The ICC Rankings

[formula1man]

Considering cricket doesnt have a tournament format, the rankings are all we have. Is the way the rankings are determined and therefore the table itself a good indication of the order of the teams? Also is there actually a trophy given out for being on top of these things? If so they should really make it a bigger deal and talk about it more.

 

[lancashire666]

you get this for being number 1 test side - the test mace

And I think the rankings are a pretty good indication of which are the best sides as it rewards a team for being good over a long period of time.

Its harder to get to number 1 in the world than to win the world cup, you only need to play well for 9 games to win the world cup, but have to play well for years to become number 1

 

[sifter132]

There's also some prize money attached to the Test table. If you are the top team on April 1 each year then you get the cash.

 

[6ry4nj]

There's also some prize money attached to the Test table. If you are the top team on April 1 each year then you get the cash.

In honour of the day you have the choice of Hungarian forints or Indonesian rupiah...

 

[formula1man]

There's also some prize money attached to the Test table. If you are the top team on April 1 each year then you get the cash.

I just wish there was a bit more of a big deal made of it however.

 

[Owzat]

Its harder to get to number 1 in the world than to win the world cup, you only need to play well for 9 games to win the world cup, but have to play well for years to become number 1

Not so sure that's entirely true. You can lose series, play poorly but win series, and all you need to do is be more consistent that other sides.

To win the World Cup you can't afford slip-ups, certainly not in the semis or final. Then it's do or die, if England lose say in UAE they could still retain the no 1 status. England have lost plenty of series including to lowly windies and when was the last time we beat India away, Pakistan away, Sri Lanka away or indeed South Africa away?

India - can't remember
Sri Lanka - 00/01 I think
Pakistan - 00/01
South Africa - 04/05
West Indies - 03/04?

Didn't we lose to South Africa last time they toured England? Ditto India tour before last. Point is while Tests may be the marathon (or snickers) to the World Cup's 100m, there are more chances to get your second wind in the marathon while the sprint is pure speed - and I'd prefer Tests/Test Championship to be a proper competition and not just accumulated rankings.

Unlike the World Cup, it takes time to fall from heady heights in the Test "Championship" like it can take time to get there. Were the aussies really the best side up to their eventual dethroning, or just staying there because of performances a few years ago?

 

[sifter132]

It depends on how strong the other teams are. Australia and India have been declining in Tests in the last few years, so England getting to #1 is good, but not a particularly difficult task when the competition is flawed. England getting to #1 in the late 90s/early 00s while Australia were going very well - now that would have been difficult.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

but you could say how hard it is to win the world cup is also dependent on the how good the other teams are.

personally I think that was a really good indian side, but would they have won it against 2007 australia? or had it not been held in india?

however, I do agree anyway, but I think the problem is that series are organised and scheduled from a money making perspective and not from a competitive perspective.

india/england/australia will always try and have long series against each other because they're good rivalries and there's a large audience, not because they'll always be competitive. but in times were other teams outside that have been competitive, south africa and sri lanka for example, they still don't get lengthy series'.

australia played something like two home tests at home against sri lanka in between 2004 and 20011 and that was it. they played india 14 times in the same period and england 20.

now that was a good sri lankan side in that time period, and playing in sri lanka against murali was undoubtedly one of crickets hardest tests (especially as sanga and jaya shored up the batting then) and while I think australia would have over come it again (as they did in 2004) a lesser team could certainly be accused of bolstering their ranking by repetedly playing mismatched tests against lesser opposition just because it's financially worthwhile.

in a world cup you have to beat the 2nd best team to win it, and one from 3rd and 4th best, because they'll keep winning as well until you clash with them.

 

[sifter132]

I suppose, but particularly with a quarter final format, World Cup's surely aren't as hard as being a consistently good Test team and getting to #1. Because the World Cup tries to get all the big teams to the quarters, the best 8 teams will get there pretty easily and once you make the quarters you only need 3 good games to win it.

And then you've got teams like SA who have been the favourite or 2nd favourite for every World Cup since 1996, yet have never even made the final - it just takes one slip up and you're out.

 

[Owzat]

but you could say how hard it is to win the world cup is also dependent on the how good the other teams are.

personally I think that was a really good indian side, but would they have won it against 2007 australia? or had it not been held in india?

So you can't say the said same of the rankings?!?!?! England go top once the aussies enter decline and the Indians seem a bit all over the place, there's no strong windies anymore and Pakistan are up and down as isn't unusual. Sri Lanka are now toothless without murali and malinga

I'd say England being top is about on par with their reaching the World Cup finals in 79, 87 and 92, maybe even less of a true achievement than that. The problem with the World Cup format is ????. TV want the big eight in a round robin, it backfired in 2007 with Pakistan and India suffering shocks in a shortened first group round so they made that round bigger and went to QFs. Teams can pick and choose who they play, how much etc.

England's away record is pretty weak, apart from trouncing a weakened aussie side. So how is that any different to India winning a World Cup in India with questionable strength opposition? Personally I feel that is a big achilles heel of the World Cup, the location issue. While England can't host it all the time, I fear the organisers want it played in the subcontinent due to the fanatical nature of their fans. Might even be a bit of bullying from the BCCI and their cohorts, threatening to break away if ICC don't blow them metaphorically

 

[sifter132]

Well it's a little bit of those factors, but I just think the Asian World Cups make more money, and it's hard to argue with that. That's what got the World Cup bid in 1996, an astonishing amount of promised revenue. And considering 4 of the 10 full members come from Asia, you'd think it has to be there every 8 years right? At most every 12 years.

 

[Owzat]

Well it's a little bit of those factors, but I just think the Asian World Cups make more money, and it's hard to argue with that. That's what got the World Cup bid in 1996, an astonishing amount of promised revenue. And considering 4 of the 10 full members come from Asia, you'd think it has to be there every 8 years right? At most every 12 years.

I'm not one to believe sports should sell their souls to ???? and $$$$ and TV, cricket should come first and unfortunately Asia doesn't offer a great variety in pitches, conditions etc. Not sure Bangladesh should count so much, they'd not host alone and so it's more 3 and a bit with them co-hosting a lot of the time anyway - so basically add up to one competition bid

So you have windies, asia, africa, England, Australia and kiwis if you don't count them as one continent/co-hosts. That's five venues to asia's one, don't see why cricket nutty nutters should have it every 2nd or 3rd cycle - especially as that contravenes my belief we need to spread the word worldwide about cricket, not just overdose a load of asians who mostly are turning to "their precious" IPL anyway.

World Cup wouldn't be the same without asian teams, BUT that and their financial draw shouldn't be the be all and end all of deciding the venue to stage a WORLD Cup. I'd like to see more countries playing Tests and ODIs, but that would require the "select" and "elite" chosen few making self sacrifice for the greater cause - the sport itself. If we could get a few South American countries, a few more from Africa, Europe and the rest of the world then we could have a proper league structure and GLOBAL recognition. At the moment it is not selling itself worldwide, countries need to be approved to play Tests and even sides that earned ODI status struggle to get proper recognition via tours.

It is a great sport, sadly it is so worried about preserving the status quo and bleeding joe public dry of money that it won't move into the 20th century let alone the 21st. Asia doesn't offer a level playing field for my money, and that is where major competitions should be held. It's ok for India and Sri Lanka to have big home advantage in Test and ODI series, but in the World Cup we want 6-8 teams to all have the same chances without favouring bowlers or batsmen accustomed to the conditions/pitches

 

[formula1man]

I mean Australia have been the best team for some time and when we host the world cup in 2015 it will be 23 years between cups.