Australia is still number one - haters can rightfully ask why.

[morgieb]

Got no problem if they decide to rank World Cup victories more than ordinary ODI's. Just wish they would get rid of the waste of time Champions Trophy, a pointless extra competition nobody cares about.

Particularly given what they're doing with the World Cup now.

 

[honestbharani]

That is completely irrelevant to what he is saying. I think it's fair enough for Australia to be on top given their winning percentages, Champions Trophy win and recent big wins over England, Pakistan etc. but agree with the general consensus that WC matches should be given more weightage. That would probably make it closer at the top between them and India.

How I see it as relevant is because there are blokes here who argue Ponting > Sachin simply because he played better in WC finals or KO games or something to that effect.. Basically implying WC > all other ODIs... I haven't seen him participate in those discussions, so juz curious on what he thinks...

No one (except maybe Burgey?) is arguing that winning the WC should automatically make you #1. Just that the WC matches should be weighted more-so than the dead rubber 7th match of England vs. Australia where Australia are already 5-1 up

I would say so.. but maybe Ikki also thinks like Burge

 

[vcs]

I should think that some Aussie fans who were perhaps a bit spoilt by Australia's WC dominance should now start coming around to the fact that WC matches are not the be all and end all of ODI cricket, though they are the marquee games obviously. Even when they were dominant, I always thought the best thing about that Australia '99-'07 team was not just that they won the WCs in dominant fashion, but beat everyone everywhere all over the world consistently. The strength in depth that allowed them to do that made that team really special, arguably even more so than the Test side in the same period.

 

[Tom 1972]

Oh yeah agree with that, but in the OP I put it in the context of Australia losing to SL before the Ashes and our less than great effort in the WC. I mean all we've done of note lately is minnow bash on Bangladesh and England.

the only minnow-bashing is done by your right hand, ****

thhis is why I visit this site. solid gold lads.

 

[Ikki]

No one (except maybe Burgey?) is arguing that winning the WC should automatically make you #1. Just that the WC matches should be weighted more-so than the dead rubber 7th match of England vs. Australia where Australia are already 5-1 up

I think it should be weighted so heavily that the team that usually wins the WC will be #1. In that scenario, only a team like Bangladesh winning the WC might mean they won't get the #1 spot. Which I can accept easier as often unexpected things can happen at a WC and consistency should also play a part in determining the rankings.

I should think that some Aussie fans who were perhaps a bit spoilt by Australia's WC dominance should now start coming around to the fact that WC matches are not the be all and end all of ODI cricket, though they are the marquee games obviously. Even when they were dominant, I always thought the best thing about that Australia '99-'07 team was not just that they won the WCs in dominant fashion, but beat everyone everywhere all over the world consistently. The strength in depth that allowed them to do that made that team really special, arguably even more so than the Test side in the same period.

I think the opposite is happening amongst Indian fans: they're realising just what it means to perform in these tournaments and have a greater appreciation for the difference in performing at a WC than at a CT tourney.

 

[honestbharani]

I think it should be weighted so heavily that the team that usually wins the WC will be #1. In that scenario, only a team like Bangladesh winning the WC might mean they won't get the #1 spot. Which I can accept easier as often unexpected things can happen at a WC and consistency should also play a part in determining the rankings.



I think the opposite is happening amongst Indian fans: they're realising just what it means to perform in these tournaments and have a greater appreciation for the difference in performing at a WC than at a CT tourney.

Ikki, the point is, WC matches mean more.. but NOT THAT MUCH MORE than a normal ODI that you just about disregard all other performances.. And that is what has been almost unanimously accepted in this thread.

 

[Uppercut]

Actually though, what do we need the rankings for? Certainly not to determine who plays in the WC...

I really appreciate your ongoing objection to the Associate exclusion because I'm far too horribly disillusioned with the entire sport to keep ranting about it myself. Thinking about cricket at all these days is just a bit depressing.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, the point is, WC matches mean more.. but NOT THAT MUCH MORE than a normal ODI that you just about disregard all other performances.. And that is what has been almost unanimously accepted in this thread.

I am not sure many people are asking all other ODIs to be disregarded, other than WCs. But they should mean a hell of a lot more than other ODIs, IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not sure many people are asking all other ODIs to be disregarded, other than WCs. But they should mean a hell of a lot more than other ODIs, IMO.

Sure, they should mean more but how much more is the question? I would say just about any KO game or a decider should mean more than a normal game and WC games even more than these games... But it probably juz over complicates stuff.

 

[Jono]

Yeah that's a bit too complicated.

It'd be simple to just do it on opposition, home and away and then if the match is a WC game.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Sure, they should mean more but how much more is the question? I would say just about any KO game or a decider should mean more than a normal game and WC games even more than these games... But it probably juz over complicates stuff.

Simple i guess, double points for knockout matches and triple for WC games. At least you'd know where you stood anyway.

 

[Jono]

Beating Canada in a WC still should not mean more than beating Australia in Australia though.

You should take into account quality of opposition like it currently does as well.

 

[smash84]

I should think that some Aussie fans who were perhaps a bit spoilt by Australia's WC dominance should now start coming around to the fact that WC matches are not the be all and end all of ODI cricket, though they are the marquee games obviously. Even when they were dominant, I always thought the best thing about that Australia '99-'07 team was not just that they won the WCs in dominant fashion, but beat everyone everywhere all over the world consistently. The strength in depth that allowed them to do that made that team really special, arguably even more so than the Test side in the same period.

Well said

Beating Canada in a WC still should not mean more than beating Australia in Australia though.

You should take into account quality of opposition like it currently does as well.

Precisely

 

[Bun]

Small consolation Burgey.

TBH, Australia are still a formidable side in ODIs for sure. Not as if they were steamrolled in the World Cup or anything.

 

[kingpin]

Take Watson Out they r ****ZZ

 

[ankitj]

Nah. I haven't suddenly started giving a lot of importance to individual performances in WC just because my team has won. I realize the role played by chance in such small samples. India's campaign could have ended in QF if Yuvraj had nicked any of the balls he played and missed and again in SF if any of Tendulkar's dropped catches were taken. Basing assessment of cricketers on such small smaples leaves you exposed a lot to influence of chance events.

Only reason I would advocate giving more weight to WC matches in team level rankings is that increasingly teams are failing to send full strength teams at ODI tournaments other than world cup.

 

[Bun]

Nah. I haven't suddenly started giving a lot of importance to individual performances in WC just because my team has won. I realize the role played by chance in such small samples. India's campaign could have ended in QF if Yuvraj had nicked any of the balls he played and missed and again in SF if any of Tendulkar's dropped catches were taken. Basing assessment of cricketers on such small smaples leaves you exposed a lot to influence of chance events.

Only reason I would advocate giving more weight to WC matches in team level rankings is that increasingly teams are failing to send full strength teams at ODI tournaments other than world cup.

And the question of mental strength to perform when it matterz.

 

[ankitj]

And the question of mental strength to perform when it matterz.

I am a bit skeptical towards that argument tbh. Pressure of the occasion applies to all players in the game. So to excel in those games you just have to be less affected or perhaps just demonstrate average level of mental strength. I don't know. It sounds odd what I am saying but that's an automatic corollary of the pressure game argument. If nerves are playing such an important role, perhaps we are not getting to see the highest quality cricket in these games.

 

[TumTum]

I am a bit skeptical towards that argument tbh. Pressure of the occasion applies to all players in the game. So to excel in those games you just have to be less affected or perhaps just demonstrate average level of mental strength. I don't know. It sounds odd what I am saying but that's an automatic corollary of the pressure game argument. If nerves are playing such an important role, perhaps we are not getting to see the highest quality cricket in these games.

Awta.

 

[Spark]

Our ODI team is fine once we get our best attack back on the park (Harris, Bollinger, Hauritz and probably Johnson) and we fix Brad Haddin or get him out of opening and put Ponting/Clarke in there. It's worth remembering that of the top six, four are either certainties or fairly close to the Aus all-time eleven and would surely make an all-time squad.