I know why they got it. It's because they are a beneficent team. The ICC wants to play God and reward them for their act of kindness. You really have to believe me. I have evidence:
1) NZ allowed SL to score only 216 runs in the first ODI, India let them score 307. But they do get demerit points for not letting Sanath score his century. He was bitten on the leg by some strange Penguin-like creature. Shame on you Nehra. When you give, give everything. You will spend one day in cricket hell.
2) They dropped catches and misfielded several times. This is clearly an act of giving, sharing and caring. If they had held all their catches the ball would feel suffocated in their hands and ultimately die. If they had not misfielded, the ball would not have been able to run free into the ropes. Restriction of freedom is a very serious offence you know. Particularly in the ball world.
3) On an average, each bowler gave over 6 runs per over. They felt that SL will surely return their generosity when it came time for them to bowl.
4) But India could not stop giving. So they kept on giving their wickets. Particularly to Angelo Mathews. They thought from his name that he was a real angel and would guide them to a place where they can continue to bat after Tendulkar and Dravid fall. That didn't happen..and it never will.
How can such a benevolent team not get the number one status? I would like to thank the ICC for coming up with such a ranking system. It truly is the greatest thing on Earth.
36 comments:
It was great while it lasted. But if Aus win 7-0 do they hop to the #1 spot?
Brandon
Why dont they wana give their blood/wee to Wada then? Eh? Thats about giving too.
Come on you Aussies! Ricky always gives blood. Aus deserve to go top.
Bon, it was great while it lasted? You are being sarcastic right?
Aus might, till the Champions Trophy comes around :).
Stani, because that kind of giving will ultimately come bite them in the ass.
SA is holding their number one spot. Ricky can give as much blood as he wants.
Number one for a night,
oh well...
Stani Army,
Says who they dont want to give blood.wee to WADA? Who do you think they are - Pakistanis?
Cheers,
Purna,
Cry me a river!
Cheers,
Homer, did you wait till India were in a position to win before making this comment? I see that even you were worried that India would screw up. A record of 17 losses out of 22 final appearances is hard to ignore :).
Actually it was Leela who recommended your writing which is why I stopped by.. Now, it takes a little time to read through the blog and post a comment. If you want to construe that as "you were worried that India would screw up", you are welcome to your delusions.
And about that stat, it dates back to 1999. I am sure if you stretch the numbers back to 1971, you can make an argument that India has a losing ODI record - which amounts to nothing!
Cheers,
Thank Leela for me will you?
You comment just seemed aptly timed that's all.
Stats are supposed to be over a period of time. It's how they work.
BTW, I'm storing this argument in my memory...for the future.
Purna,
Stats hide more than they reveal.. And what was that about lies, damned lies and stats?
Point being, in today's day and age, with the game having progressed as far as it has, with batting power plays and T20 attitudes, most stats are close to irrelevance, if not already irrelevant.
Cheers,
English Homer? Sense of humour Homer?
Stats are irrelevant? hahahaha!
"most stats are close to irrelevance, if not already irrelevant."
English, Stani Army? Comprehension, Stani Army?
Yep, you don't make sense. Just another uptight and angry Indian cricket fan.
Ah, the standard response of a Pakistani fan who has nothing left to say..And here I was, expecting something original!
My point is if you make sense then I will reply, angry Indian.
Stani Army,
If you cannot understand this -"Point being, in today's day and age, with the game having progressed as far as it has, with batting power plays and T20 attitudes, most stats are close to irrelevance, if not already irrelevant." there is very little I can do to help.
And you are welcome to your notion of angry Indian. I can do very little about your perceptions either.
Anyways, I dont want to get into a flaming war with you. I have better things to do with my time.
Cheers,
Down boys.
Homer, I'll give you that stats are irrelevant or becoming irrelevant. But remember that when we are talking about some other team and not India :).
Purna,
Most stats AND only in the case of ODIs - let me emphasize.. I dont want you to misquote me or quote me out of context.
Cheers,
That's what you call a one night stand.
Homer,
So why is it the moment someone suggests that Tendulkar is not the best batsmen in the world for example, Indian fans pull out stats?
I completely disagree with you and Purna. Stats are NOT irrelevant or largely irrelevant. Stats have their place. It is when they are used to describe the artistry in cricket (or sport in general), that they become irrelevant.
Stani Army,
You are welcome to ask those Indian fans that question.. Also, if 86 International hundreds is not a measure of being the best batsman in the world, I wonder what is!
Let me repeat what I said before - Most ODI stats are irrelevant in today's day and age where T20 attitudes prevail, with batting attitudes ( and equipment) being what it is, and with the introduction of batting power plays.
Now, if you want to pick and choose words to construct a counter argument, that is your prerogative.
Cheers,
You just used stats Homer! Congratulations. You probably had to bathe yourself in disinfectant afterwards eh? Feel dirty did ya? Well they're not that bad are stats.
Why do you keep repeating the same nonsensical argument? Ad nauseum!
"Why do you keep repeating the same nonsensical argument? Ad nauseum!"
Because you still dont grasp the meaning of the words Most and ODI, you idiot!
Homer,
"Most stats are irrelevant" because batsmen have it easier? Well if you take that easier-ness into consideration when using stats, then the stats won't be mostly irrelevant will they? Like I said before, stats have their place, all stats. It just depends how they are used. You cannot seem to grasp this. Thanks for demonstrating to the world your limited critical and analytical ability. Who's the idiot now?
Still an angry Indian eh? What a great ambassador to your ancestral country you are! I really do feel for the good Indian people when there's jingoists like you around.
...and by the way, ODI is not a word, idiot. Good bye.
My dear Stani,
"Most ODI stats are irrelevant" is not the same as "Most stats are irrelevant".. But why am I banging my head against a wall anyways?
You are right.. I do feel dirty having wasted this much time on a dolt like you.
Angry Indian I may be, but uncomprehending Pakistani I am not.. Thank God for that.
Cheers,
Who is Sam and why is he/she speaking for me?
WTF!
Ahem, Homer you have a stalker.
Anon, that was a low blow. If you are not going to comment in the right spirit your comment will be deleted. I'm deleting your comment. Please remember that for the future. Thanks.
Purna,
And I am not in the least bit amused.
This my last comment here. Thank you for allowing me the latitude to comment on your blog.
Take care.
Cheers,
That was you Homer? Why did you make that comment as Anon then?
All I am saying is, don't take it too far. How you want to proceed from there is entirely your prerogative.
Thanks for visiting.
Purna,
My comment was in reference to your comment of me having a stalker on this blog.
I am not in the least bit amused that someone speaks for me when I am quite capable of speaking for myself. The "Sam" character comment was extremely off putting.
Also, I do not post as Anon. I find it a waste of time indulging in petty name calling; it takes away from the issue on hand and just inflames the situation.
I have not responded to Stani for precisely this reason.
You take care.
Cheers,
Oh, I owe you an apology then. I thought the Anon was you.
I have no idea who this Sam character is Homer. I don't moderate my comments. I clicked on his name and he doesn't seem to have a profile. I don't know where he came from, he has never commented before.
You are free to do as you like. I enjoyed your comments.
"I find it a waste of time indulging in petty name calling; it takes away from the issue on hand and just inflames the situation I have not responded to Stani for precisely this reason"
"Idiot" is not petty name calling? And you were never guilty of inflaming the situation was you?
If you didn't want to do that then why not respond to my argument without inflaming and petty name calling? Or is having to agree with me just too much for you?
If you're leaving, I'm leaving too.
bape hoodie
lebron 15
jordan shoes
supreme outlet
cheap jordans
air max 270
pg 1
adidas tubular
nike air force 1 low
off white x nike
Full Report replica ysl Extra resources bags replica ysl navigate to these guys replica louis vuitton
j1r09k8k43 t9j86q4k11 b0j87y8r96 c0v69p1k30 v0y66z4z05 e1n61a7o94
Post a Comment