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

[Blaze 18]

So basically you're saying rankings should be reset after every World Cup?

 

[Spark]

That's effectively artificially changing the rankings simply to reflect the WC though. And as 8ankitj says you can't really do that because something like a WC depends too much on little things whilst rankings should be about consistency. Which in effect is what the rankings say - that Australia over the recent past have been the most consistent team in ODIs. That doesn't necessarily mean best.

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, like I said, I don't begrudge Australia the number one spot. They still have the Champions Trophy (which is the second most important limited overs trophy after the World Cup) and their recent results have been quite good (5-0 versus Pakistan, 6-1 vs England, etc.)

 

[Burgey]

So basically you're saying rankings should be reset after every World Cup?

Yeah, that'd do me tbh.

 

[Jacknife]

Course it should ffs. It's the world championship. How can you win the world championship at a sport and not be number one in it? Be like Spain not being ranked one after the football WC. India in a similar position - were there or thereabouts pre-tourney and then won the biggest event in the sport, and the only one in the format which everyone really cares about.

But Spain have been ranked No 1 for the last 3 years, apart from about 7 months in total over that time, where Brazil won the Confederations Cup and the qualifying before the WC. Unlike India who have been a fair way behind Australia in the rankings, but because of this WC victory, they are closer than ever.

 

[GIMH]

After the 98 WC, France only went to #2. Bit different though, as hosting a tournament likr that limits your competitive games and makes it night impossible to reach top spot.

 

[tooextracool]

Think the basic point to be notes here is that ODIs outside of the World Cup over the last 3-4 years or so have not only had little relevance but have also tended to feature half fit sides and many players rested. Obviously this isn't a fault of the ranking system, teams have used the format as a platform to introduce younger players into the international fray, but as I have said probably close to a billion times in the last few years, there simply isn't the kind of following required for ODI cricket to be successful worldwide (outside of the subcontinent) at this point. Outside of world cups, the game itself has pretty much been exhausted.

Anyways the point Im making here, is that we've got to a stage where the only thing that really matters in ODI cricket is the World Cup. Hence all results before and after are irrelevant and so are the bloody rankings.

 

[ankitj]

Think the basic point to be notes here is that ODIs outside of the World Cup over the last 3-4 years or so have not only had little relevance but have also tended to feature half fit sides and many players rested. Obviously this isn't a fault of the ranking system, teams have used the format as a platform to introduce younger players into the international fray, but as I have said probably close to a billion times in the last few years, there simply isn't the kind of following required for ODI cricket to be successful worldwide (outside of the subcontinent) at this point. Outside of world cups, the game itself has pretty much been exhausted.

Anyways the point Im making here, is that we've got to a stage where the only thing that really matters in ODI cricket is the World Cup. Hence all results before and after are irrelevant and so are the bloody rankings.

Yes, that's been the fate of ODI cricket, and I feel sad about it. Even as a cricket follower, it doesn't hurt much to lose an ODI series anymore. There was a time when I would think it even if my team lost a test series and won an ODI series. But not anymore.

 

[dhillon28]

I think fair enough if Australia are still legitimately no.1 on points. However, what I would like is for the rankings system to weight more rankings points based on the magnitude of the event in which the victory took place. e.g. more rankings points should be gained from a certain victory if it occurred in a WC semi final and even more if it occurred in the final. Assigning rankings points in this way, which I also think is fair btw, would ensure that the winners would climb further towards the top of the table- more than they do under the current system anyway where WC matches are just treated the same as any other ODI match.

 

[Furball]

I see your argument, but the format of this world cup hardly lends itself any credibility for crowning someone undisputed world #1. India made it through to the QFs winning as many as 1 game against a top 8 nation. The point is not that I dont think India are the number one team in the world, because they are. But lets not kid ourself that this world cup had a huge say in that. End of the day any team that got on a role for 3 games in a row could very well have won that tournament and that essentially could have been even if they hadnt bothered to turn up until the QFs.

As much as the ICC deserves to be blasted for the 2015 world cup format, I think because of the format, the team that wins that will be able to come out of that tournament as the undisputed world champions.

A World Cup doesn't tell you who the undisputed number 1 is.

A World Cup tells you who the in form team over a 6 week time frame is.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, like I said, I don't begrudge Australia the number one spot. They still have the Champions Trophy (which is the second most important limited overs trophy after the World Cup) and their recent results have been quite good (5-0 versus Pakistan, 6-1 vs England, etc.)

Australia's 2 year form going into the WC:

v Pakistan (n) - W 3-2 (5)
v Scotland (a) - W 1-0 (1)
v England (a) - W 6-1 (7)
Champions Trophy - Winners
v India (a) - W 4-2 (7)
v Pakistan (h) - W 5-0 (5)
v West Indies (h) - W 4-0 (5)
v New Zealand (a) - W 3-2 (5)
v Ireland (a) - W 1-0 (1)
v England (a) - L 2-3 (5)
v India (a) L 0-1 (3)
v Sri Lanka (h) - L 1-2 (3)
v England (h) - W 6-1 (7)

Small blip in late 2010 aside, they caned absolutely everyone except South Africa, home and away, before losing a knock out tie to India in India. C'est la vie.

 

[vcs]

Impressive results. India have also been pretty consistent in that timeframe IIRC, so I think the gap should be a bit less, but meh.

 

[tooextracool]

A World Cup doesn't tell you who the undisputed number 1 is.

A World Cup tells you who the in form team over a 6 week time frame is.

This world cup told us who the best team was for 1 week.

 

[Bun]

"WC is the only ODI tourney that counts". rest all are gob****. Heck, we even didn't play our best XI during the year leadup to the WC. (Sachin)

 

[Furball]

Impressive results. India have also been pretty consistent in that timeframe IIRC, so I think the gap should be a bit less, but meh.

India's record:

v West Indies (a) W 2-1 (4)
Compaq Cup (vs NZ and SL in SL) - Winners (P3 W2 L1)
Champions Trophy - eliminated in group stage
v Australia (h) L 2-4 (7)
v Sri Lanka (h) W 3-1 (5)
Tri Series vs Sri Lanka & Bangladesh in Bangladesh - Runners Up (P5 W3 L2)
v South Africa (h) W 2-1 (3)
Zimbabwe Tri Series (vs Zim & SL) - 3rd (P4 W1 L3, including 2 defeats to Zimbabwe)
Asia Cup - Winners
Sri Lanka Tri Series (vs SL & NZ) - Runners Up (P5 W2 L3)
v Australia (h) W 1-0 (3)
v New Zealand (h) W 5-0 (5)
v South Africa (a) L 3-2 (5)

Would say looking at that, Australia have been way better over the last 2 years.

 

[Jono]

And that's a great example of why the World Cup should be weighted heavier. Because that Zimbabwe tri-series was a joke of a series in terms of India's selection, with it all being a plan for the World Cup.

But yes Australia have definitely been more consistent.

By the way, @ the amount of times we played Sri Lanka

 

[Furball]

And that's a great example of why the World Cup should be weighted heavier. Because that Zimbabwe tri-series was a joke of a series in terms of India's selection, with it all being a plan for the World Cup.

But yes Australia have definitely been more consistent.

By the way, @ the amount of times we played Sri Lanka

15 ODIs in that time frame (don't know if they faced off in the Asia Cup)

England and Australia played each other 20 times in the same time period. We just weren't playing each other every other month in some random tri-series.

Completely agree with you about weighting. Although losing twice to Zimbabwe can't be helping India's ranking.

 

[Howe_zat]

How often do sides put out their first team in these filler ODI series at all now?

In the two years prior to the World Cup (since the 2008-9 tour of NZ), India played 58 ODIs and not a single one featured all of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dhoni, Zaheer and Yuvraj.

 

[Blaze 18]

That could be a misleading though, Howe_zat. Zaheer and Sehwag had a few injury issues, Yuvraj Singh was out of form and consequently dropped, and Tendulkar was basically picking and choosing series to keep himself as fit as possible for the World Cup (if I recall correctly, even Gambhir had a few injury problems in early-mid 2010; was among the four or five players to miss the ODI series against South Africa, I think). Not to say there weren't a few series where India decided to send a second/third string eleven (Zimbabwe tri-series, a tri-series in Bangladesh, etc.), but I think you will find that India have played their best eleven possible more often that not and whenever necessary.

 

[Blaze 18]

15 ODIs in that time frame (don't know if they faced off in the Asia Cup)

England and Australia played each other 20 times in the same time period. We just weren't playing each other every other month in some random tri-series.

Completely agree with you about weighting. Although losing twice to Zimbabwe can't be helping India's ranking.

Yeah they did, twice. Sri Lanka won a dead rubber, India won the final