Should the #1 ranked ODI team automatically be given +3 points during WC and CT?

[msb314]

So what I propose is that the number 1 ranked ODI team should be given 3 "free" points entering the World Cup and the Champions Trophy so their points total automatically reads 3 before any game has been played.

They will then earn 2 points for every won game and 1 point for every tied or NR game just like everyone else.

Here are the benefits of such a scheme:
1) Gives a lot more meaning to bilateral ODI's and tri-series for gaining number 1 ranking. Esp for the current format of the 2019 WC where having a +3 advantage will be absolutely crucial.

2) The no. 1 ranked team will likely want to play more "easy" games against minnows / associates in order to preserve their ranking which however will give associates more exposure (i.e.India will not want to play Australia all the time out of fear of losing the no. 1 ranking and missing out on +3 points before a WC)

3) Possible less "dead rubber" games in the group stages of the WC since the rest of the teams will be fighting for fewer spots to reach the knockout stage - should be no easy games and more "must win" games.

Here are some drawbacks:
1) Unfair on the other teams and the associates during the group stages of the WC.

2) Possible complacency by the no. 1 ranked team during the WC

3) Unfair on associates as they do not play enough games to have a chance of reaching the no. 1 ranking.

Thoughts?

 

[jagatk]

No. It's a world cup it has nothing to do with stupid rankings.

 

[msb314]

No. It's a world cup it has nothing to do with stupid rankings.

Thats exactly the point. The "stupid rankings" need to have more meaning and this is one way of doing so.

 

[WengerOut]

Thats exactly the point. The "stupid rankings" need to have more meaning and this is one way of doing so.

Won't work. Different teams play different opponents at different time. So their rankings might suffer right before WC depending on who they play.

 

[jagatk]

Thats exactly the point. The "stupid rankings" need to have more meaning and this is one way of doing so.

No they don't. Every team sport has ranking but it is the world cup or similar trophy that actually counts not the ranking.

 

[Omer.Sandhu]

The rankings already have enough meaning when you look at them from the point of view of a World Cup, the top 8 teams automatically qualify. I think that is enough meaning when it comes to a World Cup.

 

[msb314]

The rankings already have enough meaning when you look at them from the point of view of a World Cup, the top 8 teams automatically qualify. I think that is enough meaning when it comes to a World Cup.

What is the incentive for a team to achieve no. 1 ranking versus scrapping by at no. 8 in the rankings?

 

[Omer.Sandhu]

A no.8 ranked team is always worried that they might lose a couple of matches n fall below no.8. This did happen recently, right before the champions trophy when Pakistan and West Indies were fighting for the number 8 spot, in a series that was played at a very short notice. A team at no.1 ranking does not have to face these fears.

 

[msb314]

A no.8 ranked team is always worried that they might lose a couple of matches n fall below no.8. This did happen recently, right before the champions trophy when Pakistan and West Indies were fighting for the number 8 spot, in a series that was played at a very short notice. A team at no.1 ranking does not have to face these fears.

Those are just two extremes. What is the incentive then for a no. 1 ranked team over a no. 4 ranked team?

Surely the no. 1 ranked team should be rewarded in some way for reaching the summit and performing well over a period of time.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Absolutely not. World Cups have nothing to do with rankings.

 

[Nil Dhumrojal]

So what I propose is that the number 1 ranked ODI team should be given 3 "free" points entering the World Cup and the Champions Trophy so their points total automatically reads 3 before any game has been played.

They will then earn 2 points for every won game and 1 point for every tied or NR game just like everyone else.

Here are the benefits of such a scheme:
1) Gives a lot more meaning to bilateral ODI's and tri-series for gaining number 1 ranking. Esp for the current format of the 2019 WC where having a +3 advantage will be absolutely crucial.

2) The no. 1 ranked team will likely want to play more "easy" games against minnows / associates in order to preserve their ranking which however will give associates more exposure (i.e.India will not want to play Australia all the time out of fear of losing the no. 1 ranking and missing out on +3 points before a WC)

3) Possible less "dead rubber" games in the group stages of the WC since the rest of the teams will be fighting for fewer spots to reach the knockout stage - should be no easy games and more "must win" games.

Here are some drawbacks:
1) Unfair on the other teams and the associates during the group stages of the WC.

2) Possible complacency by the no. 1 ranked team during the WC

3) Unfair on associates as they do not play enough games to have a chance of reaching the no. 1 ranking.

Thoughts?

As long as you cant make 'equal ftp ' where every team plays with everyone in a time frame with equal number of matches, you cant ever make the correct ranking.

 

[Omer.Sandhu]

There are a few benefits to getting a higher ranking. Firstly, I think there is a prize money of some sort that ICC gives at the end of each cricketing calendar, I know it is there for Test cricket but I think ODI teams get it too. So the higher the rank, the higher the prize money. Secondly, the higher a team ranks, the better the sponsors it gets, which means there is more chance of revenue for the board as well. Just look at India, one major reason why their board is so rich, apart from the huge population India has and apart from the IPL is that the board gets a lot of sponsorship money as India has been consistently ranking high in the past 5 years. Lastly, the number one ranked team holds a mental edge over other teams. Every team wants to be the best, and that is the purpose of any team sport, rankings are just a way of showing where a particular team stands, although a lot of people disagree with how the ranking system is run, for example the lack of equal opportunities for teams to compete against each other, but that is a different topic.

 

[Titan24]

Thats exactly the point. The "stupid rankings" need to have more meaning and this is one way of doing so.

I guess the league system which is gonna be in place in 2019-20 will do good enough job, with team being in 1st position at the end of 3rd year will win the league.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The 2019 WC format is already fine. This will be a very good WC. The atmosphere will be surreal due to it being in UK. And it will be a brutal cutthroat tournament where every single point will be fought intesely for.

 

[BlackShadow]

Strange and pointless thread. A tournament is about finding the team of that particular event. How you will achieve that with OP' s state of art scheme is beyond me.

 

[emranabbas]

I get where the OP is coming from
These ratings are Pointless, it can only be fair when all test nations play each.

Say during a 2 year period all teams play each other home and away, same amount of games
And then after 2 years we will now who is a better team.

You can’t be a number 1 teams by not playing some of the nations or by just playing at home or by just playing minnows it’s not fair

 

[Ab Fan]

I think you have made a good point here. If someone has established themselves as no.1 ranked team over the time, they deserve to get some rewards for that. I dont know how fine is a +3 rating but I appreciate your post.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Good thread. There definitely needs to be more context behind rankings and more reason for teams to want to be at the top throughout formats. 3 points might be too much but 1 or 2 points might be a fairer amount

 

[Fahdi]

There definitely needs to be some more context behind the rankings but not this. The best thing will be if cricket gets organized in a league style format where every team plays each other twice over a 4 year period. Every series consisting of 3 Tests, 5 ODIs and 2/3 T20s. Have more points for away wins as well. After the 4 year period award the top team the World Test league Cup, The World ODI league Cup and the World T20I leage cup. Once that's done reset the rankings.

 

[Mamoon]

This would work if the ICC ranking system was not so flawed. For example, anyone can see that Pakistan's number one ranking in T20s is a complete farce.

The likes of Australia, India, England, South Africa etc. would shoot up the rankings if they were to face the WI, SL, World XI, Scotland etc. a dozen times in a year.

Unless all teams play each other in a calendar year, the rankings will always be largely meaningless. However, that will never happen because of the disparity between the revenues generated per series and the politicization of the game.

Hence, considering the given circumstances, it will not work. It will be a joke to see a mediocre T20I team like Pakistan get 3 points in the World T20.

 

[babajee]

Hence, considering the given circumstances, it will not work. It will be a joke to see a mediocre T20I team like Pakistan get 3 points in the World T20.

What’s so mediocre about an attack of:

Amir
Hasan
Nawaz/Imad
Shadab
Faheem

Like [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] said T20 is mainly a game of having a better bowling attack. Our batting is not too bad either with Fakhar and Babar.

 

[Omer.Sandhu]

Dear mr.mamoo

I can only agree with the third paragraph. In what context are you saying that the current Pakistani T20I team is a mediocre team? Have u played against them? Have u played against anyone involved in the current Pakistani T20 setup? If so, how did u fare against them?I have nothing personal against u but I have a right to defend my country’s cricket team when I can see them do well.

 

[Mamoon]

What’s so mediocre about an attack of:

Amir
Hasan
Nawaz/Imad
Shadab
Faheem

Like [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] said T20 is mainly a game of having a better bowling attack. Our batting is not too bad either with Fakhar and Babar.

In my view, batsmen win you Limited Overs matches. No matter how good your bowling attack is, you will not consistently do well against the top sides if your batting is not up to their caliber.

Pakistan's Limited Overs batting is simply not at the same league as that of the top teams. Pakistan is a middling T20 team at best. Nowhere near the best team in the world.

If there is a World T20 today, Pakistan will not come close to winning it.

 

[bilalmasaud]

Those are just two extremes. What is the incentive then for a no. 1 ranked team over a no. 4 ranked team?

Surely the no. 1 ranked team should be rewarded in some way for reaching the summit and performing well over a period of time.

so the teams in the number 1 ranked group would already be at a disadvantage where as teams in the other group would have a better probability ?

 

[babajee]

In my view, batsmen win you Limited Overs matches. No matter how good your bowling attack is, you will not consistently do well against the top sides if your batting is not up to their caliber.

Pakistan's Limited Overs batting is simply not at the same league as that of the top teams. Pakistan is a middling T20 team at best. Nowhere near the best team in the world.

If there is a World T20 today, Pakistan will not come close to winning it.

Would you not even agree that the Limited Overs batting is heading in the right direction?

Every season of PSL has improved our batting so far.

 

[hadi123]

No way. I do agree bilateral series etc need more meanings but this probably isn't the right way.

 

[MMHS]

Thats exactly the point. The "stupid rankings" need to have more meaning and this is one way of doing so.

I think, ranking serves it purpose - in terms of qualifying for ICC events (cricket is played by small community hence automatic qualification hardly considered as an advantage - imagine Rughby like scenario where few teams among 60+ are selected automatically, or say field hockey ..)

Also, not apparent now because of too few good teams, but ranking helps better draw in group stages - the higher in ranking, the easier group you are in. In Soccer, more or less often Germany & Brazil along with hosts gets the easiest draw.

 

[shokz1408]

Definitely disagree. That won't tell you who the best team in the tournament is if one team gets free points. This team may go through with less wins, and someone with more wins might be eliminated. It wouldn't make for a good and fair tournament.

 

[barah_admi]

Terrible, terrible idea

 

[Hasan123]

What’s so mediocre about an attack of:

Amir
Hasan
Nawaz/Imad
Shadab
Faheem

Like [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] said T20 is mainly a game of having a better bowling attack. Our batting is not too bad either with Fakhar and Babar.

Don't you ever got bored of having the same argument ? He thinks Pakistan aren't very good . You think the opposite. Why not wait till we actually play quality teams then debate with him?

It is so boring seeing you quote him everytime he posts Pakistan are mediocre. I don't agree with him but why not wait until we beat a top team.

 

[Hasan123]

Rankings have nothing to do with WC. We are going to get a league system so that will add context to ODI cricket.

 

[babajee]

Don't you ever got bored of having the same argument ? He thinks Pakistan aren't very good . You think the opposite. Why not wait till we actually play quality teams then debate with him?

It is so boring seeing you quote him everytime he posts Pakistan are mediocre. I don't agree with him but why not wait until we beat a top team.

We beat NZ in NZ who were ranked #1 lmao and that achievement was downplayed because of small grounds and in the 3rd T20 they lacked Munro. I didn’t hear a word against NZ’s number 1 ranking.

We will beat top teams and the excuses will keep coming.

 

[msb314]

so the teams in the number 1 ranked group would already be at a disadvantage where as teams in the other group would have a better probability ?

For the 2019 WC - there is going to be only one group of 10 teams.

Of which the top 4 reach the semifinals.

 

[WildSwing]

We beat NZ in NZ who were ranked #1 lmao and that achievement was downplayed because of small grounds and in the 3rd T20 they lacked Munro. I didn’t hear a word against NZ’s number 1 ranking.

We will beat top teams and the excuses will keep coming.

Stop being a Mamoon chamchaa

T20 wins outside of world t20 are not really worth rating

 

[babajee]

T20 wins outside of world t20 are not really worth rating

Neither are ODI wins then. So Pakistan’s 5-0 loss to NZ is not really worth rating.

It’s the CT and WC that counts

 

[Syed1]

This would work if the ICC ranking system was not so flawed. For example, anyone can see that Pakistan's number one ranking in T20s is a complete farce.

The likes of Australia, India, England, South Africa etc. would shoot up the rankings if they were to face the WI, SL, World XI, Scotland etc. a dozen times in a year.

Unless all teams play each other in a calendar year, the rankings will always be largely meaningless. However, that will never happen because of the disparity between the revenues generated per series and the politicization of the game.

Hence, considering the given circumstances, it will not work. It will be a joke to see a mediocre T20I team like Pakistan get 3 points in the World T20.

If T20 rankings are flawed then your team's ODI and Test rankings as number side are also flawed. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[rhony]

Giving points to 1st rank team in world tournaments makes no sense.

India cares about ODI 1st rank but not to the point that they will keep playing weak teams to retain it. On the contrary, their board regularly tries to organize big money series with AUS, SA, Eng etc. They deserve the number 1 in this format as they have beaten good teams regularly and always go deep in world tournaments.

India's test no.1 is not so well deserved as they haven't won much abroad. The ranking system should definitely give more weight to abroad wins. The ranking system should change.

T20 rankings are a farce. Teams don't have their full strength teams in T20 bilaterals. Look at India for example. Their best player and MOS of the last two T20 world cups Kohli played only 2 games out of 11 recent T20 games that India played. The way the rankings change with every series also shows the fickle nature in the format. They don't really represent the best team in the format.

 

[MMHS]

What’s so mediocre about an attack of:

Amir
Hasan
Nawaz/Imad
Shadab
Faheem

Like [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] said T20 is mainly a game of having a better bowling attack. Our batting is not too bad either with Fakhar and Babar.

This is probably not the appropriate thread to discuss, but I feel you back too much on T20 ranking which had several issues as I explained many times.

First T20I is played too little for the ranking position to settle - Aussies moved to 2nd (equal points) from 5th or 6th in 3 weeks while SAF has gone to 7th I guess in 2/3 months.

But the main issue is, apart from PAK, hardly any top T20 team plays their best XI in bilaterals. For ranking point perspective it doesn't matter if you take WI in ICC WC or in a series like the recent one ; but truth is PAK failed to make the SF of last 3 T20 WCs. It's not surprising at all that in terms of W/L, the top 2 teams since last T20 WC is PAK & AFG. More or less every team is close bonded in their 3 rankings 0 that's teams are at similar state in Test, ODI & T20 - only anomaly is PAK in Test, ODI & T20; which should give you the clue.

Coming to the T20 game - it's indeed a bowlers' game, and that's why we are 10th in ranking. But, ranking position shouldn't be used to glorify bowling attack in a reverse equation, because of the reason mentioned early. In last 2 years, only serious T20 tournament that PAK played was WC, where we have seen PSL's best bowler against Steve Smith - just before that was Asia cup ..... PAK T20 attack could be outstanding, but that we can see only when it's facing the top dogs; which isn't happening in T20I bilaterals.

 

[babajee]

This is probably not the appropriate thread to discuss, but I feel you back too much on T20 ranking which had several issues as I explained many times.

First T20I is played too little for the ranking position to settle - Aussies moved to 2nd (equal points) from 5th or 6th in 3 weeks while SAF has gone to 7th I guess in 2/3 months.

But the main issue is, apart from PAK, hardly any top T20 team plays their best XI in bilaterals. For ranking point perspective it doesn't matter if you take WI in ICC WC or in a series like the recent one ; but truth is PAK failed to make the SF of last 3 T20 WCs. It's not surprising at all that in terms of W/L, the top 2 teams since last T20 WC is PAK & AFG. More or less every team is close bonded in their 3 rankings 0 that's teams are at similar state in Test, ODI & T20 - only anomaly is PAK in Test, ODI & T20; which should give you the clue.

Coming to the T20 game - it's indeed a bowlers' game, and that's why we are 10th in ranking. But, ranking position shouldn't be used to glorify bowling attack in a reverse equation, because of the reason mentioned early. In last 2 years, only serious T20 tournament that PAK played was WC, where we have seen PSL's best bowler against Steve Smith - just before that was Asia cup ..... PAK T20 attack could be outstanding, but that we can see only when it's facing the top dogs; which isn't happening in T20I bilaterals.

I only bring up #1 because of posters who chest thump about rankings.

Personally I don’t believe in rankings.

 

[MMHS]

I only bring up #1 because of posters who chest thump about rankings.

Personally I don’t believe in rankings.

Fair enough. PAK T20 side is good, very good compared to other 2 formats. Because, T20 is instant, least tactical and hardly mentally demanding, hence players groomed in QeA style finds it easier to express themselves.

But, this high ranking has a big hind side as well. Not saying it had been the case or it'll be the case in future, but there is a remarkable similarity of recent PAK T20 side (s) & SAF ODI team (s). SAF is almost unbeatable in bilaterals, because they are clinically ruthless in every such game - well drilled, prepared and focused. But, that makes them soft in ICC events when they face mentally tougher teams in KOs.

PAK T20 side is rolling under-strength sides for that ranking - I hope this doesn't back fire in 2020. All this bravado and hype would have a big sarcastic laugh if team doesn't make the SF at least.

Ranking is nothing, unless you prove that in ICC events - that WI or AUS side were respected not because they were ranked No. 1; rather they backed that ranking on stages where it mattered.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I have similar thoughts to OP. Like it or not, ranlimgs are a thing and they should have some effect on how World Cups are played.

 

[R3verse Swing]

This would work if the ICC ranking system was not so flawed. For example, anyone can see that Pakistan's number one ranking in T20s is a complete farce.

The likes of Australia, India, England, South Africa etc. would shoot up the rankings if they were to face the WI, SL, World XI, Scotland etc. a dozen times in a year.

Unless all teams play each other in a calendar year, the rankings will always be largely meaningless. However, that will never happen because of the disparity between the revenues generated per series and the politicization of the game.

Hence, considering the given circumstances, it will not work. It will be a joke to see a mediocre T20I team like Pakistan get 3 points in the World T20.

You clearly do not understand how rankings work.

Rankings are based on a weighted system and more points are awarded if a lower rank teams beats a higher rank team. Not the other way round.

You are right in a way, rankings are no measure of success/merit, after all, a #7 ODI rank team can thrash #2 ODI rank team in a Final.

One thing you also need to remember, rankings only take into consideration the performance of last 3 years. Meaning Pakistan's latest run on top of the T20 rankings, has little to do with the T20 series of late more to do with 3 year consistency. You can thank me later.

 

[MMHS]

3 points for top rank, 2 for 2nd ranked and 1 for 3rd ranked. So, in a tournament like CT where 4 teams play in a group and 3 points can take a side to SF - top ranked 2 teams should give walk over to last 2 games (so that NRR doesn't suffer), if they win the 1st one ..................................

 

[Mueez]

No no no!

 

[coy0607]

thats a great idea - will make ODI cricket more interesting once teams have something to gain

just rankings for the sake of rankings is pretty useless. make them mean something

 

[Buffet]

Nah, it will put other teams in the same group at a huge disadvantage.

 

[msb314]

This would work if the ICC ranking system was not so flawed. For example, anyone can see that Pakistan's number one ranking in T20s is a complete farce.

The likes of Australia, India, England, South Africa etc. would shoot up the rankings if they were to face the WI, SL, World XI, Scotland etc. a dozen times in a year.

Unless all teams play each other in a calendar year, the rankings will always be largely meaningless. However, that will never happen because of the disparity between the revenues generated per series and the politicization of the game.

Hence, considering the given circumstances, it will not work. It will be a joke to see a mediocre T20I team like Pakistan get 3 points in the World T20.

In my view, batsmen win you Limited Overs matches. No matter how good your bowling attack is, you will not consistently do well against the top sides if your batting is not up to their caliber.

Pakistan's Limited Overs batting is simply not at the same league as that of the top teams. Pakistan is a middling T20 team at best. Nowhere near the best team in the world.

If there is a World T20 today, Pakistan will not come close to winning it.

We beat NZ in NZ who were ranked #1 lmao and that achievement was downplayed because of small grounds and in the 3rd T20 they lacked Munro. I didn’t hear a word against NZ’s number 1 ranking.

We will beat top teams and the excuses will keep coming.

T20 wins outside of world t20 are not really worth rating

If T20 rankings are flawed then your team's ODI and Test rankings as number side are also flawed. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am not advocating this for the World T20 using T20 rankings because they are too volatile.

 

[Syed1]

I am not advocating this for the World T20 using T20 rankings because they are too volatile.

You quoted half of PP to say that?

 

[msb314]

You quoted half of PP to say that?

:

Not sure why every thread turns into a discussion about our T20 rankings....

 

[Mamoon]

You clearly do not understand how rankings work.

Rankings are based on a weighted system and more points are awarded if a lower rank teams beats a higher rank team. Not the other way round.

You are right in a way, rankings are no measure of success/merit, after all, a #7 ODI rank team can thrash #2 ODI rank team in a Final.

One thing you also need to remember, rankings only take into consideration the performance of last 3 years. Meaning Pakistan's latest run on top of the T20 rankings, has little to do with the T20 series of late more to do with 3 year consistency. You can thank me later.

I clearly understand how rankings work.

Pakistan is at the top of the pile in T20I because of too many soft games. Since you used 2015 as a cut-off point, let's look at things in a chronological order so that we get to see how much we deserve our numero uno ranking.

From the top of my head, after the 2015 World Cup, this is how we fared in this format:

We got whooped in Bangladesh in the one-off T20.

We beat Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

We got decimated by England.

We had a woeful World T20.

However, since 2016, we have had too many matches against weak opposition. We have played the West Indies a dozen times, we played Sri Lanka and also the meaningless (in cricketing context) matches against the World XI. And now, we are embarking on the challenge of defending our ranking by playing against the world class T20 team that is Scotland.

The only credible matches that we have won - which can actually show our progress in this format - were the wins vs New Zealand and the one-off T20 vs England in Sep 2016.

As far as the West Indies are concerned, they have two world titles, but they are a middling bilateral T20 side. Winning against them does not make Pakistan a top class team in this format.

Now since you suffer from Indo-phobia, you are likely to cite the two T20 wins that the West Indies have registered over India in the last couple of years.

A poor team can beat a quality team on its day. Heck, Pakistan won a whole tournament by catching three vastly superior sides on their off-days. India lost due to the individual brilliance of Lewis, and individual brilliance can happen anytime anywhere - you cannot really account for it.

The so-called best bowling unit in the world that won the Champions Trophy for Pakistan in June 2017 could not defend a 310+ total against the West Indies in May 2017, thanks to an outstanding individual innings by Jason Mohamed.

Similarly, the same so-called best bowling unit in the world was taken to the cleaners by Grandhomme in the fourth ODI in New Zealand, who along with Nicholls, scored around 100 runs in 8-9 overs against the attack that restricted South Africa, England and India to meagre totals in consecutive games.

If A beats B and B beats C, it does not mean that A > C.

India is a better T20 team than both Pakistan and the West Indies.

If Pakistan can sustain their ranking after playing a good number of games against Australia, England, India and South Africa, their number one ranking will be fully deserved. As of now, it is nothing but a flimsy ranking.

As far as the Champions Trophy is concerned, it appears that it has truly replaced the 1992 World Cup for our fans. Will be celebrated for the next three decades until we win something big again.

 

[Mamoon]

If T20 rankings are flawed then your team's ODI and Test rankings as number side are also flawed. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

They are not flawed.

India have played a lot of games against quality opposition. Their ranking is not built on beating the West Indies and Sri Lanka a thousand times, or filler games against the World XI and Scotland.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I clearly understand how rankings work.

Pakistan is at the top of the pile in T20I because of too many soft games. Since you used 2015 as a cut-off point, let's look at things in a chronological order so that we get to see how much we deserve our numero uno ranking.

From the top of my head, after the 2015 World Cup, this is how we fared in this format:

We got whooped in Bangladesh in the one-off T20.

We beat Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

We got decimated by England.

We had a woeful World T20.

However, since 2016, we have had too many matches against weak opposition. We have played the West Indies a dozen times, we played Sri Lanka and also the meaningless (in cricketing context) matches against the World XI. And now, we are embarking on the challenge of defending our ranking by playing against the world class T20 team that is Scotland.

The only credible matches that we have won - which can actually show our progress in this format - were the wins vs New Zealand and the one-off T20 vs England in Sep 2016.

As far as the West Indies are concerned, they have two world titles, but they are a middling bilateral T20 side. Winning against them does not make Pakistan a top class team in this format.

Now since you suffer from Indo-phobia, you are likely to cite the two T20 wins that the West Indies have registered over India in the last couple of years.

A poor team can beat a quality team on its day. Heck, Pakistan won a whole tournament by catching three vastly superior sides on their off-days. India lost due to the individual brilliance of Lewis, and individual brilliance can happen anytime anywhere - you cannot really account for it.

The so-called best bowling unit in the world that won the Champions Trophy for Pakistan in June 2017 could not defend a 310+ total against the West Indies in May 2017, thanks to an outstanding individual innings by Jason Mohamed.

Similarly, the same so-called best bowling unit in the world was taken to the cleaners by Grandhomme in the fourth ODI in New Zealand, who along with Nicholls, scored around 100 runs in 8-9 overs against the attack that restricted South Africa, England and India to meagre totals in consecutive games.

If A beats B and B beats C, it does not mean that A > C.

India is a better T20 team than both Pakistan and the West Indies.

If Pakistan can sustain their ranking after playing a good number of games against Australia, England, India and South Africa, their number one ranking will be fully deserved. As of now, it is nothing but a flimsy ranking.

As far as the Champions Trophy is concerned, it appears that it has truly replaced the 1992 World Cup for our fans. Will be celebrated for the next three decades until we win something big again.

The fact you believe T20 rankings are flawed because Pakistan is on top, but ODI/Test rankings are correct since Pakistan are in the bottom halves, tells me everything. Given all 3 rankings systems work in exactly the same way your hatred towards Pakistan is evident.

 

[Mamoon]

The fact you believe T20 rankings are flawed because Pakistan is on top, but ODI/Test rankings are correct since Pakistan are in the bottom halves, tells me everything. Given all 3 rankings systems work in exactly the same way your hatred towards Pakistan is evident.

The ODI and Test rankings are correct Pakistan India have beaten all the top teams in the world. They have beaten Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand across both formats. Yes they have not played Pakistan in Test or an ODI series, but Pakistan is a mediocre team.

 

[R3verse Swing]

The ODI and Test rankings are correct Pakistan India have beaten all the top teams in the world. They have beaten Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand across both formats. Yes they have not played Pakistan in Test or an ODI series, but Pakistan is a mediocre team.

You have not presented anything but bias.

As I have pointed out, you are saying the T20 rankings are flawed, yet the ODI/Test rankings are fine.

Your basis for this conclusion is Pakistan is on top of the T20 rankings - so save the ABCD malarky.

There is no need to bust your post as you are undermining your position all by yourself.

 

[Mamoon]

You have not presented anything but bias.

As I have pointed out, you are saying the T20 rankings are flawed, yet the ODI/Test rankings are fine.

Your basis for this conclusion is Pakistan is on top of the T20 rankings - so save the ABCD malarky.

There is no need to bust your post as you are undermining your position all by yourself.

Clearly not the first time you have decided to indulge in selective reading to prolong a discussion. I have already presented the basis for my dismissive attitude towards Pakistan's T20I ranking. However, out of courtesy, let me rephrase.

In the last three years, Pakistan have won a grand total of 3 T20 matches against quality opposition.

This is our record against different teams:

England:

W 1, L 3

India:

W 0, L 1

South Africa:

N/A

Australia:

W 0, L 1

New Zealand:

W 2, L 2

Sri Lanka:

W 3 L 0

Bangladesh:

W 1, L 1


Zimbabwe:

Don't care, probably 3-0

West Indies:

Hard to keep track of this, but we have probably beaten them 50 times.

And now we are going to prove ourselves against Scotland.

That record clearly suggests that our status as the number one T20 team in the world is very misleading. It is largely built on beating West Indies, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Unlike us, India have beaten all the top teams in the world to become the number one ranked Team in both Tests and ODIs.

Now please ask me again why "you are saying the T20 rankings are flawed, yet the ODI/Test rankings are fine."

Go ahead.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

Interesting thesis! This would work really well if we could combine it with the 3-year FTP cycle where matches between teams are relatively equalized. Then you could have one 4-year block which includes 3-years of the league stage + 1 world cup. Instead of giving free points, what I would do is to give Net Run Rate boosts if you want to be more careful. The points of the teams will be normalized to a median of 1 and given as the NRR to start the Tournament.

For example, current ODI Rankings - points - NRR:
1. India - 123 - 2.46
2. SA - 117 - 2.34
3. England - 114 - 2.28

And so on. So on. Therefore if these teams end up on the same points, the previous performances can push one of teams forward. Obviously a method needs to be worked out. 3 points sounds too much. That's a full victory in addition already!

 

[R3verse Swing]

Clearly not the first time you have decided to indulge in selective reading to prolong a discussion. I have already presented the basis for my dismissive attitude towards Pakistan's T20I ranking. However, out of courtesy, let me rephrase.

In the last three years, Pakistan have won a grand total of 3 T20 matches against quality opposition.

This is our record against different teams:

England:

W 1, L 3

India:

W 0, L 1

South Africa:

N/A

Australia:

W 0, L 1

New Zealand:

W 2, L 2

Sri Lanka:

W 3 L 0

Bangladesh:

W 1, L 1


Zimbabwe:

Don't care, probably 3-0

West Indies:

Hard to keep track of this, but we have probably beaten them 50 times.

And now we are going to prove ourselves against Scotland.

That record clearly suggests that our status as the number one T20 team in the world is very misleading. It is largely built on beating West Indies, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Unlike us, India have beaten all the top teams in the world to become the number one ranked Team in both Tests and ODIs.

Now please ask me again why "you are saying the T20 rankings are flawed, yet the ODI/Test rankings are fine."

Go ahead.

I didn't ask you, I am telling you, you believe T20 rankings are flawed because Pakistan is on top, yet ODI/Tests rankings are spot on because India are in the upper tier. Are you not reading, even your own posts? Now you are trying to justify your nonsense. Even if I grant you the nonsense above, Pakistan's rankings in ODI/Test are low since the play lesser games compared to other top teams. You cannot have it both ways with your delusional thinking.

You keep mentioning quality opposition, how many times did India batter Sri Lanka in the past 4 years to bolster their rankings?

You have stooped to new lows by selectively criticising one ranking system over an other despite all 3 following the same algorithms, just because Pakistan is on top.

 

[MMHS]

Clearly not the first time you have decided to indulge in selective reading to prolong a discussion. I have already presented the basis for my dismissive attitude towards Pakistan's T20I ranking. However, out of courtesy, let me rephrase.

In the last three years, Pakistan have won a grand total of 3 T20 matches against quality opposition.

This is our record against different teams:

England:

W 1, L 3

India:

W 0, L 1

South Africa:

N/A

Australia:

W 0, L 1

New Zealand:

W 2, L 2

Sri Lanka:

W 3 L 0

Bangladesh:

W 1, L 1


Zimbabwe:

Don't care, probably 3-0

West Indies:

Hard to keep track of this, but we have probably beaten them 50 times.

And now we are going to prove ourselves against Scotland.

That record clearly suggests that our status as the number one T20 team in the world is very misleading. It is largely built on beating West Indies, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Unlike us, India have beaten all the top teams in the world to become the number one ranked Team in both Tests and ODIs.

Now please ask me again why "you are saying the T20 rankings are flawed, yet the ODI/Test rankings are fine."

Go ahead.

Against us, I think it’s 1/2 : W/L. That Asia Cup game was T20 and there was one T20 game in 2015.

WI is probably 9:1.

Someone correctly said few months back - “we know how to beat WI and they know how to beat others .....”

 

[Adijazz1706]

Clearly not the first time you have decided to indulge in selective reading to prolong a discussion. I have already presented the basis for my dismissive attitude towards Pakistan's T20I ranking. However, out of courtesy, let me rephrase.

In the last three years, Pakistan have won a grand total of 3 T20 matches against quality opposition.

This is our record against different teams:

England:

W 1, L 3

India:

W 0, L 1

South Africa:

N/A

Australia:

W 0, L 1

New Zealand:

W 2, L 2

Sri Lanka:

W 3 L 0

Bangladesh:

W 1, L 1


Zimbabwe:

Don't care, probably 3-0

West Indies:

Hard to keep track of this, but we have probably beaten them 50 times.

And now we are going to prove ourselves against Scotland.

That record clearly suggests that our status as the number one T20 team in the world is very misleading. It is largely built on beating West Indies, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Unlike us, India have beaten all the top teams in the world to become the number one ranked Team in both Tests and ODIs.

Now please ask me again why "you are saying the T20 rankings are flawed, yet the ODI/Test rankings are fine."

Go ahead.

WI are the t20 champions so beating them is a big deal. If India beat Australia in ODIs in Aus and at home, that would be a big deal even though many of the WC winning team have retired. Your love for India is clouding your judgement again

 

[IcedCoffee]

A poor team can beat a quality team on its day. Heck, Pakistan won a whole tournament by catching three vastly superior sides on their off-days.

lol. They sure didn't look like they were having off days in the first half of their innings when they were scoring pretty well. It would have to do more so with excellent leadership, planning, bowling and to an extent even fielding -- batting in the final.

Just because a team outplayed you, doesn't necessarily mean you were having an off day; rather that, well, you were outplayed. The notion that all 3 supposed superior teams coincidentally had selective off days, and that too against a single opposition (Pakistan) in a world tournament is nonsensical, or rather wishful thinking for some.

 

[Mamoon]

Against us, I think it’s 1/2 : W/L. That Asia Cup game was T20 and there was one T20 game in 2015.

WI is probably 9:1.

Someone correctly said few months back - “we know how to beat WI and they know how to beat others .....��”

Thank you, the Asia Cup 2016 slipped my mind.

We lost to Bangladesh and India, but our ranking is justified because we beat the UAE and Sri Lanka (again).

 

[Mamoon]

lol. They sure didn't look like they were having off days in the first half of their innings when they were scoring pretty well. It would have to do more so with excellent leadership, planning, bowling and to an extent even fielding -- batting in the final.

Just because a team outplayed you, doesn't necessarily mean you were having an off day; rather that, well, you were outplayed. The notion that all 3 supposed superior teams coincidentally had selective off days, and that too against a single opposition (Pakistan) in a world tournament is nonsensical, or rather wishful thinking for some.

You can describe it in any way you like, but the fact that is India, England and South Africa are much better teams man to man, and Pakistan has no chance of beating them in a bilateral series anywhere in the world. There is a reason why all of these teams have a winning record against Pakistan over the last few years.

All this talk of this team going in the right direction etc. is a bit shallow at the moment, especially after the reality check in New Zealand.

If people do not like the word fluke, we can call the Champions Trophy a miracle. Just like India's 1983 World Cup triumph and West Indies' 2004 Champions Trophy, it was a flash in the pan moment which probably won't happen for many years. There is nothing that we can extrapolate from our win. It was a wonderful moment in our history, but it does not indicate much about the future.

 

[Mamoon]

WI are the t20 champions so beating them is a big deal. If India beat Australia in ODIs in Aus and at home, that would be a big deal even though many of the WC winning team have retired. Your love for India is clouding your judgement again

West Indies are a peculiar case because they generally perform poorly in bilateral T20 series, and on slow pitches they get strangled against spin. No matter how many World T20s they have in their locker, beating them in a T20 series is not comparable to beating Australia (home or away) in an ODI series, something that Pakistan has not and will not achieve in a million years.

If there is a World T20 today, what are the chances of Pakistan making the final, let alone winning the tournament? Look at Pakistan's T20 side man to man. Does it look like a team that is the best in the world, and can consistently put up big scores?

Yes we have scored 180+ in four consecutive games thanks to some tiny boundaries (New Zealand) and cannon fodder bowling (West Indies), but if were to play a WT20 in Australia, India, England, South Africa, UAE etc., we are unlikely to outmatch the top sides.

As far as India's ODI ranking is concerned, one can guarantee that no matter where the World Cup is held, they would be in the semifinals at least 8/10 times.

 

[babajee]

West Indies are a peculiar case because they generally perform poorly in bilateral T20 series, and on slow pitches they get strangled against spin. No matter how many World T20s they have in their locker, beating them in a T20 series is not comparable to beating Australia (home or away) in an ODI series, something that Pakistan has not and will not achieve in a million years.

If there is a World T20 today, what are the chances of Pakistan making the final, let alone winning the tournament? Look at Pakistan's T20 side man to man. Does it look like a team that is the best in the world, and can consistently put up big scores?

Yeah well Australia are coming to UAE in October and we will beat them. It will be runs galore for Babar and they will struggle against Shadab and Imad/Nawaz.

Fakhar, Babar and Talat can put up big scores. We also have great depth with Shadab at 8 who is a good batsman.

 

[Adijazz1706]

West Indies are a peculiar case because they generally perform poorly in bilateral T20 series, and on slow pitches they get strangled against spin. No matter how many World T20s they have in their locker, beating them in a T20 series is not comparable to beating Australia (home or away) in an ODI series, something that Pakistan has not and will not achieve in a million years.

If there is a World T20 today, what are the chances of Pakistan making the final, let alone winning the tournament? Look at Pakistan's T20 side man to man. Does it look like a team that is the best in the world, and can consistently put up big scores?

Yes we have scored 180+ in four consecutive games thanks to some tiny boundaries (New Zealand) and cannon fodder bowling (West Indies), but if were to play a WT20 in Australia, India, England, South Africa, UAE etc., we are unlikely to outmatch the top sides.

As far as India's ODI ranking is concerned, one can guarantee that no matter where the World Cup is held, they would be in the semifinals at least 8/10 times.

Last tour to Aus
India lost 4-1
Pakistan lost 4-1

Home tour
India won 4-1
Pak has one in Oct
October tour will decide

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

As far as India's ODI ranking is concerned, one can guarantee that no matter where the World Cup is held, they would be in the semifinals at least 8/10 times.

I don't know where you get these " India will qualify 8/10 times " and " India will beat Pakistan 7/10 " stats from again and again. Where can I get this secret algorithm from? Nevermind cricket, this magical software has the potential to solve global warming.

 

[Mamoon]

I didn't ask you, I am telling you, you believe T20 rankings are flawed because Pakistan is on top, yet ODI/Tests rankings are spot on because India are in the upper tier. Are you not reading, even your own posts? Now you are trying to justify your nonsense. Even if I grant you the nonsense above, Pakistan's rankings in ODI/Test are low since the play lesser games compared to other top teams. You cannot have it both ways with your delusional thinking.

You keep mentioning quality opposition, how many times did India batter Sri Lanka in the past 4 years to bolster their rankings?

As usual, you are probably not going to read my post because you are not good at reading facts. Anyway:

1. Pakistan's ODI and Tests rankings are low because they are deeply mediocre in both formats. Pakistan will not beat Australia, England, India, South Africa and New Zealand in a bilateral ODI series anywhere.

In Tests, Pakistan is unlikely to lose a home series to Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand, but they will lose a few matches and will not be ruthless like India are at home.

If we look at our record in the UAE, although we have not lost a series apart from the Sri Lankan one last year, we have lost Test matches to South Africa, New Zealand and even the West Indies, and England were literally minutes away from winning one in 2015.

Since the 2012 series vs England, India have been imperious at home, and have only lost a Test to Australia. Our home form is not comparable to their's. India will never lose a Test match to the current West Indies or Sri Lanka in India. Never.

As far as playing away is concerned, we are sitting ducks in bowling conditions. Had we played South Africa in the conditions that India played, we would have been blanked 3-0 mercilessly, just like we got thumped 6-0 in Australia and New Zealand. Heck, we even lost a Test match in Zimbabwe with our full strength team.

We did drew 2-2 in England in 2016, but the conditions favored us. If we face them in traditional English conditions, their is no chance of us salvaging anything.

India have battered Sri Lanka many times over the last 4 years, but they have battered all the other teams as well. They have won Test and ODI series against Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand. In T20s, Pakistan have won a grand total of 3 matches in 3 years against the major teams.

 

[Mamoon]

Last tour to Aus
India lost 4-1
Pakistan lost 4-1

Home tour
India won 4-1
Pak has one in Oct
October tour will decide

When was the last time Pakistan beat Australia in a bilateral series anywhere?

 

[Mamoon]

I don't know where you get these " India will qualify 8/10 times " and " India will beat Pakistan 7/10 " stats from again and again. Where can I get this secret algorithm from? Nevermind cricket, this magical software has the potential to solve global warming.

You do not need any secret algorithm for it, only common sense. India is one of the world's best ODI teams, Pakistan is not. It is not a coincidence that India have made the semifinals of every ODI tournament since the 2007 World Cup.

Similarly, Pakistan and India do not play bilateral ODI series. If they did, what do you think the record would have looked like? A series every year, and Pakistan's overall superiority in head-to-heard record would be in grave danger.

Since 2005, Pakistan have won only three bilateral series against India, England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.

3 series wins in 13 years - a disgustingly embarrassing record. Do you need any special algorithm or any magical software to know why? No, a glance at the gap between our team and the others is more than sufficient to know why we have been the punching bags of the top teams.

Similarly, I did not need any algorithm or a magical software to state that Pakistan will get a reality check in New Zealand. However, even I thought that we should be good enough to at least win an ODI. Turned out the team is worse than even I thought.

I do not have a crystal ball and neither do I look into tea leaves. I just look at the prospective squad of Pakistan, compare it to the squads of the top teams, and the gap in terms of quality - especially batting - dictates by assessment that our losing record against the aforementioned teams is unlikely to improve in the next few years.

 

[babajee]

I do not have a crystal ball and neither do I look into tea leaves. I just look at the prospective squad of Pakistan, compare it to the squads of the top teams, and the gap in terms of quality - especially batting - dictates by assessment that our losing record against the aforementioned teams is unlikely to improve in the next few years.

Tell me the problem with this top 6 if they live up to their potential:

Fakhar
Babar
Haris
Sarfraz
Talat
Shadab

 

[Mamoon]

Yeah well Australia are coming to UAE in October and we will beat them. It will be runs galore for Babar and they will struggle against Shadab and Imad/Nawaz.

Fakhar, Babar and Talat can put up big scores. We also have great depth with Shadab at 8 who is a good batsman.

Yes just like we will ride on the Champions Trophy momentum and beat New Zealand in New Zealand. I have been hearing this nonsense for years, I am sorry if I do not buy it.

Just like 2009, 2012 and 2014, Australia will beat us in the UAE again. You can call me out on it if we beat them.

 

[Mamoon]

Tell me the problem with this top 6 if they live up to their potential:

Fakhar
Babar
Haris
Sarfraz
Talat
Shadab

Cricket is relative. It is not just names on paper, it is battle between the best other teams have to offer. This lineup might be better than our previous lineups, but is it as good as the lineups of the top teams? I don't think so.

None of these names get into the World XI.

 

[babajee]

Cricket is relative. It is not just names on paper, it is battle between the best other teams have to offer. This lineup might be better than our previous lineups, but is it as good as the lineups of the top teams? I don't think so.

None of these names get into the World XI.

I said, potential.

Anyway you could definitely make a case for Fakhar in the World XI at the moment.

Cricket is relative yes. England have a gun batting lineup but a club level bowling attack, Australia have a gun bowling lineup but an average batting lineup especially now with the loss of Warner and Smith. India have a superhuman top 3 but a practically non existent middle order and a decent/average bowling attack.

 

[Mamoon]

I said, potential.

Anyway you could definitely make a case for Fakhar in the World XI at the moment.

Cricket is relative yes. England have a gun batting lineup but a club level bowling attack, Australia have a gun bowling lineup but an average batting lineup especially now with the loss of Warner and Smith. India have a superhuman top 3 but a practically non existent middle order and a decent/average bowling attack.

There is no case for Fakhar in the World XI. He is only 13 ODIs old, and no team in the world would have Fakhar over Dhawan, Rohit, de Kock and even Amla in their team. In addition, we have names like Roy and Hales too.

Batsmen usually win you Limited Overs games. What we saw in the Champions Trophy was not the norm. If your batting is not powerful enough to consistently score 300+ on flat decks, you will lose more than you will win.

That is why England have battered us in ODIs over the last three years and will continue to batter us in the future in spite of having a so-called club level attack.

Warner's absence will hurt Australia in ODIs, but Smith is replaceable. Even without Warner, they should be able to beat us over a series.

India's bowling attack is not average. They have a world class fast bowler and their spin duo of Yadav and Chahal is the best spin bowling partnership in ODIs today. They also have the most exciting young all-rounder in the game.

Considering their legacy of producing batsmen, I feel it is only a matter of time before the find long-term replacements of Yuvraj, Dhoni and Raina in the middle-order. Anyway, as long as the GOAT is at the peak of his powers, they can get away with an underwhelming middle-order.

 

[R3verse Swing]

1. Pakistan's ODI and Tests rankings are low because they are deeply mediocre in both formats. Pakistan will not beat Australia, England, India, South Africa and New Zealand in a bilateral ODI series anywhere.

In Tests, Pakistan is unlikely to lose a home series to Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand, but they will lose a few matches and will not be ruthless like India are at home.

If we look at our record in the UAE, although we have not lost a series apart from the Sri Lankan one last year, we have lost Test matches to South Africa, New Zealand and even the West Indies, and England were literally minutes away from winning one in 2015.

Since the 2012 series vs England, India have been imperious at home, and have only lost a Test to Australia. Our home form is not comparable to their's. India will never lose a Test match to the current West Indies or Sri Lanka in India. Never.

As far as playing away is concerned, we are sitting ducks in bowling conditions. Had we played South Africa in the conditions that India played, we would have been blanked 3-0 mercilessly, just like we got thumped 6-0 in Australia and New Zealand. Heck, we even lost a Test match in Zimbabwe with our full strength team.

We did drew 2-2 in England in 2016, but the conditions favored us. If we face them in traditional English conditions, their is no chance of us salvaging anything.

India have battered Sri Lanka many times over the last 4 years, but they have battered all the other teams as well. They have won Test and ODI series against Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand. In T20s, Pakistan have won a grand total of 3 matches in 3 years against the major teams.

You have more front than Brighton.

I was merely pointing out the fact that you believe T20 rankings are flawed because Pakistan is #1, but consider Test/ODI rankings are spot on since India is higher and Pakistan in lower tier, despite Pakistan playing lesser games compared to other top-ranking teams. Moreover, you also claimed Test rankings were flawed when Pakistan WAS #1 in Tests.

No one is saying Pakistan should be #1 in ODIs/Tests, or even higher ranking in ODI/Test, but your selective decimation of the algorithm which is used for ALL 3 rankings is the point here. Meaning, if any other team was #1 in T20s, you would change your tune by saying all 3 rankings are spot on! Such is your hatred for Pakistan.

What’s worse is when Pakistan do win, it’s either a fluke, miracle, opponent’s mistake, or a weak opposition.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Yes just like we will ride on the Champions Trophy momentum and beat New Zealand in New Zealand. I have been hearing this nonsense for years, I am sorry if I do not buy it.

Just like 2009, 2012 and 2014, Australia will beat us in the UAE again. You can call me out on it if we beat them.

Oh but when/if Pakistan do beat Australia this year in any format you will then claim Pakistan did so because Warner and Smith were not playing.

I'm calling you out NOW.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=146465]R3verse Swing[/MENTION]

I think Pakistan will probably beat them in Tests but lose in Limited Overs, with or without Warner. I am glad that you have finally accepted my status as a Pakistani.

As far as negativity is concerned, my time on this forum has coincided with one of our worst phases ever in terms of cricket. I have lived through too many disappointing defeats to be optimistic about the future.

 

[babajee]

There is no case for Fakhar in the World XI. He is only 13 ODIs old, and no team in the world would have Fakhar over Dhawan, Rohit, de Kock and even Amla in their team. In addition, we have names like Roy and Hales too.

Batsmen usually win you Limited Overs games. What we saw in the Champions Trophy was not the norm. If your batting is not powerful enough to consistently score 300+ on flat decks, you will lose more than you will win.

That is why England have battered us in ODIs over the last three years and will continue to batter us in the future in spite of having a so-called club level attack.

Warner's absence will hurt Australia in ODIs, but Smith is replaceable. Even without Warner, they should be able to beat us over a series.

India's bowling attack is not average. They have a world class fast bowler and their spin duo of Yadav and Chahal is the best spin bowling partnership in ODIs today. They also have the most exciting young all-rounder in the game.

Considering their legacy of producing batsmen, I feel it is only a matter of time before the find long-term replacements of Yuvraj, Dhoni and Raina in the middle-order. Anyway, as long as the GOAT is at the peak of his powers, they can get away with an underwhelming middle-order.

Rohit is the most overrated player in the world. Bullies teams at home fair enough but outside home and in ICC tournaments he goes missing. The greatest HTB ever. De Kock and Amla are woefully out of form as well and Roy and Hales are very inconsistent. Dhawan is gold though.

Last series vs Australia it was Warner who mainly made the difference and batted us out of the game.

England have battered us when we have had players like Azhar, Malik, Hafeez, Younis, Rizwan etc in our batting lineup.

We can score 300 and will do so in the future.

India’s world class pacer is not an out and out wicket taker and will not hurt you 9 times out of 10. The likes of Pandya and BK are massive liabilities. Yadav and Chahal combination is good but won’t be as effective as we saw in SA outside Asia. The Saffers had the completely wrong approach to playing spin and gifted many wickets. Lol at most exciting young all rounder in the game - that is Shadab Khan. He is 10x the bowler Pandya is, a clutch batsman and one of the best fielders in the world.

India are struggling to find replacements too. Pant, Jadhav, Pandey are not good enough. Outside Asia, if you get GOAT out early India will lose 8/10 times

 

[backfootpunch]

I don't know where you get these " India will qualify 8/10 times " and " India will beat Pakistan 7/10 " stats from again and again. Where can I get this secret algorithm from? Nevermind cricket, this magical software has the potential to solve global warming.

Rather than being patronising - I will give you an exercise to do since the 2011 WC how many semis have India made in ICC LOI events? If I am correct it is more than 80% .

 

[Gotham Cronie]

India have played a lot of games against quality opposition. Their ranking is not built on beating the West Indies and Sri Lanka a thousand times, or filler games against the World XI and Scotland.

Please stop.

The World XI games had no bearing on the team ranking.

In the current rankings (which will be updated next month),

Pakistan have played

Scotland 0 times
Sri Lanka in 2 series
West Indies in 3 series


India have played

Sri Lanka in 4 series
West Indies in 2 series