Does the 2019 WC format encourage teams to accept lower margin of defeat rather than trying to win?

[Titan24]

So if we look at the format of WC 19, there are 10 teams and every team plays every other team once. So if a team has won 4-5 out of 9 and it still has 2-3 matches to go, would it try to settle for lower margin of defeat from an uncomfortable position then if they would have been playing may be group stages of earlier WCs or knockout stages.

Many theories and things have been discussed regarding Eng vs Ind WC match happened on 30th of June in WC 19. But lets have a look at it from another perspective that India may be wanted to make sure they maintain their NRR as target looked difficult to reach considering how poor Indian middle order is.

It looked like India was maybe playing to save their NRR from the very start as 28/1 in 10 overs is even slow for the cricket 20 years ago.

I am not saying that this perspective is particularly right for Eng vs Ind match but this can happen in other matches as well. A team can just play for maintaining the NRR to qualify for the stage rather than trying to risk and win a particular match.

For e.g Eng scores 350 agianst NZ so rather than going all in and risking getting all out for 150 runs NZ can try to play stably and maybe achieve 270-300 if that allows their NRR to be decent to go through the next stage.

I think the problem with this WC format is that once team are in relatively stable position they can opt for loosing less badly in some of the matches rather than trying to win those. In previous WC formats no team would have afforded to opt for any such strategy.

 

[Mamoon]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

 

[rhony]

So if we look at the format of WC 19, there are 10 teams and every team plays every other team once. So if a team has won 4-5 out of 9 and it still has 2-3 matches to go, would it try to settle for lower margin of defeat from an uncomfortable position then if they would have been playing may be group stages of earlier WCs or knockout stages.

Many theories and things have been discussed regarding Eng vs Ind WC match happened on 30th of June in WC 19. But lets have a look at it from another perspective that India may be wanted to make sure they maintain their NRR as target looked difficult to reach considering how poor Indian middle order is.

It looked like India was maybe playing to save their NRR from the very start as 28/1 in 10 overs is even slow for the cricket 20 years ago.

I am not saying that this perspective is particularly right for Eng vs Ind match but this can happen in other matches as well. A team can just play for maintaining the NRR to qualify for the stage rather than trying to risk and win a particular match.

For e.g Eng scores 350 agianst NZ so rather than going all in and risking getting all out for 150 runs NZ can try to play stably and maybe achieve 270-300 if that allows their NRR to be decent to go through the next stage.

I think the problem with this WC format is that once team are in relatively stable position they can opt for loosing less badly in some of the matches rather than trying to win those. In previous WC formats no team would have afforded to opt for any such strategy.

Ofcourse teams will play keeping NRR in mind. Its similar to goal difference in soccer. When it is one of the criteria for an SF spot, it's tactical to give importance to NRR. This is the best format because it pits every team against every body else and only the best teams go through after the dog fight.

The only negative of this format would have been if the top 4 beat the bottom 6 and a bunch of games were dead rubbers at the end. Luckily it didn't happen because of Pak and SL.

 

[Usman Chadda]

Nothing wrong with this. It's what makes the WC interesting.

The past two weeks have made the WC one of the best so far, specially with the rain threatening to make it one of the worst.

Hope there's a last moment twist, and the match on 5 July becomes a virtual Quarter-Final.

 

[Chokli]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

Nope should be head to head

 

[Usman Chadda]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

What an absolutely stupid idea

 

[Titan24]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

Its a pretty good suggestion that rankings in ODIs can be the deciding factor. It will add much more meaningfulness to the ODI rankings and teams efforts in the last 4 years.

 

[Khan12]

What an absolutely stupid idea

He would have said head to head, but since Pakistan won against NZ he had to come up with something else. Nothing more.

 

[rhony]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

Rankings are immaterial in this format. The ranking typically helps in other formats like in 2007 where better teams are seeded 1st in their groups. The number of wins should be the criteria as it is now

 

[Titan24]

Nope should be head to head

Yes that will also be better than NRR and will encourage fair and competitive play.

 

[Mamoon]

What an absolutely stupid idea

Stupid because Pakistan is not good enough to achieve a top 3-4 ranking, which means it will always be at a disadvantage in this system.

 

[Surya Kiran]

Yes, teams will play to protect their net run rate in the face of defeat

 

[jnaveen1980]

If England bats again and makes a big score i don't think NZ will opt for hunting it down. They will try for some time and shut the shop down after that. Losing badly will enable Pakistan to get through. It is a valid point. We can't do anything about it now as the rules were formulated before the world cup. Washed out games play a huge role in deciding the last 4.

 

[Titan24]

What an absolutely stupid idea

I think it will add importance to bilateral as well and all the 4 years of performances building upto the WC. Head to head as [MENTION=147429]Chokli[/MENTION] has mentioned is also a good one. I think both are better than NRR though.

 

[Titan24]

If England bats again and makes a big score i don't think NZ will opt for hunting it down. They will try for some time and shut the shop down after that. Losing badly will enable Pakistan to get through. It is a valid point. We can't do anything about it now as the rules were formulated before the world cup. Washed out games play a huge role in deciding the last 4.

Exactly. I have given the example of such imaginary scenario.

 

[Mamoon]

Rankings are immaterial in this format. The ranking typically helps in other formats like in 2007 where better teams are seeded 1st in their groups. The number of wins should be the criteria as it is now

But it shouldn’t be. The 2007 format was quite good, but the idea of all teams playing against each other is better. But the ranking system should be implemented instead of NRR.

 

[surg]

Concept of net run rate is just that - To score as much as possible and avoid boring matches
India just did the opposite

 

[Mamoon]

Nope should be head to head

He would have said head to head, but since Pakistan won against NZ he had to come up with something else. Nothing more.

Head to head is better than NRR, but it is less fair than the ranking system. For example, England will beat Pakistan majority of the times, so if they are tied on equal points, Pakistan should not progress because England had an off-day against them in the World Cup.

The ranking system is the only true measure of the consistency of a team, and consistency should be rewarded.

 

[big_gamer007]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

Good idea will make ODI bilaterals somewhat meaningful.

 

[Usman Chadda]

I think it will add importance to bilateral as well and all the 4 years of performances building upto the WC. Head to head as [MENTION=147429]Chokli[/MENTION] has mentioned is also a good one. I think both are better than NRR though.

So a team like Bangladesh, who has played tremendously well and punched above its weight in this WC, should be rewarded by judging their performances over a course of 2-3 years. In comparison, NZ gets easy matches in the beginning and loses to the good teams right at the end, only to qualify ahead of Bangladesh, due to their ranking.

Let's not even go towards teams like Pakistan, who have had a fantastic late surge back into the tournament under tremendous pressure.

I expect someone as deranged as [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] to come up with this, so he can make more stupid posts about Pakistan. But have some perspective.

 

[Titan24]

Concept of net run rate is just that - To score as much as possible and avoid boring matches
India just did the opposite

No India scored as much as possible without taking any un necessary risk which could have may be seen them fell much more short of the target and thus dented the NRR. That is why I feel NRR and this format shoudnt go hand in hand. As some have suggested there are much better alternatives than NRR which can encourage fair and competitive play.

 

[Mamoon]

So a team like Bangladesh, who has played tremendously well and punched above its weight in this WC, should be rewarded by judging their performances over a course of 2-3 years. In comparison, NZ gets easy matches in the beginning and loses to the good teams right at the end, only to qualify ahead of Bangladesh, due to their ranking.

Let's not even go towards teams like Pakistan, who have had a fantastic late surge back into the tournament under tremendous pressure.

I expect someone as deranged as [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] to come up with this, so he can make more stupid posts about Pakistan. But have some perspective.

What is the point of achieving high ranking if it is not going to benefit the team in any way? Why did teams like England and India spent years winning games to become #1 and #2, if it will not benefit them in any way? The reason why bilateral ODIs have become meaningless is because ICC have failed to provide context and give rankings respect.

A team like Pakistan played like minnows for 2 years and entered the World Cup with a 13 match winning streak. Why should they not pay a price for it?

 

[Titan24]

So a team like Bangladesh, who has played tremendously well and punched above its weight in this WC, should be rewarded by judging their performances over a course of 2-3 years. In comparison, NZ gets easy matches in the beginning and loses to the good teams right at the end, only to qualify ahead of Bangladesh, due to their ranking.

Let's not even go towards teams like Pakistan, who have had a fantastic late surge back into the tournament under tremendous pressure.

I expect someone as deranged as [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] to come up with this, so he can make more stupid posts about Pakistan. But have some perspective.

If any lower ranked team plays really well the they can go through on their own but if they equal the points to some other better ranked team which has played better cricket in last 4 years then its not that wrong if better ranked team goes ahead. Every team will play every every team once so I dont think having played easier team earlier or difficult teams afterwards makes that much of a difference.

I understand what you are saying as well but linking the bilateral ODI series to WC in someway looked a good idea to me. Anyways these are just ideas, suggestions and point of views we are discussing and obviously we will see difference of opinions. One can definitely argue lower ranked teams should also be treated the same way as higher ranked teams in WC.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Ranking system allows perennial world cup chokers to go through. There are certain teams raise their game in world events. India often does that. Even in their worst form Pakistan raise their game in key matches. But some teams go missing in world cup events being unable to handle the pressure.

 

[Mamoon]

The seeding system in tennis is a similar concept. It ensures that the higher ranked players don’t meet early in the tournament because they deserve to play in the deep-end of the tournament as a reward for their consistent performances.

In fact, the top two ranked players are seeded in a way that they end up meeting in the final if they win all their matches, since both deserve to play the final more than others.

Fluke tennis players like the Pakistan cricket team, who play rubbish tennis throughout the year and then go on an “inspired run” in the tournament are at a disadvantage because they have to face higher ranked players early in the tournament, because that is what they deserve for for playing nonsense tennis all year round.

However, cricket has always been two steps behind other sports when it comes to common sense. What can you expect from a sport that believes in the archaic concept of a Chief Selector in 2019.

 

[Usman Chadda]

If any lower ranked team plays really well the they can go through on their own but if they equal the points to some other better ranked team which has played better cricket in last 4 years then its not that wrong if better ranked team goes ahead. Every team will play every every team once so I dont think having played easier team earlier or difficult teams afterwards makes that much of a difference.

I understand what you are saying as well but linking the bilateral ODI series to WC in someway looked a good idea to me. Anyways these are just ideas, suggestions and point of views we are discussing and obviously we will see difference of opinions. One can definitely argue lower ranked teams should also be treated the same way as higher ranked teams in WC.

It does in the case of New Zealand, as they and Bangladesh could finish on identical points. However NZ will go through rightfully, having defeated the 'weaker' teams in a comprehensive manner as compared to Bangladesh (and/or Pakistan). This doesn't take away from the fact that Bangladesh has played really well this WC and NRR gives Bangladesh enough opportunity to topple New Zealand.

Having the rankings decide their fate would be a slap on the face of their good performance in this WC, and the possible scenarios that they or any other team have had to go through.

Imagine Pakistan having to win four games in a row under tremendous pressure, showcasing form and 'unpredictability', only to be sucker-punched and thrown away because they couldn't play well in bilaterals

 

[JaDed]

Anything is better than NRR and agree with rankings because WC is a 4 year format and teams that have put effort in this timeframe will atleast get some benefit but the issue here is the schedule has to be decided by ICC For example India cannot refused to play Pakistan, ranking in current form are pretty unfair because teams like Afg wont get much opportunity to play bilateral.

 

[JaDed]

Its a pretty good suggestion that rankings in ODIs can be the deciding factor. It will add much more meaningfulness to the ODI rankings and teams efforts in the last 4 years.

Yeah but bilateral are not decided by ICC , and India refuses to play Pak, so ICC should schedule that and then its fair to have ranking and India can’t refuse.

 

[Titan24]

It does in the case of New Zealand, as they and Bangladesh could finish on identical points. However NZ will go through rightfully, having defeated the 'weaker' teams in a comprehensive manner as compared to Bangladesh (and/or Pakistan). This doesn't take away from the fact that Bangladesh has played really well this WC and NRR gives Bangladesh enough opportunity to topple New Zealand.

Having the rankings decide their fate would be a slap on the face of their good performance in this WC, and the possible scenarios that they or any other team have had to go through.

Imagine Pakistan having to win four games in a row under tremendous pressure, showcasing form and 'unpredictability', only to be sucker-punched and thrown away because they couldn't play well in bilaterals

True it would be have been heartbreaking as a Pakistani fan and BD fans would also feel the same way. But, even the NRR thing is not that good of a concept especially for this round robin format. Just one really poor game for Pak (due to own fault) and they have been playing catch up throughout and NRR is still too poor to give any hope.

If only WC is to be considered without any bilateral rankings effecting it and Round Robin is to be continued the head to head win or loss in the WC can be the decision factor.

 

[Diffusion]

In a short group stage like this, where the teams only play each other once the first tie breaker should be H2H.

Then in the event of a tied game, NRR should be the second tie breaker.

 

[Titan24]

Yeah but bilateral are not decided by ICC , and India refuses to play Pak, so ICC should schedule that and then its fair to have ranking and India can’t refuse.

I am not sure if that will happen. Its sad to see so many big strides were made in mid 2000s and a lot of bilaterals were played as well but soon everything went back to square one.

 

[rhony]

But it shouldn’t be. The 2007 format was quite good, but the idea of all teams playing against each other is better. But the ranking system should be implemented instead of NRR.

The idea of a world cup once it starts is to give everybody an equal chance to get ahead. By bringing the rankings in, you are bringing the baggage into the WC. My preference would be, number of wins, Head to head, NRR in that order

 

[Mamoon]

The idea of a world cup once it starts is to give everybody an equal chance to get ahead. By bringing the rankings in, you are bringing the baggage into the WC. My preference would be, number of wins, Head to head, NRR in that order

In my opinion, the concept of equal chance is unfair because teams who perform well deserve a greater chance of going further in the tournament compared to weak, inconsistent teams.

That is why tennis have seeding system that ensures that Federer and Nadal won’t meet in the first round, because neither of them deserve to go home early.

 

[rhony]

In my opinion, the concept of equal chance is unfair because teams who perform well deserve a greater chance of going further in the tournament compared to weak, inconsistent teams.

That is why tennis have seeding system that ensures that Federer and Nadal won’t meet in the first round, because neither of them deserve to go home early.

There is no seeding if everybody is playing everybody else. The rankings will help teams get better sponsorships, competitive series and even better venues for world cups. Once the world cup starts, everybody will start at zero and the better team in the competition should win it all.

 

[Mamoon]

There is no seeding if everybody is playing everybody else. The rankings will help teams get better sponsorships, competitive series and even better venues for world cups. Once the world cup starts, everybody will start at zero and the better team in the competition should win it all.

The current ranking system is not perfect, but it is still the most accurate measure of the consistency of all teams. There is a reason why this current Pakistan team will never be #1 and a team like India will never be #6.

 

[The_Odd_One]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

That's unfair to the low ranked team because if they have the same number of points as the better ranked team, it means the former has punched above their weight to be in this position while the latter has been poor in the tournament. Why reward the poor performance?

The ideal solution is to count the number of wins on rankings. Beating Sri Lanka and Afghanistan should not be the same as beating England and New Zealand.

 

[CricketDon]

The NRR concept encourages negative play. Instead, two teams that are tied on points should be differentiated based on their ranking.

There should be an incentive for teams that have achieved higher rankings. For example, if both Pakistan and New Zealand finish on 11 points, New Zealand should qualify for the semifinals based on the fact that they are ranked #3 while Pakistan are ranked #6.

As things stand, there is no incentive for achieving higher ranking because it doesn’t benefit the team in any way. By allowing the higher ranked team to progress at the expense of a lower ranked side when they have equal points, bilateral ODIs will have greater context.

However, rankings should not change during the World Cup.

Why even bother having - World Cup? Come the World Cup just hand the trophy to the number one ranked side and be done with it. Auto simulate the World Cup to have them win every game and be done with it.

 

[CricketDon]

The current ranking system is not perfect, but it is still the most accurate measure of the consistency of all teams. There is a reason why this current Pakistan team will never be #1 and a team like India will never be #6.

Ain’t you the same guy who undermines Pakistan number 1 position in T20? Yet are the same guy who believes it’s the most accurate measure. I think we all know why you think it’s accurate as it stands...

 

[The_Odd_One]

That's unfair to the low ranked team because if they have the same number of points as the better ranked team, it means the former has punched above their weight to be in this position while the latter has been poor in the tournament. Why reward the poor performance?

The ideal solution is to count the number of wins on rankings. Beating Sri Lanka and Afghanistan should not be the same as beating England and New Zealand.

For example, the maximum points gained from a win are let's say 100, then subtract the team ranking from the points.

For example, beating England (when they were number 1) would have given Pakistan 99 points but beating Afghanistan would have given them 90 points.

 

[Hasan123]

Something has to be done. NRR isn't really a great system. I thought about an idea , how about if you dismiss a team before 50 overs or chase a score before 50 overs you get a bonus point? That will encourage positive play. Wouldn't mind seeing it tested out.

 

[The Viper]

It does. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it but doing it when you have games that are winnable is weird in India’s case.

 

[JaDed]

Something has to be done. NRR isn't really a great system. I thought about an idea , how about if you dismiss a team before 50 overs or chase a score before 50 overs you get a bonus point? That will encourage positive play. Wouldn't mind seeing it tested out.

I hope you meant 40 overs..

 

[Hasan123]

I hope you meant 40 overs..

I meant 50 overs but 40 overs is fine as well. Teams who dismiss teams quickly and chase scores should be rewarded.

 

[JaDed]

I meant 50 overs but 40 overs is fine as well. Teams who dismiss teams quickly and chase scores should be rewarded.

Dismiss before 50 would again make teams play negative cricket.

 

[Hasan123]

Dismiss before 50 would again make teams play negative cricket.

With current NRR system teams are playing negative cricket anyway.

 

[JaDed]

With current NRR system teams are playing negative cricket anyway.

So to give an alternative , chase before 40 overs or win by 100 runs.
The reason 100 runs victory might not teams play negative is 100 is a lot, so the onus is on the bowling team to put that extra effort and batting team will always be confident of reaching within 100 of target so no one will play negative cricket.

The problem with this approach is weather killing it in England

 

[Visaal-E-Yaar]

Head to head is better than NRR, but it is less fair than the ranking system. For example, England will beat Pakistan majority of the times, so if they are tied on equal points, Pakistan should not progress because England had an off-day against them in the World Cup.

The ranking system is the only true measure of the consistency of a team, and consistency should be rewarded.

An off-day lol =))

 

[Mamoon]

Ain’t you the same guy who undermines Pakistan number 1 position in T20? Yet are the same guy who believes it’s the most accurate measure. I think we all know why you think it’s accurate as it stands...

Pakistan is certainly a better team in T20s compared to ODIs, but it’s number 1 ranking in T20 has not been tested because they have not faced India during their run to the top of the pile in T20s.

India also had an unbeaten streak in T20s that coincided with Pakistan’s, and I don’t need to explain to you why India will beat Pakistan black and blue if they were to play a T20 series right now.

However, India's refusal to play Pakistan is not the latter’s problem. Hence, if Pakistan and India are tied on points in a WT20, Pakistan should advance to the next round because of their higher ranking.

 

[Mamoon]

Why even bother having - World Cup? Come the World Cup just hand the trophy to the number one ranked side and be done with it. Auto simulate the World Cup to have them win every game and be done with it.

Because that is an illogical extreme that completely misses the point. It is like suggesting that the top ranked Tennis player should be automatically handed the Wimbledon title because he deserves it more than anyone.

By incorporating the ranking system instead of NRR, you are giving the lower ranked sides every opportunity to do better than than the top ranked sides.

If Afghanistan (10) wins more matches than England (1), than Afghanistan deserves to qualify ahead of England, but if both teams are on equal points, then the higher ranked team should be rewarded for achieving a higher ranking.

This achieves two things: (a) it doesn’t give the higher ranked teams undue advantage over the lower ranked teams because the ranking will only make a difference if the teams finish on level points and (b) it ensures that the ranking system is not useless which it is now.

 

[Mamoon]

That's unfair to the low ranked team because if they have the same number of points as the better ranked team, it means the former has punched above their weight to be in this position while the latter has been poor in the tournament. Why reward the poor performance?

The ideal solution is to count the number of wins on rankings. Beating Sri Lanka and Afghanistan should not be the same as beating England and New Zealand.

It is not about rewarding poor performance. It is about rewarding consistency and giving meaning to rankings instead of completely trashing them. In the present system, the rankings have literally zero significance which is wrong in my opinion.

 

[Chokli]

What an absolutely stupid idea

) I know right

 

[Chokli]

What is the point of achieving high ranking if it is not going to benefit the team in any way? Why did teams like England and India spent years winning games to become #1 and #2, if it will not benefit them in any way? The reason why bilateral ODIs have become meaningless is because ICC have failed to provide context and give rankings respect.

A team like Pakistan played like minnows for 2 years and entered the World Cup with a 13 match winning streak. Why should they not pay a price for it?

Because the World Cup is a completely different ball game.

 

[Chokli]

Head to head is better than NRR, but it is less fair than the ranking system. For example, England will beat Pakistan majority of the times, so if they are tied on equal points, Pakistan should not progress because England had an off-day against them in the World Cup.

The ranking system is the only true measure of the consistency of a team, and consistency should be rewarded.

That's too bad for England, should have beat Pakistan when it counted, only World Cup results should count.

 

[UP]

It should be H2H, number of wins and then NRR.

Past rankings don’t make sense. Every team should start equally in any tournament.

 

[cric_man]

What is the point of achieving high ranking if it is not going to benefit the team in any way? Why did teams like England and India spent years winning games to become #1 and #2, if it will not benefit them in any way? The reason why bilateral ODIs have become meaningless is because ICC have failed to provide context and give rankings respect.

A team like Pakistan played like minnows for 2 years and entered the World Cup with a 13 match winning streak. Why should they not pay a price for it?

Rankings should be used for automatic qualification for the tournament. Top 6 should automatically qualify. 7-8 based on performance in let say champions trophy and 9-10 based on a qualifying tournament. But in the tournament, head to head should be given priority over NRR.
Let's say, Pak beats BD on Friday to end up on 11 points same as NZL. However NZL were beaten by all top team and tied with India due to rain whereas Pak beat Eng, SA & NZL but NZL end up in the top 4?

 

[CricketDon]

Pakistan is certainly a better team in T20s compared to ODIs, but it’s number 1 ranking in T20 has not been tested because they have not faced India during their run to the top of the pile in T20s.

India also had an unbeaten streak in T20s that coincided with Pakistan’s, and I don’t need to explain to you why India will beat Pakistan black and blue if they were to play a T20 series right now.


However, India's refusal to play Pakistan is not the latter’s problem. Hence, if Pakistan and India are tied on points in a WT20, Pakistan should advance to the next round because of their higher ranking.

It is not pakistan who is declining a series. It’s India. Heck Pakistan has begged and grovelled for a series. India don’t want it. I’m not saying because they are scared of anything of course it’s pure political.

Pakistan is the number 1 side in T20 and it’s undisputed. If India want to contest that then they should accept a series. Pakistan should not be held back and suffer because India does not want to play. It’s bit fair on the players nor the country.

We will play anyone. Anywhere.

 

[Energy]

NRR is the best possible measure, like GD for the football version.

 

[farazaidi]

rankings are highly skewed, all teams dont play equal number of matches. India plays almost double the number of games than Pakistan, teams like Afghanistan dont get many opportunities to improve their ranking.

There is a reason World cup has more viewership than bilateral series, it has a different kind of pressure which separates the men from boys. No wonder certain players raise their game and certain teams go missing when the heat is on. People still remember Inzi's 60 in 92 SF, but how many PPers remember the ODI double ton from Fakhar? You dont remember his 210 right? it came only last year whereas that semi final is 27 years old. But some innings has more value simply because of the occasion, opposition, playing conditions etc.

 

[Mamoon]

) I know right

It will always be a “stupid” idea for Pakistani fans because their team is not capable of becoming a top ranked side.

 

[Mamoon]

It is not pakistan who is declining a series. It’s India. Heck Pakistan has begged and grovelled for a series. India don’t want it. I’m not saying because they are scared of anything of course it’s pure political.

Pakistan is the number 1 side in T20 and it’s undisputed. If India want to contest that then they should accept a series. Pakistan should not be held back and suffer because India does not want to play. It’s bit fair on the players nor the country.

We will play anyone. Anywhere.

You misread my post. Please read it again.

 

[Mamoon]

Because the World Cup is a completely different ball game.

That's too bad for England, should have beat Pakistan when it counted, only World Cup results should count.

Bilateral cricket should also count as something. That is why giving the higher ranked team advantage when they are tied with a lower ranked team on points is fair.

As things stand, there is absolutely no significance of rankings and no context to bilateral cricket which is wrong in my opinion.

 

[Mueez]

It will always be a “stupid” idea for Pakistani fans because their team is not capable of becoming a top ranked side.

How can you say that?

You never know the future.

Also I like this idea, consistent teams will get rewarded.

Bi-lateral cricket will get valuable.

 

[topspin]

Bilateral cricket should also count as something. That is why giving the higher ranked team advantage when they are tied with a lower ranked team on points is fair.

As things stand, there is absolutely no significance of rankings and no context to bilateral cricket which is wrong in my opinion.

I prefer the Champions League Format, two teams level on points should be differentiated based on their head-to-head record.

 

[Chokli]

It will always be a “stupid” idea for Pakistani fans because their team is not capable of becoming a top ranked side.

I agree with this.

This team will always be an average team with the ability to surprise here and there.