quote:

Originally posted by shakes:

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:
A draw occurs when a Test match is inconclusive.

The assumption in the ICC ratings that an inconclusive Test is an equal equal result is flawed. In every draw, one team is further from victory than the other. How much further is something that ought to be measured.

Ytou can't do that in he official rating because it doesn't consider that cricket was played. You needn't even play cricket to have the ICC rating.

thats called a moral victory mate.

No its not. Its called an unbiased assessment of events. When you decide that a draw is a 50-50 results, youre biasing the result by definition.

That's a little to deep for shakes. He refuses to accept there are different shades of grey.

Should team who doctor pitches not also be docked??

Pakistand and Windies both did that - Pakistan producing the dullest of pitches and then a complete green top against India

Windies wanted a drawn series - they knew they couldn't win - and three complete flat lifeless pitches and one terrible one which could have gone 50/50.

all teams try and doctor pitches. it would be stupid if they didnt. sometimes it doesnt come off as intended

a draw really should be a draw in terms of rankings and thats how the players feel at the end of the day also. sure you had the better of the other team, but you didnt beat them did you? which team sport gives fractional points for draws? teams should only be rewarded for wins

including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

the debacle would be that a fully fit English team will now play a series against Pakistan.

If Pakistan draw or win - then they will move up - if they loose nothing will happen. It's hard on England because they've had to overcome team hardships and still win and get nothing - worse still they could draw and Pakistan would climb all on the basis that England were a higher ranking team and not a injury hit team ( hence weak ).

oh dear, if they take even injury into account you might as well just give up on an objective ranking system and just decide who you think is better. bangladesh could say 'if tendulkar, lara, ponting, warne, murali and mcgrath were born here we would have been the best team'. but in the end it doesnt mean squat. only the end result does

btw its lose. not loose

quote:

btw its lose. not loose

oh god! your not going to patronise like the rest - you understood what I posted - good enough for me - don't want to sit here and run a grammar check - takes the fun out of forumming passionately.

I'm not suggesting injuries etc should be taken into account - I am highlighting why such things make rankings meaningless - but it doesn't stop people from barracking them to others - usually as a means of a put down ...

i am sorry you thought its patronising. i have seen you use it wrongly many times, so i thought maybe you didnt realise its wrong

rankings are just for fun and interest anyways. i dont know why so many take it so seriously. its not like winning the world cup or something. its essential they remain simple enough. i feel the present rankings are too complicated anyways for someone to really take interest in them

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

You are only stating the obvious, but who said determining the position of a team in a rankings system was easy? There really isn't any need for it other than on a bilateral platform. But if you must, than at least do it to reflect all relevant factors.

Is the D/L system any less complicated?

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

That part of it is trivial. Finding the right sample of matches is the biggest hurdle. Thats where most of the argument happens.

In my opinion the sample should be based on number of matches and type of matches, not based on time.

Infact if you take into account runs and wickets, youre implicitly accounting for every single qualitative variable which you cannot otherwise account for - such as nature of the pitch, quality of bowling etc, because in the end, the only place where these things show up is in the scorecard.

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
all teams try and doctor pitches. it would be stupid if they didnt. sometimes it doesnt come off as intended

a draw really should be a draw in terms of rankings and thats how the players feel at the end of the day also. sure you had the better of the other team, but you didnt beat them did you? which team sport gives fractional points for draws? teams should only be rewarded for wins

including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

Yea you are right, it will make things very complicted!
We should be happy with the current ranking system, it's far better than many other sports.

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
all teams try and doctor pitches. it would be stupid if they didnt. sometimes it doesnt come off as intended

a draw really should be a draw in terms of rankings and thats how the players feel at the end of the day also. sure you had the better of the other team, but you didnt beat them did you? which team sport gives fractional points for draws? teams should only be rewarded for wins

including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

Yea you are right, it will make things very complicted!
We should be happy with the current ranking system, it's far better than many other sports.

No its not.

quote:

Originally posted by JayPatel:
the debacle would be that a fully fit English team will now play a series against Pakistan.

If Pakistan draw or win - then they will move up - if they loose nothing will happen. It's hard on England because they've had to overcome team hardships and still win and get nothing - worse still they could draw and Pakistan would climb all on the basis that England were a higher ranking team and not a injury hit team ( hence weak ).

Ok so what you are saying is just because there were a few injuries ENG should be given more points for their drawn series in IND?

So all of you guys who want to give extra points to team A for having a better "drawn" game maybe should also consider giving extra points to the team that won more convincingly! For example PAK's win over IND at Karachi should receive more points than their win over ENG in Multan!
Only then will this system seem a bit fair but having said that how will you figure out that an 8 wicket win is more convincing than a 340 runs win?

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
all teams try and doctor pitches. it would be stupid if they didnt. sometimes it doesnt come off as intended

a draw really should be a draw in terms of rankings and thats how the players feel at the end of the day also. sure you had the better of the other team, but you didnt beat them did you? which team sport gives fractional points for draws? teams should only be rewarded for wins

including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

Yea you are right, it will make things very complicted!
We should be happy with the current ranking system, it's far better than many other sports.

No its not.

it is 10 times better than the FIFA rankings

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
a draw really should be a draw in terms of rankings and thats how the players feel at the end of the day also. sure you had the better of the other team, but you didnt beat them did you? which team sport gives fractional points for draws? teams should only be rewarded for wins

TO... apart from all the other things ive said...

To decide that an inconclusive result (which is what a draw is) means that both sides are equal, is a mistake and is a misrepresentation for the purpose of a ranking.

The Ranking would then seize to be a ranking or performance (and there by of relative merit), but would be a ranking based on someones flawed judgement).

For example, if you decide to grant draws where a side has been saved by the rain (like one whole day or more being lost) and the side being very close to defeat, and yet getting half the points, then its not a accurate representation of the relative quality or performance of the competing sides.

And the ranking fails there.

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
all teams try and doctor pitches. it would be stupid if they didnt. sometimes it doesnt come off as intended

a draw really should be a draw in terms of rankings and thats how the players feel at the end of the day also. sure you had the better of the other team, but you didnt beat them did you? which team sport gives fractional points for draws? teams should only be rewarded for wins

including number or runs, wickets, etc into a ranking system would make it ridiculously complicated. and probably lead to more whinging on the methodology

Yea you are right, it will make things very complicted!
We should be happy with the current ranking system, it's far better than many other sports.

No its not.

it is 10 times better than the FIFA rankings

Yeh but its 100 times worse than every single league ranking.

Even the simplest football rankings take into account goal difference.

The ATP gives points for tournaments played.

How can you rank cricket teams without considering the runs they score and the wickets they take?

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:
Even the simplest football rankings take into account goal difference.

The ATP gives points for tournaments played.

How can you rank cricket teams without considering the runs they score and the wickets they take?

because it simply will not be fair!
300 all out is better than 240 for 8!
500 all out is better than 250 for 5!

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:

because it simply will not be fair!
300 all out is better than 240 for 8!
500 all out is better than 250 for 5![/QUOTE]

It doesnt matter. Do have a look at my method. Ive used runs and wickets, its very simple and i think it gives you an accurate indication of the Test match contest.

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:
because it simply will not be fair!300 all out is better than 240 for 8!
500 all out is better than 250 for 5!

And by the way what your suggesting is not true. Because 240/8 leave the theoretical possibility of making more than 300 while 300 all out doesnt. So 240/8 is not worse than 300 all out.

quote:

Ok so what you are saying is just because there were a few injuries ENG should be given more points for their drawn series in IND?

Not saying that at all - just highlighting points.

However in this series - didn't England go to India - at a higher position - therefore playing a presumed weaker team - and when drew - wasn't England who took advanatge by India dropping a point or england gaining an extra point.

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:
because it simply will not be fair!300 all out is better than 240 for 8!
500 all out is better than 250 for 5!

And by the way what your suggesting is not true. Because 240/8 leave the theoretical possibility of making more than 300 while 300 all out doesnt. So 240/8 is not worse than 300 all out.

BAN have a theoretical chance of beating AUS, so does that mean that an AUS win is as worthy as a BAN win?