I think the author is overly prejudiced against the Lankans: In the first place, the system of points allocation is uniform right across the board. The next is that SL has really been playing well (I have watched a few of them). Thirdly, there are certain miniscules that the author doesnt seem to percieve: I dont wish to enlighten them. And last but not the least: Anyone who has the capacity to win the maximum in terms of percentage, is good enough to be called great. And hey, who cares abt the rankings, anyway? Everyobe knows who plays well or otherwise...
bangladesh was given test status in 2000 mostly due to efforts of that SOB Dalmia...but nobody has ever questioned why Bangladesh have never toured India for a test match or a one day series in the past 9 years whereas they have been to all the other test playing nations, including Aus and SA for at least 1 series...if the ICC does have a say in the itinearies of the countries, then why is it turning a blind eye to this...we all know the answer...
Even Australia played against Bangladesh & NZ at home, they benefited from those series to maintain their #1 position for the last yr even though they lost2 out of 3 series.
India refused to travel to Bangladesh last year, had they they would have been # 1 or 2.
Re: It is atleast consisent
by Against Pseudos on Aug 27, 2009 08:44 AM
SK:
Good point.... . but Srinivas hasn't said that playing at home has been the MAIN reason for Sri Lanka's present position.
His main point is about every series played by Sri Lanka being short series (2 or 3 matches) and hence they have got a disproportionate benefit of that bonus point....
His other point is about how recent is recent? Where Australia have lost some advantage of good performances beyond 12 months.... Srinivas's logic for recency is that not enough matches are played in the 12 month window anyway.
On the home v/s away topic his point is that it would be nice to give points differently .... :-)
