What's new

Ranking and bilateral records mean nothing in World Cups!

Mian

Mian

T20I Debutant
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Runs
7,014
Pakistan enter as number 6 ranked team in this worldcup and won their matches against 3 of the top 4 ranked ODI teams: England (1), New Zealand (3), South Africa (4). And guess what Pakistan lost their last bilateral ODI against all of these 3 teams before entering the worldcup.

England entered as number 1 ranked team and ended up losing at home by 3 teams that are not even in top 4: Sri Lanka (9), Pakistan (6), Australia (5). And if i am not wrong England won their last ODI bilateral series against all these 3 teams?

This once again confirms the old saying that these rankings and bilateral records become meaningless if you can't show up at the world stage when it matters most!
 
Then why india is the only team which has been unbeaten? India is consistently N.O 1 or 2 team in world odi cricket & won N number of bilaterals everywhere in the world.
 
Mian said:
Pakistan enter as number 6 ranked team in this worldcup and won their matches against 3 of the top 4 ranked ODI teams: England (1), New Zealand (3), South Africa (4). And guess what Pakistan lost their last bilateral ODI against all of these 3 teams before entering the worldcup.

England entered as number 1 ranked team and ended up losing at home by 3 teams that are not even in top 4: Sri Lanka (9), Pakistan (6), Australia (5). And if i am not wrong England won their last ODI bilateral series against all these 3 teams?

This once again confirms the old saying that these rankings and bilateral records become meaningless if you can't show up at the world stage when it matters most!
Click to expand...

Between I agree to some extent these bilaterals dnt matter and there is a reason india has something 12-0 again Pakistan in world stage event of world cups. And only it should count. Pakistan is way behind where it really matters.
 
Mian said:
Pakistan enter as number 6 ranked team in this worldcup and won their matches against 3 of the top 4 ranked ODI teams: England (1), New Zealand (3), South Africa (4). And guess what Pakistan lost their last bilateral ODI against all of these 3 teams before entering the worldcup.

England entered as number 1 ranked team and ended up losing at home by 3 teams that are not even in top 4: Sri Lanka (9), Pakistan (6), Australia (5). And if i am not wrong England won their last ODI bilateral series against all these 3 teams?

This once again confirms the old saying that these rankings and bilateral records become meaningless if you can't show up at the world stage when it matters most!
Click to expand...

Spot on!

The only performance that matters is are the games within the WC!

:19:
 
Should add, the same applies to pre-tournament player rankings! They are meaningless in a tournament!
 
Akki malhotra said:
Then why india is the only team which has been unbeaten? India is consistently N.O 1 or 2 team in world odi cricket & won N number of bilaterals everywhere in the world.
Click to expand...

Because India knows how to to show up and perform in big tournaments they are not England or South Africa
 
Akki malhotra said:
Between I agree to some extent these bilaterals dnt matter and there is a reason india has something 12-0 again Pakistan in world stage event of world cups. And only it should count. Pakistan is way behind where it really matters.
Click to expand...

I think it's 7-0 in 50 over WC. Can't conflate formats.
 
Got hammered by ENG and NZ in bilateral series and lost to SAF, however managed to beat them in a WC.

Not consistent enough to beat those sides over a series, but we can raise our game to win on these one-off tournament occasions.
 
Markhor said:
Got hammered by ENG and NZ in bilateral series and lost to SAF, however managed to beat them in a WC.

Not consistent enough to beat those sides over a series, but we can raise our game to win on these one-off tournament occasions.
Click to expand...

Who remembers those JAMODIS.
Compare this team and intensity to all those series.

Also dont forget the support they receive in the UK.
 
Ranking definitely matters - nothing has changed yet to be honest. Poms can beat India and every thing will be tense. It’s the Kiwis who are most lucky for that rain and 3 close wins.
 
Markhor said:
Got hammered by ENG and NZ in bilateral series and lost to SAF, however managed to beat them in a WC.

Not consistent enough to beat those sides over a series, but we can raise our game to win on these one-off tournament occasions.
Click to expand...

We drew with NZ in our last bilateral. They were lucky to escape a loss because of the rain-out. Also very nearly beat SA in their home. So, yes this team is capable. They're still in their early stages of development and making huge strides every series/tournament.
 
Mian said:
Because India knows how to to show up and perform in big tournaments they are not England or South Africa
Click to expand...

Include Australia,when australia were in golden phase they use to win bilaterals and world cups
 
MMHS said:
Ranking definitely matters - nothing has changed yet to be honest. Poms can beat India and every thing will be tense. It’s the Kiwis who are most lucky for that rain and 3 close wins.
Click to expand...

Right now poms are in much pressure than india
 
They do, which is why the majority of World Cups have either been won by the top ranked side or a team that was in the top two or three.

Rankings aren’t meaningless - they are based on the strengths of the teams and their consistency, which more often than not are reflected in World Cups as well.

Exceptions and deviations from the norm do not disprove anything. This thread is high on sensationalism and low on facts.
 
Feel bad for wrist-slitters brigade - Tough to handle this but it will sink in - give it time.
 
Mamoon said:
They do, which is why the majority of World Cups have either been won by the top ranked side or a team that was in the top two or three.

Rankings aren’t meaningless - they are based on the strengths of the teams and their consistency, which more often than not are reflected in World Cups as well.

Exceptions and deviations from the norm do not disprove anything. This thread is high on sensationalism and low on facts.
Click to expand...

You are having a laugh. This thread is based on nothing but facts, results of the WC thus far!

Do the right thing, and congratulate Pakistan! No wait, NZ were having a bad day and Pakistan fluked to victory today according to you!
 
Technics 1210 said:
You are having a laugh. This thread is based on nothing but facts, results of the WC thus far!

Do the right thing, and congratulate Pakistan! No wait, NZ were having a bad day and Pakistan fluked to victory today according to you!
Click to expand...

Then the thread should say, rankings and bilateral records mean nothing in this particular World Cup. No need of generalizing when most World Cups have been won by the top 3 teams.
 
Mian said:
3 lucky days for Pakistan 3 off days for england?
Click to expand...

The thread title is a fictional statement. If you want to talk about this particular World Cup, you should have mentioned it in the title.
 
Mamoon said:
The thread title is a fictional statement. If you want to talk about this particular World Cup, you should have mentioned it in the title.
Click to expand...

Mamoon i can feel your pain after all your analysis are gone out of the window (just liek always) and your fav team is looking at the exit door.
 
Mian said:
Mamoon i can feel your pain after all your analysis are gone out of the window (just liek always) and your fav team is looking at the exit door.
Click to expand...

You can feel my pain but that doesn’t make your thread title true. As I said, it is wrong. History shows otherwise.
 
Mamoon said:
Then the thread should say, rankings and bilateral records mean nothing in this particular World Cup. No need of generalizing when most World Cups have been won by the top 3 teams.
Click to expand...

So you agree with respect to this world cup. We're getting there!

Now, lets take the 2011 WC, Australia were ranked #1, and India #5 before the WC11! Remind me who won?

Come on, do the right thing and congratulate Pakistan!
 
I think the rankings do matter. Would you really expect a 7th ranking team for instance to win the WC? Being consistent is important in a WC.
 
Hasan123 said:
I think the rankings do matter. Would you really expect a 7th ranking team for instance to win the WC? Being consistent is important in a WC.
Click to expand...

Being consistent in the WC is important, and this is the point, not consistency before the World Cup.

England were the most consistent ODI side in the past 4 years, yet in this world cup have lost 3 of their 7 games.
 
Technics 1210 said:
Being consistent in the WC is important, and this is the point, not consistency before the World Cup.

England were the most consistent ODI side in the past 4 years, yet in this world cup have lost 3 of their 7 games.
Click to expand...

If England were 7th, no one would expect them to win the WC.
 
I don't really think Ranking matters at least in CWC as it's being played between only 10 teams, anyone can win in their given day.
 
Hasan123 said:
Lol India were the favourites for 2011 due it being in home conditions and their batting line up.
Click to expand...

Yes, but were not favourites because of their ranking, which is the point of this thread!!!! Rankings means squat going into a tournament!
 
Technics 1210 said:
Yes, but were not favourites because of their ranking, which is the point of this thread!!!! Rankings means squat going into a tournament!
Click to expand...

I don't have the historical data but any idea what was Sri Lanka ranking in 96? Aussies in 87 and India in 83? Because none of them were fav for these world cups
 
Mian said:
I don't have the historical data but any idea what was Sri Lanka ranking in 96? Aussies in 87 and India in 83? Because none of them were fav for these world cups
Click to expand...

ODI rankings started in 2002 I think? So any WC favourites before then were most likely based on bilateral performances, BUT as you say Pakistan, India, Australia (87), and SL were NOT favourites when they won the WC pre 2000. Simply put, rankings and bilateral results are meaningless when heading into a tournament.
 
Technics 1210 said:
ODI rankings started in 2002 I think? So any WC favourites before then were most likely based on bilateral performances, BUT as you say Pakistan, India, Australia (87), and SL were NOT favourites when they won the WC pre 2000. Simply put, rankings and bilateral results are meaningless when heading into a tournament.
Click to expand...

Yes started somewhere in 2000s but i remember ICC website calculated historical rankings for ODIs based on the team performance based on date now it's removed from ICC website
 
It does somewhat. Even Fifa ranking is useless, but you will see that top teams always wins. You can have exception at times like Greece 2004 Euro.

Pak was like 5 or 6 in ranking. So, its not too difficult to imagine them sneaking into 4th which mostly is due to England undoing.
 
SA even with much better sides failed to show up in world cup bar 1999 where they botched it big time. England losing to 3 lower ranked sides is the most lol worthy.

Having said that West indies who had to play qualifier to get into world cup thumped Pakistan. So yes. There is a chance Pak could lose to Afghanistan or BD or both. Keep yourself grounded.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
SA even with much better sides failed to show up in world cup bar 1999 where they botched it big time. England losing to 3 lower ranked sides is the most lol worthy.

Having said that West indies who had to play qualifier to get into world cup thumped Pakistan. So yes. There is a chance Pak could lose to Afghanistan or BD or both. Keep yourself grounded.
Click to expand...

Lol yeah heard Afghanistan is looking for someone to dive with them, and Pakistan would be its best buddy “doob le ne ke liye.”
 
One thing everyone is missing that ranking is based on 3-4 years result - performance in WC is all about contempt form & strong finish.

Having said that, it actually depends on the format used as well. The format used in 1996, 2011 & 2015 was almost a lottery - it’s all about making the QF cut & then it’s KO and the strength of world cricket was like that top 8 teams were miles ahead of next batch, therefore preliminary rounds were just formality. 2007’s format was absolute joke - one bad day each and two of the favourites were out of the business round.

The format used now won’t allow much of an upset - may be one casualty, but it’s the top teams that will advance to KOs.
 
The reason this world cup is so unpredictable is because of the unpredictable conditions and individual strengths of team. If every single pitch they had played was a road, England would be topping the table. It was not the case. Some offered turn, Some offered seam movement, Some pitches were holding up, some had more bounce.

WI vs Pakistan - More bounce, WI had better bowlers to exploit
SL vs England - sluggish pitch, medium pacers, slow ball exponents from SL were able to exploit it
Pak vs NZ - Better swinging conditions and Pak exploited it
 
Mamoon is the biggest jinx for India and anti-jinx for Pakistan, he is like that blackthunder guy who used to post before Indo-Pa matches but this guy is full time.

Bilaterals mean nothing is what Indian fans love saying and that WC is more imo, but everytime Pak fans are ones that playdown WC wins.
 
Mamoon said:
Then the thread should say, rankings and bilateral records mean nothing in this particular World Cup. No need of generalizing when most World Cups have been won by the top 3 teams.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this.
 
Pre tournament:
Australia defeated india without smith and warner
So they were favorites with smith and warner back
England,india,new zealnd top 3 sides so they were favorites
And Pakistan being ct winners were expected to give one of top 4 a run for their money
So what is surprising
Bangladesh or sri lanka entering semis would be surprising but that is least likely
 
Tell this Pak posters who brings Pak vs India head to head in every other threads.
 
Technics 1210 said:
So you agree with respect to this world cup. We're getting there!

Now, lets take the 2011 WC, Australia were ranked #1, and India #5 before the WC11! Remind me who won?

Come on, do the right thing and congratulate Pakistan!
Click to expand...

Wrong.

India was 2nd in the 2010-2011 season, while Australia were 1st.

Our friend [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] is overexcited at the moment and has shot his load prematurely. As things stand, three of the top four teams are still occupying the semifinal spots, and although Australia are ranked 5th, their ranking is misleading because they were without their two best batsmen for a year.

Considering how inconsistent South Africa have been for a while, a full-strength Australia would have most likely displaced them as the 4th ranked team.

While it is understandable that our fans are salivating over the possibility of Pakistan winning the World Cup as a 6th ranked team, the top ranked sides are still much more likely than Pakistan to go all the way.
 
Technics 1210 said:
India were #5 and won the WC in 2011.

Pakistan were #7 and won the CT17

Pre-tournament form becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

India ranked no.2/3 before 2011 wc and retained no. 2 after WC


Dropped to no. 5 after 4-1 loss to low ranked England away series and Aus series
 
Mamoon said:
Wrong.

India was 2nd in the 2010-2011 season, while Australia were 1st.

Our friend [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] is overexcited at the moment and has shot his load prematurely. As things stand, three of the top four teams are still occupying the semifinal spots, and although Australia are ranked 5th, their ranking is misleading because they were without their two best batsmen for a year.

Considering how inconsistent South Africa have been for a while, a full-strength Australia would have most likely displaced them as the 4th ranked team.

While it is understandable that our fans are salivating over the possibility of Pakistan winning the World Cup as a 6th ranked team, the top ranked sides are still much more likely than Pakistan to go all the way.
Click to expand...

You my friend need to check who was fav or top teams in 96, 87, 92 and 83 before throwing statements like fav or top teams always or most of the time win worldcups and no i don't think Pakistan is going to this WC but i am loving the humiliation of England so far they deserve the one dimensional team of FTBs you changed your whole view about choking when your fav england is on the receiving end from last few events instead of just SA
 
Last edited:
Mian said:
You my friend need to check who was fav or top teams in 96, 87, 92 and 83 before throwing statements like fav or top teams always or most of the time win worldcups and no i don't think Pakistan is going to this WC but i am loving the humiliation of England so far they deserve the one dimensional team of FTBs you changed your whole view about choking when your fav england is on the receiving end from last few events instead of just SA
Click to expand...

The ranking system was introduced in 2002, but it has been applied retrospectively. It will be interesting to see the ranking of the winning teams prior to the 83, 87, 92 and 96 World Cups.

However, 75, 79, 99, 03, 07, 11 and 15 were all won by either the favorites or one of the top three sides. Hence, your thread title is factually incorrect. Of course there will be exceptions, but let’s say after 50 World Cups, you will see that most of the editions would be won by either the favorites or one of the top 3 sides.

Very, very rarely would you see a 6th ranked team going all the way.
 
Mamoon said:
The ranking system was introduced in 2002, but it has been applied retrospectively. It will be interesting to see the ranking of the winning teams prior to the 83, 87, 92 and 96 World Cups.

However, 75, 79, 99, 03, 07, 11 and 15 were all won by either the favorites or one of the top three sides. Hence, your thread title is factually incorrect. Of course there will be exceptions, but let’s say after 50 World Cups, you will see that most of the editions would be won by either the favorites or one of the top 3 sides.

Very, very rarely would you see a 6th ranked team going all the way.
Click to expand...

yea but my point is it's not all about ranking but also about showing up when it matters because SA entered as a Top team and even as number 1 in multiple WCs only to see the exit door same with England (before this WC let's see if they can change their fate this time). You need mental toughness of Old Windies, Great Aussies even Indians, Lankans and Pakistanis (multipel trophies) to perform otherwise your ranking and bilateral record can sit in the stats book with no trophies
 
The goal posts are shifting again. From top ranked teams, to favourites winning the WC, past and present.

No need to change the thread title, 5 of the previous world cups were won by underdogs/non favourites, yet were being told the title of the thread only applies to this WC.
 
Interesting. ive seen every world cup since 1983 although i dont remember 83 much. We used to have teh PWC rankings back in the day and the west indies used to dominate those. In 83 India hadnt won a ODI for over 12 -13 matches and were rightly considered minnows. Hence why that win was so big.

In 1987 Pakistan were seen as the favourites because they were at home and had a decentish ODI record. In those days the amount of ODI's being played only increased after 83 so many commentators and experts still used the test rankings to judge sides. The aussies were complete underdogs in 87.

in 1992 going into the world cup Pakistan were seen as one of the top sides in the world in the ODI format. The surprise was that we played so badly in that tournament but because the side was so good they were able to recover and win.

2003 and 2007 was won by the best side in the world.

and in 2011 it was won by the home side in home conditions and also one of the best sides in the world.

So coming onto bilaterals. I believe they still matter. But they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. And heres why. Bilaterals are there to make money. Hence why you have the rule changes. Its to the bread and butter. Therefore boards will change the rules to fit their aim to make money. In todays world the best way to make money is to Indianise the ODI game.

Now what does that mean? simple. Make it a batsman game where the bowler is largely a bowling machine..chukka chaoka, and ensure Indian crowds watch these matches.

When it comes to tournament cricket the ICC has rightly noticed that a tight tournament will always attract more of a world wide following as the audience is more diverse. Hence why the pitches are better.

Bilaterals are there to appeal to the core cricket followers and the current audience which is dominated by Indians who love crash bang batsman and chukka choaka. Also they love watching Indian cricket and therefore indian cricket has to win more often than not. The best way to increase the probability of this is to create the conditions to ensure this is more likely. Hence why England have gone that way and the aussies too.

Bilaterals are also imprtant because they can help to develop a team and players and get them ready for the test arena.

Finally inmho I would rather see more tournaments played between sides will trophies on the line than bilaterals. We can have T20 bilaterals instead or the odd ODI series but overall i would like to see more tournamnet cricket like the sharjah cup, australasia, asia cup , etc..
 
Australia showing once again who is the Boss and Afghans also came very close to upsetting at least 2 top teams. It's all about handling the pressure and proving yourself on the biggest stage.
 
As I said, our good friend [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] got overexcited.

The following teams have qualified for the semifinals:

Australia
India
England
New Zealand

Their rankings coming into the tournament:

Australia (5)
India (2)
England (1)
New Zealand (3)

3 of the top 4 teams have qualified, and I would argue that Australia’s ranking is misleading.

They were without their two best batsmen for a year. If they weren’t banned, Australia would probably have overtaken South Africa as the 4th ranked team considering the inconsistent performances of the latter.

But rankings mean nothing in World Cups. :moyo2
 
Mamoon said:
As I said, our good friend [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] got overexcited.



The following teams have qualified for the semifinals:

Australia
India
England
New Zealand

Their rankings coming into the tournament:

Australia (5)
India (2)
England (1)
New Zealand (3)

3 of the top 4 teams have qualified, and I would argue that Australia’s ranking is misleading.

They were without their two best batsmen for a year. If they weren’t banned, Australia would probably have overtaken South Africa as the 4th ranked team considering the inconsistent performances of the latter.

But rankings mean nothing in World Cups. :moyo2
Click to expand...


Excitement was due to seeing Pak beat a couple of teams and suddenly forgot who they are
 
They do, my friend. They do. This is the world cup, quality wins out. You can't just fluke your way through.
 
Technics 1210 said:
No need to change the thread title, 5 of the previous world cups were won by underdogs/non favourites, yet were being told the title of the thread only applies to this WC.
Click to expand...

What? Aus were favorites in 2015, India in 2011, Aus again in 2003/2007.
 
someone21 said:
Lol, so you conveniently ignored post 2000, just to write some ridiculous theory....
Click to expand...

I said previous world cups to the current one! How is that ignoring post 2000? Why are you pigeon holing to post 2000?

Not a ridiculous theory, my theory is correct, it's just you ineptness in reading let you down!
 
Technics 1210 said:
I said previous world cups to the current one! How is that ignoring post 2000? Why are you pigeon holing to post 2000?

Not a ridiculous theory, my theory is correct, it's just you ineptness in reading let you down!
Click to expand...

Your theory hold true in a bygone era.... where raw talent could have won you matches, not in the modern era, that too in a World Cup with such a format!
 
World cup has become more professional since 2000s anyway .. hopefully T20 will rchd there in 10-15 years of time.
 
Looks like the top 4 ranked ODI teams will be there ones competing in the semi-finals.

Coincidence?
 
Pakistanis love mediocrity. Good going. Praise everything what Pak did in this WC.
 
hb787 said:
Pakistanis love mediocrity. Good going. Praise everything what Pak did in this WC.
Click to expand...

Pakistan is the only country that glorifies mediocrity and inconsistency and calls it "unpredictability".
 
Number 1 ranked team has won the World Cup, but rankings mean nothing in World Cups. :moyo2
[MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION]
 
Mamoon said:
Number 1 ranked team has won the World Cup, but rankings mean nothing in World Cups. :moyo2
[MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

Number 4 ranked team nearly won the WC and the number 1 ranked team were struggling to qualify for the semis at one point. This is a proper fluke and you can't deny that.
 
Mamoon said:
Number 1 ranked team has won the World Cup, but rankings mean nothing in World Cups. :moyo2
[MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

A fluke victory that will always have an asterisk beside it.

You've been humiliated, have some shame
 
AdamM97 said:
Number 4 ranked team nearly won the WC and the number 1 ranked team were struggling to qualify for the semis at one point. This is a proper fluke and you can't deny that.
Click to expand...

Nothing fluke about it. England produced phenomenal back to the wall performances in this World Cup and are rightful winners. This thread has flopped.
 
Chokli said:
A fluke victory that will always have an asterisk beside it.

You've been humiliated, have some shame
Click to expand...

The only people who have been humiliated are the ones who tagged me a thousand times in the match thread. They couldn't wait for the match to be over. This is what happens when people shoot their load prematurely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
What are the "learns" for Pakistan in yet another bilateral series defeat?
Replies
69
Views
3K
TheSultan
T
Savak
Resume of the 90's team vs Resume of the 2003 team onwards
Replies
61
Views
2K
TheSultan
T
Bhaijaan
ICC Champions Trophy should be a 16-team knockout-only format
Replies
12
Views
544
kingusama92
kingusama92
jamie smith fan
Was 2015 World Cup the best edition of Cricket World Cups?
Replies
9
Views
367
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
Savak
New Zealand becoming the new Australia for Pakistan since 2011
Replies
29
Views
1K
GoUgandaCranes
GoUgandaCranes
Back
Top