I don't rate India a long-term No.1

[DoubleO7]

"I don't rate India a long-term No.1" - Ian Chappell

Former Australian captain and leading commentator Ian Chappell has said India don't have the resources to retain their No.1 spot in the ICC Test rankings for a long enough period to emulate Australia and the great West Indies teams of the past. Chappell said that India's batting alone will not sustain them and to do so, they will have to unearth a couple of champion bowlers.

Manjrekar said a big reason for India's success is the arrival of a strong opening pair in Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir, and the ability to adjust to foreign conditions.

When I look at the averages and the strike-rates for India in the last 12 months, I don't see two champion bowlers. In fact, I am struggling to find one champion bowler in that line-up. They've got some good bowlers. Sure, they have got a very good batting line-up, but the bowling is really not good enough to see them win consistently all around the world.

http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/443658.html

I think this pretty much sums it up for India. They have a strong batting order, but they lack that something extra in the bowling department. In the past two years, Harbhajan Singh has been their best bowler (88 wickets at 30.25). I'll admit he is a very good bowler, but not one I'd label as a match winner.

 

[Belnakor]

India hasn't gotten to no.1 by dominating, they got there because other teams started losing games. I'm not still sure how they got to no1 TBH.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Yes, you can't really see them dominating a decade or two as the West Indies and Aussies did.

 

[King Elvis]

India hasn't gotten to no.1 by dominating, they got there because other teams started losing games. I'm not still sure how they got to no1 TBH.

End of thread.

 

[Johnny_Segment]

What I don't understand is why everyone seems to think that they have to dominate for the next 20 years. They are the number 1 Test side in the world, and are easily the best performed, but people still try to detract from them by saying "Yeah they are number 1 now, but they're not going to dominate for 2 decades like the Aussies and West Indies".

Instead of crapping on about how India are going to fall in the rankings, why don't we focus on how we can replace them. After all, i have no doubt that if we were to play them tomorrow, there's a fair chance they would smash us.

 

[crownie]

i think India are the best team going around now.

they will be better long term then South Africa will be.

has test cricket ever been this even with the top 5 teams all having the chance to beat each other on their day?

 

[Caesar]

I think they're currently at their zenith, which will probably last for a couple of years. They may improve if they unearth a good paceman or two I suppose. It's going to be very hard for them to replace the ageing trio of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman and their time is already running out. Tendulkar does seem somewhat evergreen but Rahul is already pretty severely on the decline.

I'm loving the fact that you can pick any two of the top 4 or 5 teams, and a series between them would be genuinely competitive with favouritism would only go with whoever's at home.

Heck, even the basketcase teams like WI and Pakistan are producing players and matches against top sides that are genuinely exciting.

 

[Belnakor]

If you look at this page, its really puzzling to figure how they got to no.1 in tests.

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

Since 05 they haven't exactly dominated. They lost to Pakistan in pakistan, Draws with SA and England at home. Their only big win was England away in 07.

You compare that to us http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=2;type=team

We've lost series to Sa at home, England and India away. Hardly considerably worse than India.

Since 05 we've won 11, lost 3, drawn 0 series, India has won 10, lost 4, drawn 2. Not exactly a huge difference when factor in two Bangas series for India.

South Africa have only lost one series to a team other than Australia in the past 5 years, when they got done in Sri Lanka.

 

[Caesar]

Well, for starters you're looking at matches from the last 5 years. The ICC rankings only count results from the last 3 years. Furthermore, matches more than a year old only count 50% compared to more recent games.

Which, when you think about it, makes sense. You've had to go back a long way in order to make our stats stack up against India's, padding it out with victories by the pre-2007 team that was completely different to the current Test lineup.

We've been absolute pants the last couple of years, and our ranking rightly reflects that.

 

[Belnakor]

You can see the links. If you go back 3 years India have lost the same amount of series Away as Australia - their only "one up" is they drew a series at home vs South Africa and we lost it. We won the return series and they lost their last series in SA.

You say we've been crap - in reality we've only lost to India in India, which we've won one series out of the last 15, and to England in England which we also did in 05. In reality the only poor result was South Africa at home.

 

[Caesar]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... we've not done as well as India against good opposition in the last 3 years, particularly in the last 12 months where the points really count. That's why we're ranked a lot lower than they are. Recalculate the ICC rankings if you want to see why it falls out the way it does.

If you've got some concrete issues with how the ICC rankings are calculated that's fine, but it'd be good if you could post them rather than the vague 'I reckon we've done better than them'.

 

[DT_fanatic]

The fact is India would thump Australia anywhere in the world at the moment and probably beat South Africa away and definetly at home. Since they are the two closest challengers to the #1 spot (being generous to Australia here) India deserves to be #1. Some people can't hack that I reckon.

Doesn't matter if it's not long term, we got there and we'll probably keep it for longer than South Africa did.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The fact is India would thump Australia anywhere in the world at the moment.

I cannot agree with that. Some people are making India sound like some inpenetrable force, just because they are "ranked" number 1. They can be beaten easily enough, just as everyone else can.

This whole ratings system has never sat well with me. It is only possible to rank Test teams if they were in an AFL style competition where they played every other country both home and away over a short period of time. As they are not able to do this, the rating system is nothing more than acedmeic interest only, they prove nothing.

 

[King Elvis]

The fact is India would thump Australia anywhere in the world at the moment and probably beat South Africa away and definetly at home. Since they are the two closest challengers to the #1 spot (being generous to Australia here) India deserves to be #1. Some people can't hack that I reckon.

You're kidding yourself.

India would win at home.

We'd win here.

Either Series would most likely finish with a scoreline of 1-0.

 

[Furn]

You're kidding yourself.

India would win at home.

We'd win here.

Either Series would most likely finish with a scoreline of 1-0.

How ?

Aus can barely beat the WI and Pakistan at home.

India can catch and bat. Australias batting wouldn't hold up at all. India would win easily.

 

[adii_7]

india would win every test by an innings.

 

[amer]

This view of Australia as being some sort of pushover has come about purely because we lost the Ashes. Now let's not bag the poms for winning, but anyone with a bit of sense would know from watching that series that they fell in, rather than having clear ascendancy. The didn't have the leading wicket takers, run scorers, control the most sessions, anything like that. That is the sort of series victory that comes around once in a blue moon; in fact statistically it's the first of its kind.

Play that series again, and you'd think the Aussies retain the ashes. Taking nothing away from England, they hold the urn and it's up to us to get it back, but you couldn't use that series as conclusive proof of anything other than that they hold the urn.

The reality is there are three sides around the mark - South Africa, Australia and India. England is probably in a group by itself behind these three (though the West Indies look to be turning the corner).

You'd back us at home to beat any of them, but it would be very close against the Indians and Saffers.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

india would win every test by an innings.

I can always rely upon BigFooty for my daily dosage of dribble.

 

[Knight Ryders]

How ?

Aus can barely beat the WI and Pakistan at home.

India can catch and bat. Australias batting wouldn't hold up at all. India would win easily.

Sometimes you can only beat what is in front of you. Australia has definitely come back to the crowd, but I don't think any one of England, Saffers or India are better than us.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

They're never going to be a dominant team long term until they sort out their player development - far too much of their money goes into player salaries and not enough into developing the standard of play in the Ranji Trophy. Producing three half decent fast bowlers (Kapil Dev, Srinath and Ishant Sharma) from a billion people over thirty years is a pretty ordinary result.`

They've been hugely dominant at U-19 level for the last few international tournaments, but other than Chawla and Raina, how many of those players have gone on to play decent international cricket for India?

 

[DaRick]

It's hard to say, really. If they really are the #1 Test side, it is by a margin small enough that the loss of form of one significant Indian player (i.e - Tendulkar) could see that title wrested from them.

I also feel that their #1 ranking may be a fairly short-term affair, especially in Tests. Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman are all getting old and would surely be either about to retire or already retired by 2012 or so, if not before. You will see your batting stocks decline - India have been remarkably lucky to have all three in their ranks at the same time. Sehwag and Gambhir may be forced to carry the batting lineup (although people like Vijay have fairly good FC records). I'm also assuming that Sehwag's hand-eye coordination hasn't been reduced by then (he relies a lot on it).

Zaheer Khan, their most accomplished quick, will be a fair bit creakier by then and may struggle more with injury. There is a heap of potential in their pace stocks after Khan, with the likes of Sreesanth and Sharma, but whether that will be fulfilled remains a mystery. For instance, I am truly amazed at how far Sharma has fallen over the past year or so. Harbhajan will do the job as a spinner at home, but whilst Mishra is promising, he's no Kumble, so don't expect him to turn in Kumble's latter-day performances. Their fielding may improve with infusion of youth, but that's relative. Other things, like possible cronyism/corruption (picking people from certain districts) may prove a hindrance.

Their ODI team looks in better shape due to the infusion of youth, but they have few quality ODI bowlers and still view Tendulkar as a talismanic figure.

In summary, both Indian teams (but especially the Test team) are likely to face tough times ahead.

 

[Rosstickle]

Just read from that link of series they've played:

India in New Zealand: 1-0 (3 tests)

What the **** is that about? Can their bowlers not knock over the impenitrable fortress of Ross Taylor and McCullum?

 

[KardiniaPark]

How are they #1?> I thought they had only played something like 3 tests in 12 months?. I know they play far less than everyone else either way . Hard to lose when you never play!

 

[DaRick]

Just read from that link of series they've played:

India in New Zealand: 1-0 (3 tests)

What the **** is that about? Can their bowlers not knock over the impenitrable fortress of Ross Taylor and McCullum?

Neither of those players are too bad.

People like Tim Macintosh, Daniel Flynn and Peter Fulton are worse.

 

[whats_at_stake]

I think the more accurate question to ask is whether other teams can go ahead of India. Chappel talked about a lack of a quality bowling attack but other teams who are contending need a superior one anyway.

Lets look at the four main contenders. India (no.1), south africa, england and australia

India
-Quicks- Zaheer Khan is to me a great Test bowler. I would rate in the top 10.
-Promising in Sharma and Sreeshant. I think India's main concern is the third quick
-spin bowling- Harbhajan who at the moment is the best spinner out of the four teams
-Batting- is very good. Have the best openers in the world, followed by a very solid middle order. Test will come when the champions retire within two years.

South Africa
-Steyn is probably the only one I rate as an elite bowler
-still have a solid bowling attack
-good batting lineup with Duminy, Kallis prince and co.

England
-I hate to say this but they seem to be doing quite well and bowling attack is reasonable. Main issue will be middle order

Australia
-None of the bowlers are elite- Johnson close. A solid attack though but one that struggled to bowl out the Windies at times.
-Spin attack not great to say the least.

So really India are the no. 1 and deserve to be there. The nearest challenger to me is RSA. With Aus and Eng after that (Lanka on their heels).

Will India be a long term no. 1?? Only time will tell. They will if they unearth a third seamer and a spinner steps up. Also if some of the FC players step into the middle order well and fielding improvements are made.

Instead of criticizing how long India will stay on the top it is better to have a look at who can replace them on the top. At the moment I would say RSA possibly however India is the superior side.

The Ind v RSA test series will be interesting.