It's time for Ganguly to step down @#$^&*

[sohum]

Murali Karthik is a funny sort of player. When he started off in Australia (was it?) he got thrashed over the park at around 5-6 an over in test cricket. But his recent performances certainly make him look much better. I think he's a good player but I think Harbhajan is equally good. Although one must say that our spin trio really do not seem to be too dangerous. Teams all around the world seem to be playing them with quite a lot of ease.

 

[sachinisgod]

Ajit...i am not going to use all those quotes...but the moment u started endorsing the ways and whims of PCB and on the top of that said that it functioned better than BCCI/ganguly-Wright Combo...thats the time I decided that there's no point in further debating the point with you...if you think a board that doesn't punish defaulters like Shoaib(Rawalpindi), that starts thinking of changing the captain, coach, chairman etc the moment their team loses a series(I know why you like them more - u too think like that)...BCCI is a feudal system compared to CA but it is 100 times better in functioning and decisions than PCB...

 

[bharat]

There are many problems in the BCCI.Many cases are going at various courts across India.

 

[sachinisgod]

and most decisions are coming out in the favor of the BCCI...

 

[m_vaughan]

2. The ICC ranking system is flawed.

I disagree. The ICC rankings are the correct indication of the consistency with which the teams play. So if you beat Australia one day and lose to Bangladesh the very next, you will have to pay for it.

 

[sohum]

About the BCCI, I think they have messed up big time recently although apart from that they seem to work well behind the scenes. But I think they messed up on the whole re-election and TV rights issue. And it sucked for cricket lovers because DD is nothing compared to Star/ESPN.

As for the ICC system, I think far better systems are in place than what the ICC uses. The system is so confusing for people to understand that people just accept it. Actually it isn't as confusing as the logic behind it--it's backed up with mathematics but it really seems useless to go into so much depth and playing with numbers. Apart form this, there is no weightage system according to the games won. Every game is weighted only according to the opposition.

I don't feel like arguing any more because I'm too lazy to come up with a thesis to back.

 

[m_vaughan]

there is no weightage system according to the games won. Every game is weighted only according to the opposition.

Thats how it should be. A 3-2 win over (say) India should be rated higher than a 5-0 win over (say) Bangladesh.

 

[pal]

Ganguly will retire in a few years, so no need to worry about him..

hint: This is just for testing..

 

[SaiSrini]

Ganguly will retire in a few years, so no need to worry about him..

This topic is a debate on whether Ganguly should step down from captaincy now or not!! After a few years, he will retire and this we know!! But the debate is if he should remain as the Indian captain currently!

 

[pal]

lol, to be serious, i only posted that message to see if my new avatar works properly, because it is exactly 150X150, which is the maximum allowed, so i wanted to see if it would fit...

 

[SaiSrini]

You could have tested it in some other thread, this one is being debated by many members. Or you could have posted a hint that you are testing ur posts!

 

[pal]

yes, massa.. ok, massa.. I will do as you wish from now on..

 

[sohum]

Thats how it should be. A 3-2 win over (say) India should be rated higher than a 5-0 win over (say) Bangladesh.

I don't know why you are stuck with the Bangladesh example. The current system takes into account the quality of opposition but not the setting of the match. Should you not get more points for winning say a final or a world cup? And even the quality of opposition is not perfectly captured in the ranking as the quality of opposition is based on the ranking.

 

[m_vaughan]

If I am not wrong you do get more points if you win a final of a tournament. I mean if you win the final, you basically win the tournament dont you?, and you get points for winning the tournament.

 

[sohum]

You do not get any points for winning a final. A final is not differentiated from any other match. The only thing that determines the amount of points you get from a game is who the opposition is. I am writing this from memory but this is sort of how the rating system goes (a hypothetical example):

India has 105 rating
Pakistan has 99 rating

The difference between the teams is less than 40 points so they are considered to be "close". Thus, if Pakistan wins, they score their own rating + 10 points (99+10 = 109 points) while India score their own rating - 10 points (105-10 = 95 points). Thus these points get added to the total points and then divided by the total number of matches. As far as I know, it only takes into consideration the opposition and not the nature of hte match. You can check this up at the ICC website.