Cricket: India are ranked world No1 for first time after crushing Sri Lanka


Blackleaf
#1
Considering that cricket is very much India's national sport - no, make that a religion - then it seems hard to believe that this nation of 1 billion people and the world's most powerful cricketing country has never been ranked Number One in the world.

But that injustice has today been put right. Cricket may be a high-scoring game, but never on this scale for India, with their first innings total of 726-9 declared being their highest ever score in a Test match. That 726 runs included an incredible 293 from Sehwag.

In reply, India's opponents Sri Lanka posted a first innings total of 393. That left Sri Lanka 333 behind their opponents, meaning India had the option of putting the Sri Lankans in to bat first in the second innings, which they did. Sri Lanka then posted a total of 309, leaving them 24 runs behind India. India were victorious without having to bat again - an innings victory.

The result left India overtaking South Africa to become the number one ranked team on the planet for the first time.

India beat Sri Lanka by an innings to top Test rankings

BBC Sport
Sunday 6th December 2009

Day Five of the Third Test, Mumbai

1st Innings
India 726-9 dec
Sri Lanka: 393

2nd Innings
Sri Lanka 309

India win by an innings and 24 runs.
India win the Series 2-0.

***************************

India: Sehwag, Vijay, Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj, Laxman, Dhoni (C/W), Harbhajan, Ojha, Zaheer, Sreesanth

Sri Lanka: Dilshan, Paranavitana, Sangakkara (C), M Jayawardene, Samaraweera, Mathews, P Jayawardene (W), Kulasekara, Herath, Muralitharan, Welegedara


India fought back to clinch the series after drawing the first Test

India have become the world's top-ranked Test team for the first time after beating Sri Lanka in the third Test by an innings and 24 runs.

Sri Lanka, resuming on 274-6, were bowled out for 309 as Zaheer Khan took three of the final four wickets.


India's Virender Sehwag scored an incredible 293 as India made 726-9 declared, their highest ever Test score

The 2-0 series win moves India above South Africa in the International Cricket Council's Test rankings.

"I would not hesitate to say this is the best team I have ever played with," said India star Sachin Tendulkar.

"If you look at the batting line-up, right from the number one batsman to the number seven batsman which is Mahendra Singh Dhoni, it's a solid line-up."

Needing 60 runs to make India bat again, Sri Lanka lost Kumar Sangakkara caught behind off Zaheer in the fifth day's opening over.

Virender Sehwag, named man of the match and man of the series having set up victory with a blistering innings of 293, added: "I'm very lucky to be a part of this team and I hope we stay at the number one spot for a long time to come."

Zaheer then dismissed Rangana Herath (three) and overnight batsman Nuwan Kulasekara (19) to finish with figures of 5-72.


An exquisite 109 from Sri Lanka's Tillakaratne Dilshan was not enough to give his team victory

Off-spinner Harbhajan Singh had Muttiah Muralitharan caught behind for 14 as India wrapped up the tail in fewer than eight overs.

Victory in the third Test came after an India fightback secured a draw following a first-innings collapse in the first Test in Ahmedabad.

ICC WORLD TEST RANKINGS
As at 6 December 2009
1. India (rating: 124)
2. South Africa (122)
3. Australia (116)
4. Sri Lanka (115)
5. England (105)
6. Pakistan (84)
7. New Zealand (80)
8. West Indies (76)
9. Bangladesh (13)

They then beat Sri Lanka by an innings and 144 runs in the second Test in Kanpur - India's highest ever margin of victory over their opponents.

"It is a tough ask to get to be the number one team in the world especially in Test cricket and we have got there through an all-round team effort," said captain Dhoni.

"But the real task starts now because we have maintain the level of performance and the team spirit."

Tendulkar, who brushed aside questions about his retirement, added: "It's been a long wait and I'm extremely delighted.

"I think the process of getting to the number one spot really started when (coach) Gary Kirsten and Paddy Upton took over, along with Venkatesh Prasad and Robin Singh.

"The aim of the whole team then was to get to be the top in the world. All credit to Kirsten, he handled the team brilliantly and credit also to the other players who have been a part of this team over the last 18-20 months."

Sri Lanka captain Sangakkara said he had known his side faced a "tough series", but admitted India had outplayed them.


"The Indian team outperformed us in every aspect of the game, especially in the last two matches," said Sangakkara.

"They continued to pile the pressure on us, but we couldn't do the same to them. "We won the toss, we put almost 400 runs on the board, but then Sehwag took the game away from us.

"The advantage was wholly with them once they got 700 plus on the board. The guys have fought hard throughout the series and we did all that we could but it wasn't enough."

news.bbc.co.uk/sport
 
L Gilbert
#2
Way to go, India. It's about time! lol
 
Kreskin
#3
We could their ass.

What are the rules?
 
L Gilbert
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

We could their ass.

Huh?

Quote:

What are the rules?

Cricket rules are googleable.

http://www.cricket-rules.com/
 
Kreskin
#5
I meant, We could KICK their ass. Just tell us what the rules are and we'll bash the crap out of that silly wicket league.
 
L Gilbert
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

I meant, We could KICK their ass. Just tell us what the rules are and we'll bash the crap out of that silly wicket league.

Look at the link for the rules, Kres. lol

Actually Canada hasn't done as well as India at playing international cricket.

http://www.canadiancricket.org/index...ge_id=HISTORY1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._India_to_1918
 
Kreskin
#7
Lets challenge them to a game of ice cricket.
 
SirJosephPorter
#8
When we lived in Britain, I used to follow cricket, I haven’t done so since we returned to Canada.

At that time, India used to be pretty low on the totem poll, England, Australia and West Indies being the top three. However, I was surprised to see how far low West Indies has sunk. They have produced many of the all time great cricketers in the past.

Anyway, India (and China) are advancing not only in terms of economics, technology, not only they are becoming more prosperous, they are also getting better at sports and other areas. I am a great chess enthusiast. The current world chess champion is from India (Vishwanath Anand).

He was responsible for ending the USSR (and later Russian) hegemony in the Chess world, he is a kind of Bobby Fisher.
 
SirJosephPorter
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

I meant, We could KICK their ass. Just tell us what the rules are and we'll bash the crap out of that silly wicket league.

It may surprise you Kreskin, but they do play cricket in Canada. It is mostly Indian and Pakistani expatriates, Canadians are mostly not interested.
 
SirJosephPorter
#10
Do you know how old is Tendulkar, Blackleaf? It seems he has been playing cricket forever. I am surprised he is still good enough to play test cricket.
 
AnnaG
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

It may surprise you Kreskin, but they do play cricket in Canada. It is mostly Indian and Pakistani expatriates, Canadians are mostly not interested.

You don't get out much, do you?

Cricket in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
gopher
+1
#12  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Do you know how old is Tendulkar, Blackleaf? It seems he has been playing cricket forever. I am surprised he is still good enough to play test cricket.


Born in 1973. Still one of the best.
 
gopher
+1
#13
I watched cricket on justin.tv the other day and there were quite a few Yanks watching as well. The rules are very easy to learn and the 20/20 format makes for much fun. Amateurs can modify the rules even more and use a 10/10 format (say, 10 overs comprised of 9 or 10 deliveries each) which would be even more popular in the States.

Let's remember that cric was the USA's # 1 sport prior to the Civil War. I am very confident that those glory days can make a big comeback.

As for India, it can reach # 1 in international cric with all the spinners they have. This and good defense can help them beat just about any other team.
 
SirJosephPorter
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Born in 1973. Still one of the best.

I thought so. 36 years old, that is a granddaddy in cricket. It is indeed a tribute to his abilities that he is still considered test material. Very few players can still play test cricket at the age of 36.
 
SirJosephPorter
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

I watched cricket on justin.tv the other day and there were quite a few Yanks watching as well. The rules are very easy to learn and the 20/20 format makes for much fun. Amateurs can modify the rules even more and use a 10/10 format (say, 10 overs comprised of 9 or 10 deliveries each) which would be even more popular in the States.

Let's remember that cric was the USA's # 1 sport prior to the Civil War. I am very confident that those glory days can make a big comeback.

As for India, it can reach # 1 in international cric with all the spinners they have. This and good defense can help them beat just about any other team.

Gopher you seem very knowledgeable about cricket, for a Yank.

The problem with cricket is that it is a very slow game, much slower than any of the American favorites. A football or basketball game is usually over in three hours. A test match of cricket can go on for six days (five days of cricket, one day rest in between) and still end up a draw many times, without either side winning.

One day cricket makes it more interesting and more fast paced. Still it goes on for a whole day, and that is still too long by US standards. So I don’t see cricket catching on in USA.

But you are right, of course. It probably is not widely known in USA, but USA used to play cricket and used to be very good at it too. But that was in the days gone by.

I also remember reading somewhere that the fellow who thought of baseball got the idea for the game from cricket.

India has always had plenty of spinners. When I used to live in Britain and follow cricket closely, India’s problem was not spinner or batting, they were good at it. Their problem was fast bowlers. They just could not come up with a good fast bowler (in spite of 1 billion population). As a result their batsmen used to have difficulty facing the fast bowlers, though they used to do pretty well against spinners.
 
L Gilbert
#16
Cricket's a great game. I don't think it's any slower moving than baseball. It's just that the team's are larger and as there are only two "bases" so, as long as one can keep making runs and/or just hitting the ball, one can stay at bat for a very long time. I've played every position from wicketkeeper to silly-mid-off and I liked them all. As an older dood now, though, I wouldn't be playing SMO as it requires lightning fast reflexes.
It is a slower game than b-ball, or soccer, for sure. American football kind of puts me to sleep, as does golf. Rugby is my game.
 
gopher
+1
#17
''Gopher you seem very knowledgeable about cricket, for a Yank.''


SJP,

Thanx.

In the past 4 years I have watched far more cric than baseball. The neighborhood where I grew up in Brooklyn was a largely West Indian area. I have been a fan of the Windies all my life. Brooklyn, NY was at one time the cric capitol of the USA.

In my youth we were too poor to play real cric. But we used old broom sticks, recycled tennis balls or spaldeens, and pasteboard as wickets. A friend who I lost touch with years ago said I would have been a really good cric player. He should know as he was captain of his own club.

Well, in my next lifetime I will definitely play the game as I am especially fond of the 20/20 format and sincerely believe it can be a great success in the States.
 
gopher
+1
#18
''Rugby is my game.''


LG,

Have you been watching Heineken Cup?

Today I watched Leinster over Llanelli 32-7. The Scarlets were lucky in scoring that one try. In fact, I thought the ref went real easy on them. Cup matches should be real good tomorrow.
 
SirJosephPorter
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

''Gopher you seem very knowledgeable about cricket, for a Yank.''


SJP,

Thanx.

In the past 4 years I have watched far more cric than baseball. The neighborhood where I grew up in Brooklyn was a largely West Indian area. I have been a fan of the Windies all my life. Brooklyn, NY was at one time the cric capitol of the USA.

In my youth we were too poor to play real cric. But we used old broom sticks, recycled tennis balls or spaldeens, and pasteboard as wickets. A friend who I lost touch with years ago said I would have been a really good cric player. He should know as he was captain of his own club.

Well, in my next lifetime I will definitely play the game as I am especially fond of the 20/20 format and sincerely believe it can be a great success in the States.

I was told that cricket in India is very popular, but many kids are too poor to play cricket. That doesn’t stop them. If they cannot afford a tennis ball, they take a rubber ball. If they cannot afford a bat, they would take a wooden plank. If they cannot afford stumps, they would draw stumps on a wall with a chalk. And then they would play cricket.

Where there is a will, there is a way.
 
gopher
+1
#20
There's a great irony to the game of cric that you don't see in other sports: years ago it was for wealthy snobby types. Today in India, Pakistan, Windies, or wherever, it is now the poor man's sport. And that's great to see.

Hopefully, some day polo will be viewed that way!
 
JakeElwood
#21
It's good to hear from cricket fans in Canada and the USA. During The Ashes this summer I was surprised to hear Canadians and Americans e-mailing BBC's Test Match Special saying how much they were enjoying the series. You can't beat an Ashes Series, especially one when England wins. The 2005 and 2009 Ashes were fantastic, they brought back memories of England's wins in 1981, 1985 and Down Under in 1986-87. But between 1987 and 2005 the Aussies simply humiliated us, as they did again in 2006-07.

Test Match cricket will always be my favourite version of the sport, but Twenty20 is a great addition, and at three hours per game it looks like the 50 over One Day Game could be the big loser. I don't mind if the 50 over game suffers, because Test Mach and Twenty20 are both the real future of the sport.

It is great that Australia are no longer the #1 Test Side, but it is a bit of a surprise that it's India who are now #1. After all in India Twenty20 is king. However Indian batsmen of the quality of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid, etc. have been the envy of many countries in recent years.

Although England have a couple of great batsmen in Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen (pinched from South Africa), along with a rejuvinated Andrew Strauss that may help us win the series in South Africa and move up from #5 in the rankings.

I was also pleased to hear Rugby Union mentioned. Less than a couple of months until the start of the Six Nations Championship on 6th February. February and March are the best months of the year for European Rugby Union fans.

I think Ireland have to be the favourites for the Six Nations in 2010.

My team are Saracens RUFC, originally based in Southgate, North London (the amateur set up remains there). The team trains in nearby St. Albans and plays home matches in Watford, sharing the stadium with Watford Football (soccer) Club.

I used to play for Saracens as a teenager, until I tore the anterior cruciate ligament in my right knee (playing football, not rugby), it ended my playing days (not that I'd have ever played for the first team if I'd stayed injury free) - three surgeries and my knee still gives me problems.

Saracens are currently top of the Guinness Premiership, but they don't always play the most attractive rugby. However they're winning so I'm not complaining. Hopefully they will continue to win this season and qualify for the Heineken Cup next season. In the 2007-08 Heineken Cup Saracens lost 16-18 to Munster (eventual Champions) in the semi-final, that was by far our best performance in European Cup rugby.
 
gopher
+1
#22
As much as I love North American sports, I have to say that European sports are a lot better than ours. Cric & rugby surpass our baseball & gridiron football.

It's so great that we have Internet so that we can watch all those sports. Up to a few minutes ago, I was watching an Oz-WI test. They are now at lunch and I'll go back to the match momentarily.
 
EagleSmack
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

I meant, We could KICK their ass. Just tell us what the rules are and we'll bash the crap out of that silly wicket league.

LMAO.

Very good Kreskin.

Just so you know...you Canadians can't be "pulling the sweaters" over anyones head during a cricket match.
 
SirJosephPorter
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

As much as I love North American sports, I have to say that European sports are a lot better than ours. Cric & rugby surpass our baseball & gridiron football.

It's so great that we have Internet so that we can watch all those sports. Up to a few minutes ago, I was watching an Oz-WI test. They are now at lunch and I'll go back to the match momentarily.

When first I saw rugby played, I was fascinated and horrified at the same time. Rugby players probably think that American football is a sissy sport. Rugby is pretty much same as American football, except played without any protection.
 
gopher
+1
#25
League code rugby is similar to USA football. Union code is a better brand, I think.
 
AnnaG
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

''Rugby is my game.''


LG,

Have you been watching Heineken Cup?

Today I watched Leinster over Llanelli 32-7. The Scarlets were lucky in scoring that one try. In fact, I thought the ref went real easy on them. Cup matches should be real good tomorrow.

Our programming doesn't include a lot of sports other than the usual hockey, American football, basketball, etc. Sometimes there's a rugby match on, but I think he isn't so much interested in watching as playing.
 
AnnaG
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

There's a great irony to the game of cric that you don't see in other sports: years ago it was for wealthy snobby types. Today in India, Pakistan, Windies, or wherever, it is now the poor man's sport. And that's great to see.

Hopefully, some day polo will be viewed that way!

lol Good luck finding a pony that a poor man can afford to buy and keep. lol
 
AnnaG
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

When first I saw rugby played, I was fascinated and horrified at the same time. Rugby players probably think that American football is a sissy sport. Rugby is pretty much same as American football, except played without any protection.

rofl That's like saying golf is like miniputt.
 
AnnaG
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

League code rugby is similar to USA football. Union code is a better brand, I think.

lol Vaguely. League is more spectator friendly and there's a lot fewer time-outs for lineouts, rucks, etc., so I hear. Fewer rules in League, also.
Rugby in general is quite a bit more demanding physically than American football and league even more so than union. Les says there's quite a bit of strategy in rugby and a lot less focus on individual players than American Football.
lol Other than the one about not being able to pass forward, don't ask me rules.
 
JakeElwood
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

League code rugby is similar to USA football. Union code is a better brand, I think.

As a former Rugby Union player I should support my code of the game, but some of the rule changes in recent years have ruined the game that I used to play.

Rugby Union (15-a-side) is a game of more variation, with rucks, scrums, mauls, lineouts, etc., but Rugby League (13-a-side) is more about open play (no rucks, no mauls, no lineouts, and scrums in League are merely a method of restarting play, League should do away with scrums). I can easily understand why some rugby fans call League the more interesting version of the game.

Personally I love both, I don't have to be loyal to only one code.

What do you think of Rugby Sevens? (That's the short 7-a-side version of Rugby Union).
I think it can be the most entertaining form of the game. But playing 7-a-side rugby on a full sized rugby pitch is the most exhausting sport I've ever played, even though the games only last 15 or 20 minutes. It's great to see Sevens in the Commonwealth Games and now it has been added to the Olympics for 2016 the sport should expand around the world.