General Cricket Discussion

 
Anyone else feels like the points system is flawed?

For example, India is sitting at 120 points after just 2 matches. Compare that with the Ashes, a more fiercely contested series, and England or Australia will have to make a clean sweep over a longer duration to get to that position. Surely a 5-0 scoreline portrays more dominance than a 2-0? Or in other words, is achieving 2-0 the same as 5-0?
 
asprin said:
Anyone else feels like the points system is flawed?

For example, India is sitting at 120 points after just 2 matches. Compare that with the Ashes, a more fiercely contested series, and England or Australia will have to make a clean sweep over a longer duration to get to that position. Surely a 5-0 scoreline portrays more dominance than a 2-0? Or in other words, is achieving 2-0 the same as 5-0?
Click to expand...

But if we give same points for all those matches then the teams playing more matches gets an added advantage. The fact is the number of series played are same for all teams and not all teams play similar number of matches. The fact is that all countries can't afford those long series and also it makes the schedule quite a lot more hectic for the players as well. It maybe flawed but it puts emphasis on winning and losing.
 
NilayShah60 said:
The fact is the number of series played are same for all teams and not all teams play similar number of matches
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes sense then. I was not aware that the number of series stays the same for each team.
 
On second thoughts, are the number of matches played by each team the same at the end? It's unbalanced if that is not the case.

For ex:

Team A plays 3 series (2 matches, 3 matches, 3 matches)

Team B plays 3 series as well (2 matches, 5 matches, 3 matches)

In both cases, 360 points are up for grabs, but Team B has to win more matches than Team A to reach 360.

One can argue that Team B may have a easier opponent in one of the series, but that doesn't take away the fact that Team B will be playing more and thus working more to achieve the same result as Team A.
 
NilayShah60 said:
But if we give same points for all those matches then the teams playing more matches gets an added advantage. The fact is the number of series played are same for all teams and not all teams play similar number of matches. The fact is that all countries can't afford those long series and also it makes the schedule quite a lot more hectic for the players as well. It maybe flawed but it puts emphasis on winning and losing.
Click to expand...
It's an improvement to give test cricket some meaning but is undoubtedly flawed.
 
Bevab said:
Extremely unlikely that we shall see a comeback from them on the international stage anytime soon. A shame as they had some wonderful players during their peak.
Click to expand...

If you are saying this because of the result then you are being rather harsh on them and that too in a T20I format. Even India have lost 2 matches to Zimbabwe in this format but we still support them right ? And just look at the side, there are majorly same players that played in a side that defeated India. If any other reason then please explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aussie1st
  • Locked
New Cricket Chat Rules
Replies
0
Views
3K
aussie1st
aussie1st
N
  • Poll
Reliving Virat Kohli- The Captain
9 10 11
Replies
150
Views
20K
NILAYSHAH60
N
icyman
  • Poll
Future Indian Captains
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
asprin
asprin
Satan666
Underrated/Overrated Players
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
icyman
icyman
ddrap14
Draft: The Fender Feud Draft
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ddrap14
ddrap14

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top