All expert cricket analysts now talk about this and they come up with all sorts theories and analysis to undermine this achievement of LIONS. Now they say that we, Sri Lankans play against weaker oppositions, most of the time play home grounds, lesser number of matches. This is nonsense and very partial comment. I would like those writers to answer these questions to justify their analysis and claim. Are we selecting the weaker oppositions to play? Are we deciding to play at home grounds? Are we asking for lesser number of matches? The answers are NO. It is ICC that organizes test matches. Let us have more matches and more test series with so called test masters such as Australia, South Africa, India etc. We will then prove how capable Sri Lankan test cricketers are.
Also, some analysts say that Sri Lankans can'y win without Murali. With due respect to our great test hero we will emphasis the fact that Sri Lankans still can win without world's greats test bowler Murali. Chaminda Priyankara
I was just looking for this article. Very well written. Sri Lanka always plays 2 test series against Bangladesh so as to maintain their test ranking. Can they win a single test match in Aus and South Africa? Can they deny India, SA and Aus from winning test matches at their den? Then only play against minnows and win big. Let Murali retire in 2010, they won't get 20 wickets in 2 days anymore at home.
Re: Gr8 Article
by Chaminda Priyankara on Aug 31, 2009 07:11 AM
Ravi
I am sad to see your comments you being an Asian. If you feel the we Sri Lankan's can't win without Murali or if we cant win agiant Australia or South Africa, please request ICC ( which Indian officials have a big say) to give Sri Lanka more test matches againt these countries and of course against your country. You will then see what Sri Lankan crickerts all about Chaminda
Real rankings are the one I am issuing now-1-Australia 2- Australia 3- Australia 4- Australia 5- Australia.The rest are all also- rans.This list has been valid for the last 100 years and will be valid another 100 years.All this because I say so.I am the expert know it all cricket guru.You guys dont have a clue about cricket and are all fools.You know NOTHING.India is the last ranked team in the world, even below Bangladesh.England also is low on the list, I put them there because they beat my Gods,the Aussies.Woo Hoo!
Good Morning to all of you. I would say that Sri Lanka deserves for no 1 . They are showing great cricket now a days. They r truly champion. One main thing is that Mahela Jaywardhane Thilan Samarveera Kumar Sangkara and Dilshan are in great touch in batting line up. In bowling department they can proud that they have best bowler everin the history of world test cricket Murlidharan and new sensation Mystry spinner Ajanat Medis with Murli.
Re: Sri Lanka deserves for no 1
by Ramdas Nayak on Aug 27, 2009 10:01 AM
Sri Lanka desrves Rank No.6 or 7. They have not beaten England, India, Australia or South Africa in Tests.
Lankans are lions on home soil but not so abroad.They haven't won test match in India,Australia & South Africa.If they do so they will deserve that place.
Re: Lankans are not deserving it
by Tapesh on Aug 27, 2009 09:52 AM
Dear Nikhil Joshi Bhai Sahab. Arjuna Rantunga made SL Strong, Attapattu failed to carry on. Jaiwardhane built it much strong but now This team is totally changed since Fablous guy Kumar Sangakara has begun to lead his team. So they are going really a tough team for every country in future. I m sure that they will reach no. 1 position very soon.
Re: Re: Lankans are not deserving it
by Ramdas Nayak on Aug 27, 2009 10:02 AM
Sri Lanka desrves Rank No.6 or 7. They have not beaten England, India, Australia or South Africa in Tests.
India will also have the same advantage. You tell ICC to have standard cricket play grounds because on some grounds it's raining sixes while on others it is drought. I am just watching cricket for the last 35 years but till dtae i haven't seen introduction to other nations. and meanwhile where cricket was passion it is almost dying. So write something on that and not on rankings.
There is such a weightage for opposition. If India beats Australia or SA, it would be more rewarded as opposed to beating Bangladesh. In fact, I remember 2 yrs ago, India lost points even after beating Bangaldesh in a 2 match series 1-0!The expected result was 2-0 to maintain rating points but one match was drawn. I do not agree to point (c) of the author Srinivas reg weaker opposition. Moreover, there is a weightage in individual batting and bowling points for home and away matches. Then why not for country ratings? I am not sure if it is already in place. Need to check.
Re: Don't agree fully
by Deshbhakt on Aug 27, 2009 10:02 AM
I agree, actually in the ranking news of ICC I read that SL will lose points if it manages to win only 1-0, since the opposition sits much below in the table and SL are expected to win 2-0. Aus lost to Eng which was way below them in the ranking and that's why lost many points and relegated to 4th. ICC ranking is good enough, this Srinivas Bhogle is just beating the bush to prove his useless ranking system correct.
2 years is way too much..for countries like India which play less test cricket it would affect adversely. On the other hand 1 year might also be less as seen in the article. I think it's better to consider performace based on the number of matches. The winning to losing ratio for a particular number of matches last played (say 20) be it in 1 year or 2 years, it would still reflect the performace put forth by the team in their last 20 matches.
Re: Re: matches not years
by Against Psuedos on Aug 27, 2009 06:08 PM
Specially when I need to shoot my mouth off and prove my loyalty top the Aussies, it's quite an achievement to make a sane comment!
