Are India #1?

[kaon]

There is still a lot of cricket to be played in this series but if India beat Australia in Australia, should they be regarded as the best team in the world?

Who can forget the claims made by all Aussies after we beat the Windies in 95 that any side who can beat the worlds best in their backyard, should then take over the world's best tag. Will Australians relinquish the title of best test playing nation if India wins another test?

 

[ozbash]

oz won the world cup by default,, india were the better team but like nz they were honourable till the end.

i think mr waugh could been seen to finish as a loser. :-#

I think they need the great man to return from the wilderness.

 

[Red Bear]

I dont think so. I'd like to see India face a team with a full strength bowling line up first. In the current team only Gillespie would make the team if people were not either suspended or injured, I think its McGrath thogh that we are missing most at the moment, rather than Warne or Lee.

 

[budz]

I dont think they you can say they are the best team in the world after one series like that. But i dont think the injured and suspended players have absolutely nothing to do with it. Its just like if i say that the Warriors would have won this year if PJ was there and Jones was fully fit. Injuries are a normal part of the game.

 

[kaon]

The Aussies did to the Windies earlier so why can't anyone do it to them?


I not suggesting India would beat Australia any time any place from now on but they should have the tag of "Worlds Best" if they win this series.

 

[mullet]

Oh shit aus loose india are now #1 ](*,) ffs

if india can beat aus in this series then maybe but it would be interesting and prolly different if they were playing full strength team with mcgrath, lee, gillespi and warne.

 

[Anonymous]

They should definatly not go to #1. It was 1 loss. England beat Australia last summer all be it in the last test match. I still think Australia will win the series, they are just going to have to improve vastly.

 

[kaon]

I did say if they lose the series.

 

[Twizzle]

It takes many years and many home and way series, to climb up the ladder.

India are probably No 4 or 5 at the moment, behind England (No 2) and South Africa (No 3) and the Pakis.

If they win another test match, hence the series, they may improve one position, but they play the Pakis this year, so may end up going nowhere.

India only win at home and have not won away for something like 20 years.

They have only won one test match against an undermanned Australia.

They have a long way to go.

 

[Doctor]

Goodness gracious me.

Australia lose one Test match and you're all ready to jump ship and start proclaiming India as the best team in the world.

I'm not sure how far back your memories go, but Australia lost a Test in the West Indies and also the memorable Test at the SCG - all in 2003. Believe it or not, Australia is not invincible, and India's batting line-up is statistically equal, if not better, to that of Australia.

Believe it or not also, but Australia can and will lose a Test match, and the loss of your frontline bowling attack is going to be costly.
Take the top four bowlers out of any team in the world and they will struggle a bit.

India batted wonderfully, and Australia batted poorly in the second innings, didn't make enough runs, and even then India won by only 4 wickets - that is a close Test match.

It isn't time to jump ship and throw in the towel (you're getting the whole hog of mixed metaphors today) - how about just enjoying the final two Test matches and appreciating the skills of both sides instead of allowing one match to determine what a whole series should only indicate.

 

[..::ERIC::..]

Official rankings
1- Aus
2- England
3- Saf
4- NZ
5- Pak
6- Ind
7- Sri
8- Win
9- Zim
10- Ban

India can't be number 1, they couldn't even beat us (NZ) at home.

 

[Anonymous]

How the hell did England get into 2nd :-k

I thought NZ were 3rd and South Africa 2nd???

 

[kaon]

Either people can't read or they are too hypocritical to accept the facts.


Australia claimed after they beat the West Indies in 95 (I think) that ANY side which can beat the team regarded as the world's best in their back yard that should then take that mantle off then. Steve Waugh, Mark Taylor and Ian Healy were the most vocal but there were plenty of others who said the same thing. This fact was again brought up when South Africa assumed the #1 spot on the ICC rankings recently which resulted in an uproar. Again the argument used was if you can beat a team home AND away, you should be regarded as a better side than them.


All I’m saying is that we should give the Indians the same kudos if they are good enough to win this SERIES.

(p.s. the official test rankings are a farce and anyone who takes any meaning from them is an even bigger joke)

 

[Rustay]

If India do beat us in the series then good on them, but to call them world number one is just daft. The difference between now and '95 is that in '95 we were actually consitant at beating the other good sides in series and the last hurdle to get over was the West Indies, in the West Indies. We did that, we were the most consitant team then.

India on the other hand are very inconsistant. They put in the big performances against us here, which is good, but then they may go and get flogged by England in a couple of months or something like that. They have to show they can beat everyone, or at least some of the other good sides and be consistant before they be classed number one. Australia have worked their way to number one over the years and dont deserve to be dumped cos of one poor series.

My exampe with be afl. West Coast beat Brisbane by 69 points this season at the gabba. You can tell me what happened after that.

 

[Anonymous]

(p.s. the official test rankings are a farce and anyone who takes any meaning from them is an even bigger joke)

I don't see why- what's your problem with the system?

 

[knights04]

India are nowhere near No.1 in either version. If anyone watched that painful last day yesterday you would know India took all day to score 190 runs, and only won by 4 wickets. If Aus. picked up Dravid early yesterday like they should have India would have lost. Agarkar did bowl excellent as well but it is no means to start giving India the title. :-({|=

 

[ozbash]

""India are nowhere near No.1 in either version""

get your mit off it.

what part of YOU GOT BEATEN dont you understand ?

if (and its a very distinct possibility) india clean aussie up,, they are #1.
end of argument :-({|=

 

[weasel]

India's low ranking on the table may have something to do with the fact they've played so few tests this year, so their position isn't really representative of where they're at. To be fair they're the only team that has really challenged us in a test series over the last several years of dominance, and they've done so home and away. I've seen them play some dreadful cricket against sides like NZ which is way below par for them but if they're the only side that can consistently compete with the clear best side in the world then they should be ranked not far below us.

 

[knights04]

Why would they be No.1 even if they win the series? It doesn't prove anything
I suppose Bangladesh would be No.1 if they won the series in July

 

[Doctor]

News Flash:

Oswin here with this disturbing report.....

India, despite winning the second Test by four wickets, have not won the series. There are, according to sources, two Test matches to be played.