ICC team rankings have become meaningless

[Yossarian]

Unless all teams play an equal number of matches, and each team plays against every other team, both home and away, team rankings are completely and utterly meaningless.
This applies to all 3 formats, Tests, ODI's and T20's.

Heck, teams can shoot up the rankings table when they're not even playing! Pakistan did exactly that when they topped the table to become no. 1 in the Test rankings.

Furthermore, what's the point of a ranking (or league) table without having a set period with fixed starting and ending points that result in the team leading the table at the end of the period being declared champions?

The champions of these league tables would be/should be quite separate to World Cup tournament winners.

League table champions are the mark of true champions, as they would have shown to be the best team overall in all conditions during the set period, whilst WC winners are teams who can perform in knock-out tournaments that last just for a few weeks, with the winners playing a handful of games at most in order to win the tournament.

To some extent, World Cup (and Champions Trophy) tournaments are a bit of a lottery considering that, on their day, any team in the tournament can beat any other team in the tournament, and that includes 'minnows'.
It just takes one outstanding performance from a bowler or batsman, or even one 'umpires call' decision, to be the difference between being knocked out early and going home in ignominy or surviving and then proceeding to eventually go and win the tournament.

Discuss.

 

[Varun]

I don't think many take the ODI and T20 rankings seriously. Test match rankings hold some value, but they need to be given some weightage for home/away games for them to be completely accurate.

To some extent, World Cup (and Champions Trophy) tournaments are a bit of a lottery considering that, on their day, any team in the tournament can beat any other team in the tournament, and that includes 'minnows'.
It just takes one outstanding performance from a bowler or batsman, or even one 'umpires call' decision, to be the difference between being knocked out early and going home in ignominy or surviving and then proceeding to eventually go and win the tournament.

On paper, yes. But it always turns out that the best teams win the World Cup: Australia were ahead of the pack in 2015, India in 2011, England deserved to go home early in 2015, etc.

 

[Indiafan]

What alternative would you suggest?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

You can shoot up without playing because you don't loose your points and other team may end up loosing points.
There is a start and end date thats why they use to declare test team and odi team of the year at start of march or april and give them monetary prize. I think cut off is last 3 previous year from every 1 April.

 

[Yossarian]

You can shoot up without playing because you don't loose your points and other team may end up loosing points.
There is a start and end date thats why they use to declare test team and odi team of the year at start of march or april and give them monetary prize. I think cut off is last 3 previous year from every 1 April.

Doesn't alter the main gist of the OP. Even if there was to be a home versus away allowance (as [MENTION=132715]Varun[/MENTION] suggests), you still have the issue of different teams playing different number of matches depending upon who the opposition is.

Can you imagine, say in the English Premier League, Man Utd , Chelsea, Arsenal etc each playing a different number of matches against the likes of Stoke, Southampton, Sunderland etc., including an imbalance in the no of matches played at home versus played away, in order to decide the EPL Champions?

 

[Pantani]

What alternative would you suggest?

Something simple, like 2 points for a series win and 1 point for a draw; doubled for away series. So let's look at Australia in 2015/16, 2016, and 2016/17:

2 points v NZ at home
2 points v WI home
4 points v NZ away
0 points v SL away
0 points v RSA home
2 points v Pakistan home

10 points overall. Compared to India, same period:

2 points v RSA home
4 points v WI away
2 points v NZ home
2 points v England home

10 points again, but having completed 2 fewer series than Australia.

 

[Yossarian]

What alternative would you suggest?

From the 1st para of the OP.

.... all teams play an equal number of matches, and each team plays against every other team, both home and away, ....

 

[Statsman]

Something simple, like 2 points for a series win and 1 point for a draw; doubled for away series. So let's look at Australia in 2015/16, 2016, and 2016/17:

2 points v NZ at home
2 points v WI home
4 points v NZ away
0 points v SL away
0 points v RSA home
2 points v Pakistan home

10 points overall. Compared to India, same period:

2 points v RSA home
4 points v WI away
2 points v NZ home
2 points v England home

10 points again, but having completed 2 fewer series than Australia.

Defeating WI away gives you same points as defeating India or Australia away?

 

[Pantani]

Defeating WI away gives you same points as defeating India or Australia away?

If you want a Premier League style league table, it has to be standard, otherwise the system gets needlessly complicated like what we have right now.

 

[Yossarian]

Something simple, like 2 points for a series win and 1 point for a draw; doubled for away series. So let's look at Australia in 2015/16, 2016, and 2016/17:

2 points v NZ at home
2 points v WI home
4 points v NZ away
0 points v SL away
0 points v RSA home
2 points v Pakistan home

10 points overall. Compared to India, same period:

2 points v RSA home
4 points v WI away
2 points v NZ home
2 points v England home

10 points again, but having completed 2 fewer series than Australia.

Still meaningless because you're still not playing the same number of matches against all teams.

If you want a Premier League style league table, it has to be standard, otherwise the system gets needlessly complicated like what we have right now.

A better method would be to allocate, before the start of any series, 2 matches that would count towards the rankings/league table.

You could then still have 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series, but only the 2 matches marked before the series started would count for rankings.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Doesn't alter the main gist of the OP. Even if there was to be a home versus away allowance (as [MENTION=132715]Varun[/MENTION] suggests), you still have the issue of different teams playing different number of matches depending upon who the opposition is.

Can you imagine, say in the English Premier League, Man Utd , Chelsea, Arsenal etc each playing a different number of matches against the likes of Stoke, Southampton, Sunderland etc., including an imbalance in the no of matches played at home versus played away, in order to decide the EPL Champions?

Well friend Cricket is not a professional league. Cricket not paying big money as football so every team can't play equal matches. Why wi is not playing five test match or four match series with Pak in last 12 odd years because there is no money in that but they host India for four test matches. Icc haven't stopped anybody but you can't expect cricket boards to work on losses. For example why there was two match series with Aussies in Uae because three or four test match was not viable or profitable for Pcb.
Boards who gets profit from test matches do organize 4 or 5 test match regularly.
Your question why Brazil or European team don't visit in India to play football because playing India is not profitable for them.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Was this the case in Spetember 2016?

 

[Pantani]

In football it doesn't matter if you beat Man United away or if you beat Hull City away, it's 3 points maximum. This is a system that makes sense because it is fair and standard for everyone; everyone gets a chance to play the weak teams before the season is declared complete. As a consequence, sometimes teams get a favourable run of matches allowing them to surge to the top ranking, but if they didn't have the quality they would be found out against the big teams and sent tumbling down the standings before the end of the season. So while Team A can stack points thanks to back to back away tours of West Indies and Zimbabwe followed by home series against Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka; sooner or later they're going to have tough away series in Asia and Australia, England and South Africa. And sooner or later those countries will tour Team A, too. And if A was just stacking posts by despatching the minnows, they will be found out before the end of the cycle.

Why should it be any more controversial to do this in cricket?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Something simple, like 2 points for a series win and 1 point for a draw; doubled for away series. So let's look at Australia in 2015/16, 2016, and 2016/17:

2 points v NZ at home
2 points v WI home
4 points v NZ away
0 points v SL away
0 points v RSA home
2 points v Pakistan home

10 points overall. Compared to India, same period:

2 points v RSA home
4 points v WI away
2 points v NZ home
2 points v England home

10 points again, but having completed 2 fewer series than Australia.

You may not know but if I am not wrong Icc already used you type of system not exactly same but similar ( there was not a double point of winning away in that system ) and it was a huge flop. Ofcouse I am using my memory so I can be wrong.

 

[Pantani]

Still meaningless because you're still not playing the same number of matches against all teams.





A better method would be to allocate, before the start of any series, 2 matches that would count towards the rankings/league table.

You could then still have 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series, but only the 2 matches marked before the series started would count for rankings.

Why does the number of matches matter? As long as minimum series length of 2 tests is specified, it doesn't matter if Team A beats Team B 1-0 in a 2 match series or if A beats B 5-0 in a 6 match series. Let them play as many tests as they want, only series matter for points. There is no reason Team X beating Team Y 3-2 in a 5 match series deserves more points than A beating B 1-0 in a 3 match series; just like how you don't get extra points for winning a football match 5-0 instead of 1-0.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

[MENTION=135125]Pantani[/MENTION]
Biggest problem is your system don't take strength of team and no cutting of points when team looses series and thats what causes the last time controversy when South Africa replaced Australia as no. 1 without defeating them as South Africa gain points by defeating weak Pak and Sri Lanka and South Africa points was not deducted when they lost back to back series against Australia.

 

[Pantani]

You may not know but if I am not wrong Icc already used you type of system not exactly same but similar ( there was not a double point of winning away in that system ) and it was a huge flop. Ofcouse I am using my memory so I can be wrong.

When was this? Must have been '90s or earlier, otherwise I would remember. Don't you think the double away points adds something different? Even in the present system there are no extra points for winning away.

 

[Statsman]

Well friend Cricket is not a professional league. Cricket not paying big money as football so every team can't play equal matches. Why wi is not playing five test match or four match series with Pak in last 12 odd years because there is no money in that but they host India for four test matches. Icc haven't stopped anybody but you can't expect cricket boards to work on losses. For example why there was two match series with Aussies in Uae because three or four test match was not viable or profitable for Pcb.
Boards who gets profit from test matches do organize 4 or 5 test match regularly.
Your question why Brazil or European team don't visit in India to play football because playing India is not profitable for them.

Yeah. Can't think of any other reason why PCB won't organise longer test series with non big 3 teams.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

When was this? Must have been '90s or earlier, otherwise I would remember. Don't you think the double away points adds something different? Even in the present system there are no extra points for winning away.

Only if you loose double point for loosing home series , another point is how will you replace series, current cut off is three years , Australia can't carry 2010 home series point against Pak till 2016 new series as your point system will replace one home series with another.
Old system was used till 2003.

 

[Pantani]

[MENTION=135125]Pantani[/MENTION]
Biggest problem is your system don't take strength of team and no cutting of points when team looses series and thats what causes the last time controversy when South Africa replaced Australia as no. 1 without defeating them as South Farica gain points by defeating weak Pak and Sri Lanka and South Africa points was deducted when they lost back to back series against Australia.

Strength of teams does not matter if everyone gets a fair chance to play everyone. In football they play 38 matches a season against 19 teams, and you can't win without eventually having to face and beat the big teams. You can't win by minnow bashing and then losing to the big teams - unless the big teams fail to bash the minnows as good as you had; in which case they don't deserve to win in a league system. Like I said, sometimes this will lead to average teams taking the top spot because they had a good run of fixtures against weak teams, but the season does not end until all 38 matches have been played; so if a weak team gets to the top by beating other minnows, it won't stay there for long unless it also beats the big teams.

So in my 2 points per series win, 1 per series draw, and double points for away series; each of the ten full members will play one series at home and one away against each of the other full members, before the championship is declared complete and a winner is named. 9 home series = 18 points, 9 away = 36 points, so if a team wins everything they will finish up with 54 points. More realistically a team would probably need at least 36 points to win the trophy, winning everything at home, four series wins away plus an away draw. That's 13 series wins and a draw out of a possible 18 series in the cycle. Don't you think a team that is unbeaten in close to 70% of series is a deserving winner? Right now the only teams who appear good enough to get 36 points are South Africa and India, so there can be no controversial winner.

Why should points be deducted? Getting 0 points is punishment enough without taking away points.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

If it was feasible financially for sides to play all sides for equal number of games home and away I am sure such a thing would be already in place.

As it is, sides like SL, WI, BD, Pak get money from so called test match fund for hosting sides even for a 2-3 test series. The rankings are far from ideal but they are not far from reality are they?

Australia are world champions and one poor series in SA doesn't change that. SA are close 2nd and can soon topple Aus if they keep their momentum, they beat India away which is tough thing to do. India beat Eng home and away. NZ-Eng there is hard to choose from.

SA-Aus are top teams, Ind-Eng-NZ are a little behind. As for WI-Pak-BD-SL, well they also are a tier below. So I don't see much of an issue with ODI rankings tbh.

 

[Tekcirc]

As per OP, then literally all rankings are meaningless,

FIFA, Chess (FIDE ELO), Tennis Rankings, Badminton rankings, .. literally all sports rankings don't mean anything because they don't have a league format.

Infact for any sport with tournaments that has an eliminator format (QF,SF and Finals), the ranking system cannot exist because their won't be equal number of matches ever!!

 

[Yossarian]

If it was feasible financially for sides to play all sides for equal number of games home and away I am sure such a thing would be already in place.

As it is, sides like SL, WI, BD, Pak get money from so called test match fund for hosting sides even for a 2-3 test series. The rankings are far from ideal but they are not far from reality are they?

Australia are world champions and one poor series in SA doesn't change that. SA are close 2nd and can soon topple Aus if they keep their momentum, they beat India away which is tough thing to do. India beat Eng home and away. NZ-Eng there is hard to choose from.

SA-Aus are top teams, Ind-Eng-NZ are a little behind. As for WI-Pak-BD-SL, well they also are a tier below. So I don't see much of an issue with ODI rankings tbh.

As mentioned above, unless same number of matches are taken into account, then everything is meaningless since it's not like-for-like for all teams.

However, there is workaround if teams wish to play more than 2 matches in a series,

A better method would be to allocate, before the start of any series, 2 matches that would count towards the rankings/league table.

You could then still have 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series, but only the 2 matches marked before the series started would count for rankings.

This removes the artificial mathematical formulae to determine ranking points based upon whether it's a 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series, or whether the two teams are at opposite ends of the ranking table.

It's very straightforward.

* 2 pre-allocated matches count for each series ranking points, whether it's a 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series.

* Everyone plays everyone else home and away during the ranking period.

* The rankings/league table is reset to zero at the start of the new ranking period.

* 3 points for winning a match, 1 point for a drawn match.

This means:
Winning the series gets 6 points (because of 2 wins)
Drawing the series 1-1 gets 3 points each (because each team wins 1 and loses 1)
Drawing the series 0-0 gets 2 points each (because both matches drawn)

 

[Nil Dhumrojal]

Who made the ranking system are not fools. They tried the most applicable system with least flaws as you can never make any flawless system.

 

[Yossarian]

As per OP, then literally all rankings are meaningless,

FIFA, Chess (FIDE ELO), Tennis Rankings, Badminton rankings, .. literally all sports rankings don't mean anything because they don't have a league format.

Infact for any sport with tournaments that has an eliminator format (QF,SF and Finals), the ranking system cannot exist because their won't be equal number of matches ever!!

In tennis, for example, the rankings are used for the player seedings for tournament draws.

Similarly, in football, the national team rankings are used to seed the teams for the qualifying phases of the World Cup, European Championships etc.

Even the Champions League and Europa League use the rankings (from previous tournaments) for seeding the teams to determine who plays who in the group stages. In fact, the national team rankings also affect the seedings for the preliminary rounds of the tournaments.

It's only Test cricket where they are completely and utterly meaningless.

 

[Mamoon]

I agree 100%.

 

[Tekcirc]

Let's develop a league system as per OP. And since we don't live in imaginary world and have 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Lets see:

3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20 per round, that seems reasonable right:

For tests you have to give about 8 (5 + 3 rest days)*3 =24 days
ODI : 3 (3*2) =9
T20: 3(1+1) = 6

So bare minimum you have 39 days for a tour, adding some practice match and travel. I think 2 months is a reasonable estimate.

So in a 10 Team league: a Team needs 1.5 years to complete 1 leg and another 1.5 years to finish another leg of it.
This still lacks adequate window for your T20 leagues or virtually any vacation time for the teams, for Champions Trophy and World Cups.

Lets eventually come to a 4 year cycle. Great a 4 year league!

But we also want to make cricket a global game, every addition of a new team to the league will stretch the league a bare minimum of 4 months.

So associates have no chance to make it to the big leagues, because you want a consistent calendar for your leagues!

Now if you go onto suggest relegation system. This league has minimum of 4 years time, you will relegate a country to lower level for sure by that much duration??

In your imaginary free and fair system lower countries have no chance to rise up to the big leagues! That's what we see in the Football leagues all over the world and mind you their cycle is just of 1 year. Relegation to lower leagues for 4 years would destroy the country's cricket.

Another point, players of countries cannot switch to other nations freely like club players who leave their clubs upon being relegated. So careers get wiped easy peasy. because the seniors in the previous cycle failed 4 years ago.

 

[Yossarian]

Let's develop a league system as per OP. And since we don't live in imaginary world and have 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Lets see:

3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20 per round, that seems reasonable right:

For tests you have to give about 8 (5 + 3 rest days)*3 =24 days
ODI : 3 (3*2) =9
T20: 3(1+1) = 6

So bare minimum you have 39 days for a tour, adding some practice match and travel. I think 2 months is a reasonable estimate.

So in a 10 Team league: a Team needs 1.5 years to complete 1 leg and another 1.5 years to finish another leg of it.
This still lacks adequate window for your T20 leagues or virtually any vacation time for the teams, for Champions Trophy and World Cups.

Lets eventually come to a 4 year cycle. Great a 4 year league!

But we also want to make cricket a global game, every addition of a new team to the league will stretch the league a bare minimum of 4 months.

So associates have no chance to make it to the big leagues, because you want a consistent calendar for your leagues!

Now if you go onto suggest relegation system. This league has minimum of 4 years time, you will relegate a country to lower level for sure by that much duration??

In your imaginary free and fair system lower countries have no chance to rise up to the big leagues! That's what we see in the Football leagues all over the world and mind you their cycle is just of 1 year. Relegation to lower leagues for 4 years would destroy the country's cricket.

Another point, players of countries cannot switch to other nations freely like club players who leave their clubs upon being relegated. So careers get wiped easy peasy. because the seniors in the previous cycle failed 4 years ago.

1. Either rankings (ie league tables) mean something or are meaningless.
2. If they do have a purpose, then it should be based upon a level playing field for all participants. Which means playing everyone, home and away during the ranking period.
3. There's nothing to stop teams playing more than 2 matches in a series. They can play 2, 3, 4, 5 or however many they want. However, only 2 of those matches should count towards the rankings.(pre-determined before the start of the series as to which 2 matchs)

As mentioned above, unless same number of matches are taken into account, then everything is meaningless since it's not like-for-like for all teams.

However, there is workaround if teams wish to play more than 2 matches in a series,

This removes the artificial mathematical formulae to determine ranking points based upon whether it's a 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series, or whether the two teams are at opposite ends of the ranking table.

It's very straightforward.

* 2 pre-allocated matches count for each series ranking points, whether it's a 2, 3, 4 or 5 match series.

* Everyone plays everyone else home and away during the ranking period.

* The rankings/league table is reset to zero at the start of the new ranking period.

* 3 points for winning a match, 1 point for a drawn match.

This means:
Winning the series gets 6 points (because of 2 wins)
Drawing the series 1-1 gets 3 points each (because each team wins 1 and loses 1)
Drawing the series 0-0 gets 2 points each (because both matches drawn)

 

[Napa]

Unless all teams play an equal number of matches, and each team plays against every other team, both home and away, team rankings are completely and utterly meaningless.
This applies to all 3 formats, Tests, ODI's and T20's.

Heck, teams can shoot up the rankings table when they're not even playing! Pakistan did exactly that when they topped the table to become no. 1 in the Test rankings.

Furthermore, what's the point of a ranking (or league) table without having a set period with fixed starting and ending points that result in the team leading the table at the end of the period being declared champions?

The champions of these league tables would be/should be quite separate to World Cup tournament winners.

League table champions are the mark of true champions, as they would have shown to be the best team overall in all conditions during the set period, whilst WC winners are teams who can perform in knock-out tournaments that last just for a few weeks, with the winners playing a handful of games at most in order to win the tournament.

To some extent, World Cup (and Champions Trophy) tournaments are a bit of a lottery considering that, on their day, any team in the tournament can beat any other team in the tournament, and that includes 'minnows'.
It just takes one outstanding performance from a bowler or batsman, or even one 'umpires call' decision, to be the difference between being knocked out early and going home in ignominy or surviving and then proceeding to eventually go and win the tournament.

Discuss.

If you wish, you can devise your own ranking system and put it out to the world (the internet makes it easy). If your ranking system is better than ICC's then with time it will become more accepted than ICC's. People have gone ahead and developed their own ranking successfully, for example Chessmetrics for chess.

 

[Swanny]

In odis & t20s rankings are meaningless becoz winning a world cup is more important than being no 1. In tests unless the ICC gets the test championships off the ground being no 1 & staying there is the goal.

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

These rankings methodologies have not been changed drastically for decades. Barring a minor tweak here or there, more or less the same system has been in place. All those issues around not same # of matches for all teams, home vs away points parity etc have been there right from the beginning.

Only thing that leads to such issues with the rankings systems is when a certain team is in top 2-3 across formats

 

[Stallion__]

Concur with the main premise.

Don't agree with the tournament part. Knockouts are a test of mental strength and character. Deserved champions, no matter how skillful they are need to pass this test. Although I like round robin format as a prescreen for knockouts. Smaller groups in tournaments tend to lead us to 2003, 2007 like situations.

 

[Tekcirc]

What a load of nonsense you have just written there.

1. Either rankings (ie league tables) mean something or are meaningless.
2. If they do have a purpose, then it should be based upon a level playing field for all participants. Which means playing everyone, home and away during the ranking period.
3. There's nothing to stop teams playing more than 2 matches in a series. They can play 2, 3, 4, 5 or however many they want. However, only 2 of those matches should count towards the rankings.(pre-determined before the start of the series as to which 2 matchs)

Did you try reading, better still, understanding, the following post?

Your main crib was that ranking without equal number of rated matches for all is not fair. That basically ridicules all ranking systems in all sports. But then you boil down your crib with test cricket alone!!

Are all other ranking system BS??

AS i said even with 2 test league or something it would still be a 3 year affair with just 10 teams. So you want to restrict cricket to less than 10 teams.

 

[HitWicket]

These rankings methodologies have not been changed drastically for decades. Barring a minor tweak here or there, more or less the same system has been in place. All those issues around not same # of matches for all teams, home vs away points parity etc have been there right from the beginning.

The rankings have only existed for just over a decade...

 

[kingusama92]

I'm not sure why anyone would debate against the OP.

The current rankings are utterly meaningless.

 

[JaDed]

Would trade #1 for a win down under /saffer, same for wc rankings dont matter much to me personally,it has never really mattered much in any sport except maybe Chess or badminton! its all about the cups.

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

The rankings have only existed for just over a decade...

Not really..has been there since 90s

 

[Nil Dhumrojal]

You should have started this thread when Pak became no 1 test team. That's the flaw of this thread.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I'm not sure why anyone would debate against the OP.

The current rankings are utterly meaningless.

Ranking in most sports are generally meaning less , only big tournaments matter like world cup or slam . Ranking only indicate who is currently doing good or in drawing of groups in big tournaments.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Are rankings in ODIs becoming meaningless?

No. 8 Pakistan reached the finals while beating No.1 South Africa and Home favourites England. No.6 Bangladesh is in the semi finals of a major ODI tournament for the first time. Meanwhile SAF and Aus are out, and IF India loses it will be final between no.6 and no.8 team

So what are rankings good for if it doesn't reflect true champions? Your thoughts?

 

[big_gamer007]

On their day any team can beat any other team there is no dominant cricket team like Australia of old which.. Gap between teams is small and no team is immune to pressure..

 

[Zerotohero]

The rankings are a reflection of performance over a certain period if time and an odd upset or victory by lower ranked teams in one series or tournament does not mean they are not true reflection.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Nope, the rankings aren't meaningless, any team can beat any other team on their day, but if a series of 10 matches were held between two teams then the team with the higher rank will most likely win more matches and will be more dominant. The gap between the top 3 teams is minimal though, similarly the gap between the bottom 4 is also very minimal

 

[Joseph Gomes]

On their day any team can beat any other team there is no dominant cricket team like Australia of old which.. Gap between teams is small and no team is immune to pressure..

I really miss the dominant Australia of early 2000, they were stronger than World XI even. Beating Aus was a huge achievement for any team. Now even BD people are not that excited to play Semi Final. Aus has regressed tremendously

With that being said, I would prefer a ranking system which gives more points to tournament matches. A world cup final is in no way comparable to JAMODIs

 

[Executioner]

Rankings dont tell you who will win on a given day, it tells you who is expected to win on a given day but such is the game of cricket. The team who plays better on a given day goes to the next round. Thats all.

 

[Pete Rose]

No, rankings do matter.
I will say this though - in a way, playing a tournament is somewhat easier than playing a 5 match series against top flight competition.
In a tournament, you play different teams and you don't get a chance to adjust strategy for every team. its a lot for a player or captain or coach to keep track of. Whereas if you play a five match series - there is a certain amount of predictability and chances are that the higher ranked team will win the series.
Which is why it so important to be switched on in a tournament and not take anyone for granted (beyond the usual platitudes in press conferences).
If I look at a team like South Africa, throughout the years I get the feeling that they come with a mindset, that "we've beaten every team out there in bilaterals, hence logic dictates we should win"
Lower ranked teams simply dont have that luxury of looking at their past to find confidence: so they are more forward looking. They are there to collect some scalps.
Which is why I feel that "the better team THAT DAY, won" is really true.
I can tell you now, that if we play england/saf/australia in a 5 match series we will still lose (perhaps not bad as 5-0 or 4-1), because in a bilateral, its difficult to punch above your weight repeatedly against a higher ranked team.

 

[Slog]

in one days they are in a way (but not in Pakistan's case funnily - despite the CT results)

Often the top teams - SA, Aus - arent even playing their best elevens so a ranking based on those teams' performance isnt reflective of how that team will do in crucial matches where the best eleven plays

 

[big_gamer007]

I really miss the dominant Australia of early 2000, they were stronger than World XI even. Beating Aus was a huge achievement for any team. Now even BD people are not that excited to play Semi Final. Aus has regressed tremendously

With that being said, I would prefer a ranking system which gives more points to tournament matches. A world cup final is in no way comparable to JAMODIs

Rankings should always be taken with a pinch of salt these days, A team can be ranked number 1 but on spinning tracks they will look like minnows similarly a team can be ranked number 1 and in overcast condition they can look like minnows.. So rankings are not something written in stone..


Nah I didn't like old Australia they were way too over dominant for my liking, I prefer current set up where any team can beat any team however the quality of cricket is pretty poor compared to old days so that's something I gotta live with..

I agree WC win should give more points..

 

[Bilal7]

Kohli being ranked the #1 batsman in the world is a farce so I agree.

 

[omcswe]

No. 8 Pakistan reached the finals while beating No.1 South Africa and Home favourites England. No.6 Bangladesh is in the semi finals of a major ODI tournament for the first time. Meanwhile SAF and Aus are out, and IF India loses it will be final between no.6 and no.8 team

So what are rankings good for if it doesn't reflect true champions? Your thoughts?

since we are all humans, ask this question to yourself, does being good at something mean you always deliver excellence?

rankings are a reflection of your past performance over a period of time calculated by a certain formula. they are indicator of what you've done in the past, the key here is in the past. they aren't a prediction of what you will do on a particular day and they certainly do not say that a lower ranked team or player won't be able to outperform a higher ranked team or a player.

we can debate on how the rankings are calculated, what formulas are being used, and if there is need of tweaking the rankings but we shouldn't be saying that they are useless and meaningless.

you can even put west indies in the tournament and they may actually go on and beat a team like australia on a given day.

 

[cricketInsight]

They are not meaningless.

The current rankings do reflect the quality of teams in the correct order. But that doesnt mean a no. 1 team should alway beat a no. 6 team. That would make the sport very boring. The no. 1 team will beat no. 6 atleast 4 out 6 times otherwise the gap between them narrows.

 

[Adil_94]

this is more due to CT format where its about one your day who is better n anything can happen. Rankings still matter in the sense it shows your consistency as a team. But if u keep flopping in tournaments then the rankings start to wear thin.

WC 2019 will be a lot more about who can be the most consistent as it will be everyone playing each other n it wont be just 3 good games n youre in the final.

logically it would make sense that the teams are at the top of rankings will do better in tourmaments like Aus n India have shown in recent years. Of course u can get teams like Pak who have punched above their weight n that can happen in tournaments but its not common.

Bangladesh have done well but the rain gods really screwed Aus.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

At the end of the day, CT will be won by a team ranked in top 3, so rankings do matter