If some one defeats a team which has a lower ranking then the points to the winning team should also be on the basis of the loosing team. Or it should be like defeating Bangladesh 5 times is equal to defeating Australia 1 time...something like that. There should be a benchmark for points....
Re: Team Rakings
by Ravi Iyer on Aug 27, 2009 09:01 AM
In fact, there is such a weightage. If India beats Australia or SA, it would be more rewarded as opposed to beating Bangladesh. In fact, I remember 2 yrs ago, India lost points even after beating Bangaldesh in a 2 match series 1-0!The expected result was 2-0 to maintain rating points but one match was drawn. I do not agree to point (c) of the author Srinivas reg weaker opposition. Moreover, there is a weightage in individual batting and bowling points for home and away matches. Then why not for country ratings? I am not sure if it is already in place. Need to check.
Re: Team Rakings
by Arun N on Aug 27, 2009 07:32 AM
if you check the rankings, SL has the lowest # of matches and the lowest score among the top 5 teams yet it is at no. 2!! there is nothing wrong in questioning a system. better to question, investigate and rectify if wrong as compared to following a wrong system for years like a "dope"!
Re: Team Rakings
by nobel on Aug 27, 2009 08:20 AM
No complaints when India plays all the maches at home and against weaker teams like Bangladesh, Kenya, Windies all the time.
Re: no problem
by Namal Priyantha on Aug 27, 2009 08:08 AM
India lost the last test series at sri lanka very badly. Very soon they will taste the bitter truth at home too. They have really talented batsmen. But no body think according to the game. Most of them are overconfident(best example is Gautam Gambhir). That's what happened at T20 world cup.They won the last odi series against SL due to ridiculous sri lankan grounds. If you win the toss you can win the game. It's that simple. All the grounds are very asymmetric in results. India won the toss 3 times and they won the tournament 3-2.
Mr. Srinivas is simply wrting as if every hting in the world except he is right. let him bring a better ranking systema nd prove correct. there has to be a criteria and as per present system the ranking may be correct. instead of complaining let him suggest a new CORRECT system. stat and real things will be different as we all know. this is all based on average, weighted average, deviation and analysis and hence there will be small mistakes. so srinivas try to give respect for taking respect.
Look .. you can not give a ranking to a team unless it competes all teams a single tournament. cricket is not like this .. esp test cricket when only 2 teams involeved all teams playe only 2-3 different teams a year .. so true ranking can not be determined .. it foolish process . I think real ranking would be when cricket should be played in a single format and have events / tournaments in in which all countries must particiapt ... somthing like tennis .. otherwise we 'll see puzzling ranking .. more over thease guys have come up with individual ranking .. i think that is B**lSh*t .. how can you rank an individual player in team game .. its not in football , basketball ... or any other game but cricket ... its funny game with this ranking systems .. it must be scrapped
Re: Re: Real Rank
by Dhosa on Aug 27, 2009 06:59 AM
AP How about we keep it the way Prashant has. Only a moronic rearhole will do ranking the way you did...:)
Re: Re: Re: Real Rank
by Against Pseudos on Aug 27, 2009 07:41 AM
Dhosa:
You are not creative enough.... :)
When you are getting a chance of "creating" your own ranking instead of following the ICC ranking, I would certainly do it the way I did it..... what's so moronic and rearhole about it?..... :)
Grab the opportunity while it lasts.... . :) In fact whilst at it, we should make a stipulation that this ranking will stand for the next 25 years no matter what the results of individual matches are..... :-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Rank
by Against Pseudos on Aug 28, 2009 04:43 AM
Good for you..... only a moronic rearhole would spell Pseudos wrongly.... wouldn't she?..... :)
Re: Re: Stats
by Akash Nair on Aug 27, 2009 04:52 AM
Everyone knows its a famous punch line by Sidhu, you retard! You expect me to put a disclaimer about the copyright with every euphemism? Get a life LOSER!
Re: Re: Re: Stats
by Sunit Kumar on Aug 27, 2009 05:07 AM
You said it wrong buddy, because the surd_sidu got it wrong. "Stats are like bikinis, they show what is known and hide the vital", thats the real american version !!!
Rankings dont reflect te true potential or strength/calibre of a team.They are only temporary markers and dont take into account the strength of the opposition teams and the playing condtions and extraneous factors.However real cricket brains know who is the best and dont go by mere ranking by ICC..!
Re: author srinivas bhogle?
by vinay on Aug 27, 2009 01:26 AM
author's logic is good for not weakening the records made above 1 year back. at the same time, its also logical to know who is the opponent. i fail to agree with robbing of a bonus point from the series win.
Re: Re: author srinivas bhogle?
by Against Pseudos on Aug 27, 2009 08:11 AM
Vinay:
Srinivas is not talking about "robbing" the bonus point..... all he is saying is that the weight of that bonus point is very high for a 2 or a 3 match series as compared to a 5 match series.....
While the article makes sense to some extent, the same logic applies even if the rankings are based on 24months. 25 months old huge away series will not count, while 23 months old counts. I agree that the Away Series should give a bonus than a Home series win.
Re: There is no end to this
by Against Pseudos on Aug 27, 2009 08:13 AM
Giri Dhar:
But the author has given his logic for it being 24 months - that teams play very few matches in 12 months.... In fact his opening sentence for this topic says - "Let me explain the meaning of 'recently', because this is one of the merits of ICC's ranking scheme. The essential idea is that wins in the recent past must get a greater weight than wins in the not-so-recent past. There's no need to quibble about this; it seems to make good sense."
So he agrees that a greater weight for recent-past than non-recent past makes good sense.....
I dont know who shld be no 1 and no 2 but writer has explained in detail how ICC rankings work. I agree with the point that 2 yrs shld be criteria instead of 1 looking at less no of test matches played by each team.
