honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
well, when explaining facts, there is..We? Is there a team element to all this? Silly me, I thought I was debating with Jono about this
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* New Zealand in India 2010
- Thread starter Shri
- Start date
Ruckus
International Captain
You are comparing goals in a game to wins in a series though. Bad analogy. You should rather compare a 1-0 victory to Chelsea with a tight victory of India over NZ in one test match. In which case the points should probably be the same as any other win.
Ruckus
International Captain
I don't know, that's for the experts to figure out. Bookies somehow come up with specific numbers for starting odds - I don't how they work it out, but they must have some consistent method. Generally I find the starting odds for cricket matches are pretty good representations of what result is expected. Why should Australia have lost points since 2007? New team which is much worse than before=expected result is lower than before.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Because since 2007 the odds for Australia by the bookies have been horrific and almost unbackable at times. Any reasonable punter would have seen great value against Australia at various stages.
Australia drawing vs. WI, losing to Pak in Eng and losing to SA at home should have resulted in huge point losses.
Australia drawing vs. WI, losing to Pak in Eng and losing to SA at home should have resulted in huge point losses.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Jono's always put less importance on the result on each match than most, IMO. He's definitely a series result kind of guy.
Ruckus
International Captain
You're not talking about the 'in-play' odds are you? I'm just talking about the odds before the match has begun. E.g. take the Betfair odds for the Ashes series:
The best odds (i.e. the most expected result) are for a series scoreline of 2-2. I think that is very reasonable, all things being considered.
Ruckus
International Captain
I think all of those odds are perfectly reasonable. And because e.g. the Aus/Pak scoreline was 1-1, Aus should have been deducted points (because it is a negative deviation away from 2-0).
Last edited:
Ruckus
International Captain
Why?
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
There are times they didn't win matches, but won overall series.
I just think you're failing to realise the realistic nature of test cricket.
Take away this series, which had a decider test. Let's look at Ind in NZ in 2009 and India in Eng 2007.
India were 1-0 up after 2 tests in both series. In the 3rd test there was deliberate choices by Dravid and Dhoni to ensure that India received, what was for India, a rare away test series win, even if it was only 1-0, instead of going for the 2-0 win. I'm talking deliberate attempts to slow the game and shut out the opposition.
India could definitely have declared 2 hours earlier vs. Eng at The Oval (Sachin wouldn't have bowled 19 overs vs. Eng at the Oval if they were playing to win)., and in the end the rain cost India the match against NZ at Wellington, but they too could have declared early and won.
At the end of the day, if England win the first test of this series, and then bat 1st every test afterwards, score 700 at a slow pace to ensure they can't lose any tests and give up their lead, they win The Ashes. I dare say that's what everyone cares about.
And this isn't even taking into account dead rubber syndrome, which clearly exists in cricket.
I just think you're failing to realise the realistic nature of test cricket.
Take away this series, which had a decider test. Let's look at Ind in NZ in 2009 and India in Eng 2007.
India were 1-0 up after 2 tests in both series. In the 3rd test there was deliberate choices by Dravid and Dhoni to ensure that India received, what was for India, a rare away test series win, even if it was only 1-0, instead of going for the 2-0 win. I'm talking deliberate attempts to slow the game and shut out the opposition.
India could definitely have declared 2 hours earlier vs. Eng at The Oval (Sachin wouldn't have bowled 19 overs vs. Eng at the Oval if they were playing to win)., and in the end the rain cost India the match against NZ at Wellington, but they too could have declared early and won.
At the end of the day, if England win the first test of this series, and then bat 1st every test afterwards, score 700 at a slow pace to ensure they can't lose any tests and give up their lead, they win The Ashes. I dare say that's what everyone cares about.
And this isn't even taking into account dead rubber syndrome, which clearly exists in cricket.
Last edited:
Ruckus
International Captain
All of that stuff is why there should be (and is even in the current system, I believe) bonus points for series wins. Even in dead rubber matches, most teams will take it as an independant challenge and still put in due effort. If they don't, and give away the test, it's their loss, because even this primitive ranking system awards points on individual test results.
I think that putting in a half-assed effort for dead rubber matches is really just poor spirit in the game. IMO any ranking system that can prevent such things occuring is a good thing. Take your England example. England could do that, and win the series. However, you would seriously have to question whether they deserve full ranking points for that performance. It is boring for players, boring for the spectators, and would ruin the game. I think it would be perfectly acceptable for a ranking system that doesn't reward such results.
Last edited:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Small point, but technically India didn't lose points on this series - they gained points, but because they didn't perform as well as expected, they gained less points than their average so their ranking.
For example, presently SA have 3712 and Pakistan 2275. Following the 0-0, SA go up to 3976 and Pakistan 2623, but because they've played 2 more games, SA's rating goes from 116 to 114 and Pakistan's from 88 to 90.
Looking further forward, following the inevitable Ashes 5-0, England will go from 4355 @ 112 to 5315 @ 118 whilst Australia go from 4061 @ 110 to 4433 @ 103.
You can't compare it with a football league because that is all plays all over a fixed season.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
It's not rankings and points that causes curators to prepare roads, it's $$. Five days $$ > Four days $$.
The only way this will change is if someone steps in and starts taking away matches from grounds where there are too many draws.
The only way this will change is if someone steps in and starts taking away matches from grounds where there are too many draws.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's not as if stadiums are overflowing TBF. So they might as well prepare result oriented wickets and bring more people in for shorter games, but much more exciting cricket. Maybe they get more money out of their TV deals the longer the match goes on though.