The ranking system takes into account the performance of a team over past three years with 100% weightage being given to the last year and 50% each to the two years before that. But is that an indicator enough of a team's ability to play in the different parts of the world against different opponents? If we take a closer look, we can easily find out that winning the ashes in Australia is England's only significant overseas achievement over the specified period. Is this a credential good enough to establish a team's position as the world no 1. They actually played 5 overseas series over that period. They lost in India and West Indies, drew in South Africa and won in Australia and Bangladesh. While playing at home, they won everything. This record looks impressive until we compare this to that of India's . Indians also won everything at home over this period but they didn't lose anything overseas as well. No other teams has such record over this period. South Africa also have just one series loss over the period but they won only one series out of the four they played at home that too coming against Bangladesh. For the record, Australia lost six series over that period. The question that thus arises is that why will India be ranked second (or third depending on the result of the Oval test) despite this being their only series loss in three years. The answer lies in the scheduling of the tours of India and England. As mentioned earlier, ranking system gives maximum weightage to the series played over last one year. England had just one overseas tour in that period while India toured Srilanka, South Africa, West Indies and England in the last one year. England last visited India in 2008-09 with no tour to Srilanka or Pakistan being in the period deemed fit by the ranking system to judge the ability of teams.
Another factor that adversely affects India's cause is the quality of pitches they get at home. They won the three match home series against Newzeland 1-0. We all knew the gap between the quality of teams was wider than that suggested by the result but not much could have been done on the tracks of Nagpur and Hyderabad to affirm that fact. This while entirely being the fault of BCCI and the local cricket associations, can't deprive the team of the quality they have in their ranks. One thing this surely can do and have done is to deprive India of some ranking points.
Another factor that adversely affects India's cause is the quality of pitches they get at home. They won the three match home series against Newzeland 1-0. We all knew the gap between the quality of teams was wider than that suggested by the result but not much could have been done on the tracks of Nagpur and Hyderabad to affirm that fact. This while entirely being the fault of BCCI and the local cricket associations, can't deprive the team of the quality they have in their ranks. One thing this surely can do and have done is to deprive India of some ranking points.
One good way to look at the ability of a team is to look at how it fared when having to deal with different teams in different situations. Below is the table which shows the result of the series between top five teams the last time they played on their mutual surfaces.
| Touring sideà | Aus | Eng | Ind | SA | SL |
| Aus | *** | Eng 3-1(5) | Aus 2-1(4) | SA 2-1(3) | Aus 2-0(2) |
| Eng | Eng 2-1(5) | *** | Eng(4) | SA 2-1(4) | Eng 1-0(3) |
| Ind | Ind 2-0(2) | Ind 1-0(3) | *** | 1-1(2) | Ind 2-0(3) |
| SA | Aus 2-1(3) | 1-1(4) | 1-1(3) | *** | SA 2-0(3) |
| SL | Aus 3-0(3) | SL 1-0(3) | 1-1(3) | SL 2-0(2) | *** |
Again, India are the only team which hasn't lost at home having three wins and one draw. England also have three series wins but they lost against South Africa. Sri Lanka have a 3-1 record while South Africa surprisingly have a 1-1 record. The status and the no 2 ranking of South Africa can still be justified as they are the best tourists having a 2-1 record overseas. Australia come second in this regard having a 2-2 record while England and India have 1-2 and 0-2 record respectively. Sri Lanka clearly are the worst tourists having lost all the overseas series they played. With home and away records combined, England(4-3), India(3-2) and South Africa(3-2) come out to be at top simultaneously. Australia come next with 4-4 while Sri Lanka come last having win loss record of 2-5. So, we are not left with anything that helps to pick one team that stands head and shoulders above other with a slight edge, if any, remains in favour of South Africa as they are the one amongst the three teams which haven't done well at home and it's always easier to improve at home. Unlike the computer generated rankings, we don't have the compulsion to rank them as one, two and three anyway.
One question that still remained unanswered is why India lost three consecutive tests in the way they did if they are such a good team. The answer is actually simple. This wasn't the same team that has been ranked as No 1 for a while. They didn't play with a settled opening combination and the didn't have their best bowler. This might sound like an excuse especially when India still had Sachin, Dravid and Laxman in their batting order. But the middle order was almost same in the early part of the last decade as well. India weren't no 1 back then. It's only after they got the opening combination right, they started their march to the top. So the only fact that comes out of this series loss is that India don't have good enough replacements for their top players. But the same can be said about England as well. The fact that Ravi Bopara was the most capable replacement for Trott says it all. And one can easily guess the result of a series between India and England being played at India with England playing without Strauss, Cook and Swaan while India being at full strength. England can't claim the no 1 spot to be their own unless they start winning in the subcontinent as India's can't claim the same until they start winning overseas.
