ranking.

As we all recognise, there has not been one particularly dominant side over the last few years and this is frustrating for all of us.

I'm actually feeling a little sorry for SA's free fall in such a short space of time. The same happened to Australia when the wheels came off less than a decade ago. It's a relatively more level playing field these days - kudos to the team which can convincingly win away from home - as England has done most recently.

It is great for cricket to see England perform well again in SA - think they would have given us a run for our money if they were touring here instead of SA. India can partly thank them for their "rise" to No.1 in recent days. Still waiting to see India win a series here in Australia though.

I'm impressed with the Kiwis too. I always feel as though they are a dangerously under-rated side. They performed very well in England and were probably not the team Australia would have wanted to see "battle harden" England before last year's Ashes. Our upcoming series is going to be a tough one no doubt. Williamson is destined to become a great batsman (if not already!) and the top order has some experienced steel in there now.

Not sure where SA is going to go from here. Hopefully not too much worse. They don't deserve to dip down much further towards that par ranking of 100. I reckon they'll stabilse around 105-107 after their next match and it's a 50:50 whether Australia can legally usurp India's very tenuous position at the top of this greasy pole.

My current power rankings (unofficial):

1. England
2. India
3. Australia
4. NZ
5. SA

Looks about right doesn't it?

Don't undermine Pak...they are a terrific side...having beaten every top side in UAE ( home) and Lanka in lanka.

they have the best pacers and mercurial spinners in their squad...inspite of all scandals.

Fair point, mate.
Had a knock on the door as I was posting this morning... was in a bit of a rush. They certainly are capable of being right up there too.

I would go Eng/Ind/Aus/Pak as the top teams - I think they would all win at home vs each other

Then NZ/SA/SL in the second tier, all as unknown quantities in a way as they don't play much Test cricket, and assuming SA are going to have a bit of a lull period

True.....SA it is that has fallen into 2nd tier....for now

One way to look at this is what teams are best suited to playing on neutral venues; for me it's England, Australia and New Zealand, take the spin factor away and the subcontinent teams can't compete in my opinion. Take away bounce and Australia can still compete whereas England can still do well without swinging conditions with NZ somewhere in the middle.

I'll be interested to see Pakistan this year. They've got a solid team. Azhar is technically competent, Younus and Misbah as well, and Safraz is a proper game changer. If their opening partnerships can stand up to some quality bowling on livelier surfaces. Then the combination of Riaz, Aamer and the mystery spinner we all know for a fact they'll find are gonna be very hard to play on said lively conditions

Hammersmith harrier wrote:One way to look at this is what teams are best suited to playing on neutral venues; for me it's England, Australia and New Zealand, take the spin factor away and the subcontinent teams can't compete in my opinion. Take away bounce and Australia can still compete whereas England can still do well without swinging conditions with NZ somewhere in the middle.

why take the spin factor away?
why not take the pace and bounce factor away and leave the spin factor in

one other criteria is the comprehensiveness of the win...in their own conditions.

Eng wins 3-2 vs Aus and draws 1-1 vs NZ in their own conditions.
Aus won only 2-0 out of 4 games vs India.

India and Pak whitewash all the top sides in "their" home conditions.

on the other India did not get whitewashed on their last tours of Aus ( drawn 2, L2), Eng ( drawn-1 , won1, L3), NZ( D1, L1) , SA ( D1, L1)...while it doesn't sound great...it increases the diffrential positive ICC ranking points if you lose away series by 50% and win home series by 100% margins

KP_fan wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:One way to look at this is what teams are best suited to playing on neutral venues; for me it's England, Australia and New Zealand, take the spin factor away and the subcontinent teams can't compete in my opinion. Take away bounce and Australia can still compete whereas England can still do well without swinging conditions with NZ somewhere in the middle.

why take the spin factor away?
why not take the pace and bounce factor away and leave the spin factor in  

If you read the whole paragraph I have taken the bounce factor away, i've also taken the swing factor away.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:One way to look at this is what teams are best suited to playing on neutral venues; for me it's England, Australia and New Zealand, take the spin factor away and the subcontinent teams can't compete in my opinion. Take away bounce and Australia can still compete whereas England can still do well without swinging conditions with NZ somewhere in the middle.

why take the spin factor away?
why not take the pace and bounce factor away and leave the spin factor in  

If you read the whole paragraph I have taken the bounce factor away, i've also taken the swing factor away.

you didn't read ( or maybe didn't understand my point)

Take away swing and bounce and leave spin in....all simultaneously

So the subcontinent then, good one.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So the subcontinent then, good one.

no you can apply that criteria at Sydney, Manchester, Cape Town, Port of Spain, Adelaide also.

Subcontinent difficult to tour partly because of conditions and partly because in all honestly I think teams would rather be in England, South Africa West Indies or Aus/NZ.

I would say right now that Australia are the number 1 team, as they'd win all their home matches, and would put up the best fight away from home as well.

India, England, New Zealand are then the next tier. I believe New Zealand have some home series coming up against Australia, and then South Africa away... they have a chance to win both those series frankly.
Pakistan I'd say come after that, they're pretty strong at home but not as strong as India (looked a bit edgy in their win against England and the scoreline flattered them), but they are still a underrated team. They have a big test against in England away this summer.
Then I'd say South Africa, who have fallen really off form. Still have an amazing pace bowling attack though, but with their awful performance in India and now being beaten soundly at home by England... you'd have to put them marginally below Pakistan.
Then Sri Lanka who lost at home to India and their team just isn't where it was around 5 years ago in Tests.

Also can someone tell me who the hell India are facing in Tests this year ?? There's literally nothing on cricinfo or the BCCI website.

Downooad the Future Tour Program mate.

You've got
Windies Away 4 Tests
Bangladesh home single Test
NZ home Three Tests
England home five Tests

kingraf wrote:Downooad the Future Tour Program mate.

You've got
Windies Away 4 Tests
Bangladesh home single Test
NZ home Three Tests
England home five Tests

Well that should help them cement their No.1 spot. They certainly should have few problems beating the Windies who are a pale shadow of the team they once were. Bangladesh will be a virtual walk-over. Home advantage against New Zealand should prove telling and that may be the case against England as well.

kingraf wrote:Downooad the Future Tour Program mate.

You've got
Windies Away 4 Tests
Bangladesh home single Test
NZ home Three Tests
England home five Tests

Where did you find this ?

Perhaps , we with our terrible touring record, might end up triggering false alarms about the Return of the West Indies! before someone els comes and put them in their rightful place.......

seanmichaels wrote:Subcontinent difficult to tour partly because of conditions and partly because in all honestly I think teams would rather be in England, South Africa West Indies or Aus/NZ.

Sean, are you mad? In all honesty?
There are fantastic experiences to be had on the sub continent... besides the cricket. All teams love touring there. Just ask Steve Waugh.
The lively flea markets for one. Bollywood too. The Ganges. I could go on and on and on... A poor attempt at trying to create a straw man argument, my friend.  

It Must Be Love wrote:Also can someone tell me who the hell India are facing in Tests this year ?? There's literally nothing on cricinfo or the BCCI website.

Need to go to the "Series" tab and click on the link down the bottom "Download ICC Future Tours programme"
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/match/fixtures_futures.html

msp83 wrote:Perhaps , we with our terrible touring record, might end up triggering false alarms about the Return of the West Indies! before someone else comes and put them in their rightful place.......

I don't think you'll have much to worry about, msp.
India seem a much more professional outfit these days. You will bully them as everyone else does these days. There's simply too much at stake nowadays to mess that one up.

Rank Team Matches Points Rating
1 India 32 3535 110
2 Australia 40 4376 109
3 South Africa 34 3703 109
4 Pakistan 28 2977 106
5 England 45 4610 102
6 New Zealand 36 3578 99
7 Sri Lanka 35 3123 89
8 West Indies 33 2504 76
9 Bangladesh 22 1026 47
10 Zimbabwe 10 53 5

here is how the ranking's stand....Eng gains somewhat offset by the defeat today.

Aus will  edge ahead of Ind if they beat NZ in Feb even by 1-0 in the 2 game series

and should NZ win this series they will go upto No-5 and Eng drop to No-6

You can throw a bed sheet over 1-6 just about. Good to see a bunched field for the present time.