World Test Team

[pcfan123]

and you fail at picking up on sarcasm

 

[brownies]

Theron is going take parnells position in SA Squad soon.

 

[shravi]

Do you understand what a World Test XI is?

 

[brownies]

Well Theron has a good bowling average. Also its my decision to take my team..

 

[pcfan123]

Where are you taking them? If its to a Test match then some of them are in for a rude awakening

 

[Dare]

Well Theron has a good bowling average. Also its my decision to take my team..

We understand its your decision but this is for test performers and Theron hasn't played a test yet. This is about a proper test team as was explained before.

 

[War]

Australia is a much more complete team than India or SA they have a range of class batsman and seamers only thing missing is a spinner.

SA has holes in its batting lineup and no great spinner, India has an awful seam attack bar Khan.

Its all very close but id back the Ozies to win in any conditions on any given day.

True. But overall this entire period where Indian has ascended to the "so called" number 1 ranking has been a bit farcical to me, which is why i dont think we need to have a ranking system in cricket.

India have indeed played alot of good test cricket between 2007-2010, but they where never # 1 in the first place. It was always very close between AUS/SA/IND since Australia glory era ended in the 2006/07 Ashes (although one can say South Africa where probably the best team in the world crica 2006-2009 since they didn't lose a test series in this period).

The Ranking system can never judge things properly. It shouldn't be used IMO.

 

[kirby]

True. But overall this entire period where Indian has ascended to the "so called" number 1 ranking has been a bit farcical to me, which is why i dont think we need to have a ranking system in cricket.

India have indeed played alot of good test cricket between 2007-2010, but they where never # 1 in the first place. It was always very close between AUS/SA/IND since Australia glory era ended in the 2006/07 Ashes (although once can say South Africa where probably the best team in the world crica 2006-2009 since they didn't lose a test series in this period).

The Ranking system can never judge things properly. It shouldn't be used IMO.

Well said, but there is always going to be a need for a "number 1" team. They just need a new system that's logical. India can't win away from home, draw a ridiculous number of matches, and yet are "number 1" it's so, so wrong.

 

[pcfan123]

War what are your thoughts on a Test championship? A year or 2 year long tournament with finals or something similar.......?

 

[sifter132]

True. But overall this entire period where Indian has ascended to the "so called" number 1 ranking has been a bit farcical to me, which is why i dont think we need to have a ranking system in cricket.

The Ranking system can never judge things properly. It shouldn't be used IMO.

Well said, but there is always going to be a need for a "number 1" team. They just need a new system that's logical. India can't win away from home, draw a ridiculous number of matches, and yet are "number 1" it's so, so wrong.

I find it funny that they bought in this ranking system when Australia was OBVIOUSLY #1 - streets ahead ie. a time when the ranking system wasn't really needed to determine who was champion. Yet now it's the opposite, no team meets the 'eye' test for a #1, and when the system spits out a team as #1 we say the rankings are useless.

I've got no problem with saying India is/was #1 but it's kinda like beating a girl at arm wrestling - sure you won and you're #1, but it's a hollow victory when the competition is weak or declining.

 

[sampaths]

theron is bowling very well in the ipl he is the one to watch out for SA

 

[War]

I find it funny that they bought in this ranking system when Australia was OBVIOUSLY #1 - streets ahead ie. a time when the ranking system wasn't really needed to determine who was champion. Yet now it's the opposite, no team meets the 'eye' test for a #1, and when the system spits out a team as #1 we say the rankings are useless.

I've got no problem with saying India is/was #1 but it's kinda like beating a girl at arm wrestling - sure you won and you're #1, but it's a hollow victory when the competition is weak or declining.

:laugh Yea. But becoming # 1 in test cricket is special accolade that needs to earnt overtime. Only 3 teams in test history have ever earnt the accolade of being the undisputed # 1 in test history which are:

- Windies 1976 - 1991 & 1963-1969

- Australia 1995 - 2006/07

- England 1951-1958

(Special shoutout to the lost South African team on 70-91, that team would have been the best team in the world from in the early 70s quite easily if they weren't banned & would have given the great Windies team a GREAT challenge)

Other than that we have had periods like right now where its been pretty close between top teams - but no undisputed # 1. Havinga ranking system just makes a mockery of this.

I dont know if you remember this. But in the old ranking system (the current one was updated in recent years) that was introduced around 2002. After Australia had spanked South Africa 5-1 in 6 tests in 2001/02. Later in 2003 somehow the ranking system managed to deduce that South where the number 1 :laugh

South African win takes them to top off ICC Test Championship | South Africa Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

War added 5 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

War what are your thoughts on a Test championship? A year or 2 year long tournament with finals or something similar.......?

Yea that would be great i'd say. You could probably do it in a year i guess. The ICC could look at the Asian test Championship & the 1912 Triangular test tournament as templates on how to structure a possible test championship.

 

[sifter132]

^Ah yes I recall that particular 'SA as #1' incident. Didn't go down to well over here...

But one thing I do like about the ranking system is that is gives teams something to play for - even if it's not 'real'. I mean the India-SA series earlier this year would never have happened before the rankings system came in.

Sure it's unfortunate that India as #1 get lumped in with much better former #1 teams like 90s/00s Aus and 80s Windies as you say. But EVERY ranking system has that weakness. The Olympics does it. You win by 0.01 of a second - you're still a gold medallist and the poor sod who's 2nd is remembered as a loser/nobody. It's up to smart people like us () afterwards to say, oh geez they were lucky to win gold/be #1.

It'd be the same with a Test championship. I'd love to see one, but I'm sure there'd be times when a team like New Zealand wins because they had a hot couple of weeks of form. Or if it were a longer competition maybe mass retirements or injuries could derail the better teams campaigns. I'm afraid we're stuck in a world where the most deserving teams don't always win...

 

[War]

^Ah yes I recall that particular 'SA as #1' incident. Didn't go down to well over here...

But one thing I do like about the ranking system is that is gives teams something to play for - even if it's not 'real'. I mean the India-SA series earlier this year would never have happened before the rankings system came in.

Their is some truth to this. But such scenario's like the recent IND-SA series although it produced great cricket & gave the teams something to play for. Wasn't it really benefiting IND mainly though?

Since lets be frank the series was organised hastily after IND where technically scheduled to hold not test for 2010, so that they can try to consolidate their "so called" #1 ranking - according to flawed ranking system. Which we agree they never had.

Plus they are trying to get AUS to tour IND later this year. So if they win/draw that series, IND wont lose the # 1 ranking. But the funny thing is even back in the 90s when IND weren't as strong as now, they where invisible at home too. So even AUS where to tour IND later this year & draw like South Africa thats not a fair guide to judging the world # 1 team. Since IND dont have a team capable of winning in AUS or SA.

Sure it's unfortunate that India as #1 get lumped in with much better former #1 teams like 90s/00s Aus and 80s Windies as you say. But EVERY ranking system has that weakness. The Olympics does it. You win by 0.01 of a second - you're still a gold medallist and the poor sod who's 2nd is remembered as a loser/nobody. It's up to smart people like us () afterwards to say, oh geez they were lucky to win gold/be #1.

Ha ye & has it stands we know IND aren't # 1 currently.

It'd be the same with a Test championship. I'd love to see one, but I'm sure there'd be times when a team like New Zealand wins because they had a hot couple of weeks of form. Or if it were a longer competition maybe mass retirements or injuries could derail the better teams campaigns. I'm afraid we're stuck in a world where the most deserving teams don't always win...

All true. Thats why i saw scrap the ranking system for teams & players in cricket. Smart fans of the sport can judge just by looking at teams & individual players & decide who is the best in world at the set time.

 

[Brook]

1. Tamim Iqbal
2. Simon Katich
3. Hashim Amla
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Michael Clarke
6. MS Dhoni +/*
7. Shakib Al-Hasan
8. Mitchell Johnson
9. Graeme Swann
10. Dale Steyn
11. Doug Bollinger