But that was two years ago. England has much stronger team now.
The English side was almost the same as the current one, even had Michael Vaughan in good form then, far better than Bopara who played in the Ashes. Even Monty was bowling well at that time. Not sure about England being a better side now. KP missed tests in the Ashes but he was fully fit in that 2007 series against India. Just that everybody has stereotyped India as a team which only does well at home.
How else would someone justify the statement that facing Australia, England, SA, NZ, Sri Lanka over the past 12 months is`nt exactly challenging. India thrashed Australia less than 12 months ago while SA lost to Australia in SA but beat them at home. Everyone conveniently ignored that point.
Not that I subscribe to this No.1 thing but to say that India did not face challenging opposition in the recent past is a very ignorant statement to make. The ICC ranking rewards you with more points if you beat higher ranked sides.
Let us see who England have faced in the past year or so. Its been SA,IND,AUS,NZ and WI. They lost to the West Indies, India and SA last year which justifies why they are at No.5. Can`t see why we cannot use the rankings as a rough indicator of where the teams stand currently.
Before you point out that we lost to Australia in Australia it was a very close series against an Aussie side which was far better than the current one (Gilly, Hayden, Lee, Symonds were all part of the side). The side which SA beat exactly a year later in Australia was way weaker than the one India faced in Australia in 07/08. SA then lost to Australia in SA. Cannot ignore points like these.
In what way have the other sides faced bigger challenges and deserve to be ranked higher (SA maybe yes, but I don`t agree with Australia deserving a higher rank)?