Win world cup or worlds best in tests

[Indiangod]

If you had the pick one out of win the world cup or be the worlds best in tests what would you choose?

I would choose being best in tests. This is because a true representation of the quality of a team is how it performs at test match level, the most difficult to stage to perform in without a doubt. Somehow, being the best team in tests is more prestigious and would demonstrate a high level of skill of a team.

Tests are more professional, bowlers really try to get batsmen out with slips and gullys waiting, while the batsmen have to be pataint, have good skill etc.....

 

[aditya123]

I would go for the No.1 spot in tests .

Winning a World Cup does not mean that a side is the best in the world according to me. It only means that the side was the beast in that particular tournament .

 

[cricket doctor]

Ya, test matches are the best way to judge the skills,but there should also be a championship for test cricket like world cup to decide which team is the best. :onpc

 

[Indiangod]

They should be a test championship will lasts for 4 years........and at the end of the 4th year the team who comes first wins it. Look at world cup 96 when the Lnkans won it..........sure they was crowned ' world champions' but the lankans can never dream of beating India in India, Pakistan in Pakistan, Australia in Australia, England in England, and West Indies in West Indies. In those years.......back then the Lankans was a very weak test side overseas.

 

[andrew_nixon]

World Cup for me. Test cricket is a 10 team sport, whereas every single member of the ICC can enter the World Cup.

 

[y2j826]

World Cup

surely its world cup cuz u can then remember it for 4 years but in tests most of the peoples forget about last series.

 

[aditya123]

World Cup for me. Test cricket is a 10 team sport, whereas every single member of the ICC can enter the World Cup.

But does that mean that a side becomes the best in the world by just winning on tournament ( the World Cup in this case) ?

It sure does provide an indication as to where a team stands in world cricket .

Kenya played superbly in World Cup 2003 and reached the Semis, does it mean that Kenya are in the top 4 ODI sides in the world ?

 

[andrew_nixon]

But does that mean that a side becomes the best in the world by just winning on tournament ( the World Cup in this case) ?

I didn't say that. But I'd rather win a world cup, as it is the only truly global competition in cricket.

It sure does provide an indication as to where a team stands in world cricket .

Not really. Zimbabwe came 6th in the last World Cup, but they certainly weren't the 6th best team in the World.

Kenya played superbly in World Cup 2003 and reached the Semis, does it mean that Kenya are in the top 4 ODI sides in the world ?

Kenya were helped by New Zealand forfeiting their match, and coming up against crap sides from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

They certainly aren't one of the 4 best ODI sides in the world, as their pathetic performance since shows.

Overall, I agree that being number one in tests is a better indication of who the world's best cricket team is, but I'd much rather win the World Cup, as it's the only truly global tournament in cricket.

 

[cricket doctor]

But does that mean that a side becomes the best in the world by just winning on tournament ( the World Cup in this case) ?

It sure does provide an indication as to where a team stands in world cricket .

Kenya played superbly in World Cup 2003 and reached the Semis, does it mean that Kenya are in the top 4 ODI sides in the world ?

Very-very good point mate,SRL too got to semis in the world cup 2003,even that also doesn't mean SRL should be in top 4,for me top ODI sides which played superbly after wc 2003 are AUS,SAF,PAK and ENG and apart from AUS neither of these teams played wc semis last time around.

 

[Adarsh]

The problem with being No.1 in Tests is that, unless you are as good as Australia, others will always point out certain chinks in the armour and say that the team doesn't deserve to be No.1. Eg. India is no.2 now. IF they beat Aus and go to the No.1 spot, critics will say that they can't play on green or pacy wickets or they will say that India a poor team overseas. Or, they win because of certain individuals like Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble and the rest are very poor.

 

[y2j826]

Australia Dominates everywhere as u know its no. 1 team, and about others England and N. Zealand is in good form even pakistan and S. Africa, India is also getting strong after that no one is good compititor. So these r the 6 teams forget about Zimbabwe and Kenya.

 

[Cricketman]

Tests, but world cup would be nice too

 

[angryangy]

The way Tests are ranked, a team would have to clean up an awful lot of teams to take the top spot off Australia. As it stands, India, England and South Africa have shown the ability to consistently challenge Australia in a series, while Pakistan has also shown that it can match these teams too. So, for one of these teams to break away from the pack, they would need a string of powerful performances, almost certainly they would need defeat each of their key rivals. I can't imagine, for example, India on tour defeating Australia, England, South Africa and Pakistan and still carrying a stigma of being unbalanced.

 

[sohum]

I would rather win the World Cup, too, because far more people would recognize my performance. For example, even in the US, they would announce the Cricket World Cup winner, whereas they would not really find newspace for someone who moves into first place in the Test table.

Test matches are definitely a better judge of who is better at cricket.

 

[cricket doctor]

Pakistan has also shown that it can match these teams too. .

Pak can never win against Aus,not even at home.