Rankings vs defining moments, which would you choose?

[SaadAliG]

We get a lot of criticism for our ranking. But overall we've done well on tough tours these past few years but still have been woefully ranked. People celebrated us being the number 1 ranked test team but I didn't give a monkeys. I would trade that for a series win in Australia any day of the week.

What do you guys say about this scenario?

Would you rather be team india post Champions Trophy 2013, a consistent, well oiled machine or be in our current position?

 

[Blitz]

Not at all.

The game is all about winning trophies.

Having a pointless #1 ranking in ODI's where half your points come from winning dead games belongs to the South Africans.

 

[shah_1]

No one remembers ranking but people care only about ICC trophies at the end.

 

[big_gamer007]

I don't mind if we are ranked 20th and have to qualify for WC as long as we win all WC's and other major tournaments.. You don't see thousands of people on the street celebrating a win in bilateral series but a WC win and you see thousands of people celebrating all night..

 

[QalandarFan]

Who cares about rankings as long as your in top 8 winning trophies should be the priority.

Look at South Africa Ranked Number 1 as a team, Number 1 bowler and batter yet they got eliminated in the group stages.

Definitely ICC Trophies >>>>>>>> Rankings

 

[Enigma_]

As long as you're in top 8 of the rankings then you're fine. Although I would say top 6 is more comfortable for everyone involved. But overall trophies above all.

 

[Stallion__]

Trophies >>> Rankings

 

[Executioner]

Rankings mean jack.

Winning trophies. Now that's the thing

 

[Finisher]

Reminds me of how Belgium used to be ranked number 1 in football rankings.

 

[Tusker]

Not at all.

The game is all about winning trophies.

Having a pointless #1 ranking in ODI's where half your points come from winning dead games belongs to the South Africans.

No one remembers ranking but people care only about ICC trophies at the end.

Who cares about rankings as long as your in top 8 winning trophies should be the priority.

Look at South Africa Ranked Number 1 as a team, Number 1 bowler and batter yet they got eliminated in the group stages.

Definitely ICC Trophies >>>>>>>> Rankings

Trophies >>> Rankings

that is until Indians start talking about 11-0 and then suddenly 73-53 becomes more important

 

[Hamad_H]

Trophies are definitely more important but the Test #1 ranking is different because there is no test tournament where you can win trophies so the ranking is the most important thing in tests. But if there was a tournament then that would be a lot more important than rankings.

 

[pakistani pride]

Rankings are a reflection of a moment of a period in time.

Trophies are there for ever. They define a team. It gives you a place in history.

In 10 years time every one will remember pak won the CT by smashing India but no 1 will know SA was the no 1 in the rankings June 2017.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Not at all.

The game is all about winning trophies.

Having a pointless #1 ranking in ODI's where half your points come from winning dead games belongs to the South Africans.

Post of the week!

 

[TahirFan]

South Africans want silver and not ratings

South Africa failed again in a ICC championship trophy and I have no doubt that Domingo's contract will not be extended

 

[shah_1]

Rankings are a reflection of a moment of a period in time.

Trophies are there for ever. They define a team. It gives you a place in history.

In 10 years time every one will remember pak won the CT by smashing India but no 1 will know SA was the no 1 in the rankings June 2017.

Basically this

 

[QalandarFan]

that is until Indians start talking about 11-0 and then suddenly 73-53 becomes more important

That's in the past those were different teams. You are gonna see a change of approach from Pakistan moving forward playing India. We are seeing the dawn of a NEW Era of Pakistan Cricket!

Also It's 3-2 Pak in CT matches.

 

[TQ89]

I would choose Trophies. Their is nothing in cricket that beats the charm of trophy. The best always up their games in tournaments and it is by winning trophies that team's dynasties have been built like Iconic west indies team or the Aussie team of our teens

 

[Last Monetarist]

Moments, a thousand times. Ultimately those are the things you remember fondly to stave off those grim and dreary days.

 

[Last Monetarist]

that is until Indians start talking about 11-0 and then suddenly 73-53 becomes more important

Ultimately only 2 of those victories (1996 and 2011) counted in matches that meant something in the grand scheme of things. It's no coincidence that those are the defeats that hurt the most for us.

2007 or any of the other T20 defeats will always remain mere sideshows.

 

[Tusker]

That's in the past those were different teams. You are gonna see a change of approach from Pakistan moving forward playing India. We are seeing the dawn of a NEW Era of Pakistan Cricket!

Also It's 3-2 Pak in CT matches.

Plenty of posters here on PP and many Pakistan ex-cricketers talk about the overall odi record ... Just yesterday Shoaib Akhtar did that ... I understand that its a coping mechanism but the irony is now suddenly Pakistan will talk about ICC events ... for that reason alone today's win was needed. Had India won today ... I can assure you they would be back to the usual 73-52 > 11-0 argument.

 

[Tusker]

Ultimately only 2 of those victories (1996 and 2011) counted in matches that meant something in the grand scheme of things. It's no coincidence that those are the defeats that hurt the most for us.

2007 or any of the other T20 defeats will always remain mere sideshows.

you forget 2003 and 2013 ... the losses to India in those tournaments was one of the reasons why your team did not progress to the next round. You can try to pretend that it wasn't so and that the T20 defeats don't mean anything but the proof is in how your own countrymen cherish any successes in those events.

 

[pakistani pride]

you forget 2003 and 2013 ... the losses to India in those tournaments was one of the reasons why your team did not progress to the next round. You can try to pretend that it wasn't so and that the T20 defeats don't mean anything but the proof is in how your own countrymen cherish any successes in those events.

With due respect 2003 and 2013 teams didnt have it in them to achieve much.

With due respect we won the 2009 T20 cup but still 1992 is the victory that matters.

I rank this win above the T20 in 2009 as well.

 

[Last Monetarist]

you forget 2003 and 2013 ... the losses to India in those tournaments was one of the reasons why your team did not progress to the next round. You can try to pretend that it wasn't so and that the T20 defeats don't mean anything but the proof is in how your own countrymen cherish any successes in those events.

Nah. 2003 we were a ramshackle team with one foot in the grave. There was infighting galore, indiscipline you name it. We were lucky to scrape past Namibia and the Netherlands if I remember correctly.

2013, we lost to a miserable West Indies team. T20 isn't a format to which I set much store, least of all a slapdash event as the inaugural T20 tournament in SA. My countrymen have been starved of success for a decade so one can't really blame them for cherishing any scraps that come our way.

At the end of the day, I actually agree with you that India's record in big matches counts more than any bilateral wins that mostly occurred 20 or so years ago. My point was to merely emphasize the OP's point about moments mattering more than statistics or ranking points.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Rankings in ODIs are meaningless. It is a format which is all about trophies.

In tests, rankings are much more important

 

[Tusker]

With due respect 2003 and 2013 teams didnt have it in them to achieve much.

With due respect we won the 2009 T20 cup but still 1992 is the victory that matters.

I rank this win above the T20 in 2009 as well.

nor did this team by all counts .... especially after the 1st match. Point is it doesn't work that way.

Nah. 2003 we were a ramshackle team with one foot in the grave. There was infighting galore, indiscipline you name it. We were lucky to scrape past Namibia and the Netherlands if I remember correctly.

2013, we lost to a miserable West Indies team. T20 isn't a format to which I set much store, least of all a slapdash event as the inaugural T20 tournament in SA.

see above but hate it as much you want but the T20 World Cup is here to stay ... it is one of the top 3 ICC Events.

My countrymen have been starved of success for a decade so one can't really blame them for cherishing any scraps that come our way.

agree but perhaps the pride got in the way of accepting reality.

At the end of the day, I actually agree with you that India's record in big matches counts more than any bilateral wins that mostly occurred 20 or so years ago. My point was to merely emphasize the OP's point about moments mattering more than statistics or ranking points.

ok but ... if it hadnt been for todays win the overall record would be still the choice of the majority over here. Cheers and enjoy the moment !

 

[SaadAliG]

Same kind of question.
Would you rate a player higher if he makes impact in knockout tournaments but is just another player in bilateral series.
Or would you still rate someone like Hashim Amla high even if his average in knockout tournaments is in 20s?