Rating change every August but this time around no series will be completed by AUG so they decided to update it in July. It is not the 1st time the ratings have been updated, so i don't know why people are making so much noise.
Originally posted by fcxx: Rating change every August but this time around no series will be completed by AUG so they decided to update it in July. It is not the 1st time the ratings have been updated, so i don't know why people are making so much noise.
Because if you use the exact same method of calculation and change ratings in December instead of August, you would get a different ratings list.
Why is July or August a better time to change than december?
Originally posted by cricindia4life: so it's random, Karti. It doesnt try to give any one team advantage. There is an element of randomness in everything in life...live with it.
Thats a stupid argument if there ever was one. What youre saying is that its not even a rating.
There are better ratings, which are not random which give nobody an advantage.
I think for example that Indias number 2 position was ridiculous. India wasnt close to being the number 2 side in the world at that time.
Originally posted by fcxx: Rating change every August but this time around no series will be completed by AUG so they decided to update it in July. It is not the 1st time the ratings have been updated, so i don't know why people are making so much noise.
Because if you use the exact same method of calculation and change ratings in December instead of August, you would get a different ratings list.
Why is July or August a better time to change than december?
Beats me!
Cricket year starts in August! man why do you make everything so complicated!!
Although i must say that you have been consistently against the ICC rankings, you didn't like the system even when IND were #2 and you still don't support it.... so good job for being honest and consistent!
Originally posted by fcxx: Rating change every August but this time around no series will be completed by AUG so they decided to update it in July. It is not the 1st time the ratings have been updated, so i don't know why people are making so much noise.
Because if you use the exact same method of calculation and change ratings in December instead of August, you would get a different ratings list.
Why is July or August a better time to change than december?
Beats me!
Cricket year starts in August! man why do you make everything so complicated!!
Although i must say that you have been consistently against the ICC rankings, you didn't like the system even when IND were #2 and you still don't support it.... so good job for being honest and consistent!
Says who? Cricket year, if anything starts in the beginning of October, when the cricket season starts everywhere in the world except England, and ends with the English summer. You could also say that the cricket year starts in April - with the beginning of the English summer.
I just dont like things being so mindbogglingly stupid..... and yet being accepted as the gospel by people just because they have an official tag on them.
Besides, hasnt the Cricket calender traditionally comprised of 2 seasons ? The Northern Summer and the Southern Summer? Dont you have seasons like 2005-06, 2006, 2006-07?
Originally posted by Kartikeya: Besides, hasnt the Cricket calender traditionally comprised of 2 seasons ? The Northern Summer and the Southern Summer? Dont you have seasons like 2005-06, 2006, 2006-07?
August falls bang in the middle of 2006!
maybe because July is the month when "least" amount of cricket is played! so then they update the whole thing from AUG 1st!
Originally posted by Kartikeya: Besides, hasnt the Cricket calender traditionally comprised of 2 seasons ? The Northern Summer and the Southern Summer? Dont you have seasons like 2005-06, 2006, 2006-07?
August falls bang in the middle of 2006!
maybe because July is the month when "least" amount of cricket is played! so then they update the whole thing from AUG 1st!
really?
i think you'll find that the least amount of cricket is played in september - at the most 1 Test in England. They don't play anywhere else in the world in September.
Originally posted by Kartikeya: Besides, hasnt the Cricket calender traditionally comprised of 2 seasons ? The Northern Summer and the Southern Summer? Dont you have seasons like 2005-06, 2006, 2006-07?
August falls bang in the middle of 2006!
maybe because July is the month when "least" amount of cricket is played! so then they update the whole thing from AUG 1st!
really?
i think you'll find that the least amount of cricket is played in september - at the most 1 Test in England. They don't play anywhere else in the world in September.
It's about equal! I think they play some ODIs in September but i agree OCT would not have been a bad choice either! So now if you are going ask me why AUG and why not October then my answer is "i don't know"!
Originally posted by Kartikeya: So you agree that there is no real basis for choosing August.
yea but atleast we were able to eliminate 10 months! So in the end it was a toss up b/t Oct and AUG! BTW can i ask you how you have SA tied for 2nd place in tests???(make it as brief as possible)
Originally posted by Kartikeya: So you agree that there is no real basis for choosing August.
yea but atleast we were able to eliminate 10 months! So in the end it was a toss up b/t Oct and AUG! BTW can i ask you how you have SA tied for 2nd place in tests???(make it as brief as possible)
If you check the Series results for England, Pakistan and South Africa in their latest Home and Away Series against the other top Test teams (everyone except Bangladesh and Zim), without considering extent of victory, you get:
Pakistan: Played 29, won 13, lost 12 drawn 4 South Africa: Played 37, won 14, lost 11, drawn 12 England: Played 51, won 22, lost 16, drawn 13
India: Played 39, won 12, lost 12, drawn 15
This is just considering the win-loss records. When you consider quality of opposition, number of Tests played, bonuses for away victories etc, in the way that ive described and youve gone through, you get the results that youve seen.
I would read those as suggesting that overall Pakista, SA and England are currently approximately equally well placed in terms of performance.
This is the only way in which it is possible to list a rating. A rating listing Test Teams must list performances against all Test teams, and not be contingent upon the tour itineries drawn up by Cricket boards.
Originally posted by little_master: Actually Kurti, Pak played Sri Lanka after the India series. Registering a win.
Yes. In a series where they had previously won 2-0.
Which is to say that Pakistans Rating (i think it was 0.523) before the Sri Lanka series included that 2-0 win in 3 Tests. Theyre current rating (0.517) includes the 2-0 win in 3 Tests with the 1-0 win in the 2 Test series.
Originally posted by cricindia4life: so it's random, Karti. It doesnt try to give any one team advantage. There is an element of randomness in everything in life...live with it.
Thats a stupid argument if there ever was one. What youre saying is that its not even a rating.
There are better ratings, which are not random which give nobody an advantage.
I think for example that Indias number 2 position was ridiculous. India wasnt close to being the number 2 side in the world at that time.
Tell me one thing Karti, if you change the month to december from august, would some other team other than Aussies be at the top? Would teams other than Zim and Ban be at the bottom? The point is, when teams' point values are so close to each other, small things such as the month they start "measuring" the rankings start making differences. Now you are going to get impatient again and will try to degrade my comments as opposed to providing your own (about the rankings, not about me); don't start with.."oh..so you think 120 and 111 are close together eh?" From Feb 06 to Jun 06, number 2, 3, and 4 had a mere difference of 5 points among them. Ans 5-7 had a difference of 6 points. So obviously things as small as the starting month are going to affect the rankings.
Originally posted by cricindia4life: Tell me one thing Karti, if you change the month to december from august, would some other team other than Aussies be at the top? Would teams other than Zim and Ban be at the bottom? The point is, when teams' point values are so close to each other, small things such as the month they start "measuring" the rankings start making differences. Now you are going to get impatient again and will try to degrade my comments as opposed to providing your own (about the rankings, not about me); don't start with.."oh..so you think 120 and 111 are close together eh?" From Feb 06 to Jun 06, number 2, 3, and 4 had a mere difference of 5 points among them. Ans 5-7 had a difference of 6 points. So obviously things as small as the starting month are going to affect the rankings.
Thats hardly the point. The point is that these things shouldnot affect the result. I should be able to arrive at 1 Rating list and only 1 rating list for July 12th 2006. Otherwise, the ratings method is flawed.
From what youre saying it appears that you dont appreciate the whole point of a rating. A rating tells you who is better than who at a given point in time. If you can get more than one result at a particular point in time, if you make one out of many equally valid choices, then your method is flawed. Its not a valid method.
