Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[marc71178]

Because the ratings-system is a farce? Surely that's obvious to anyone?

Do better then wise guy.

Either way that doesn't say anything about the fact that they've been playing pretty poorly and getting the results they deserve, but you still can't give the other side credit for it.

 

[Richard]

Sorry?

You're copying tooextracool's attempts to dismiss stuff by saying "you're making it up, because I think you're wrong - so you have to be making it up, otherwise you'd be right".

Anyway i just proved you wrong on three occasions above.

No, you didn't.
Just coincidence that I've managed to come-up with an answer for everything, I suppose.

I can only begin to imagine how much crap you must have posted before my time. 10,000 posts. Thats a big waste of space.

Yeah, yeah - resort to insults if you must.

 

[Richard]

Do better then wise guy.

I've already told you that there was already a better system - the original simple one.
No, that wasn't faultless either, but that's the whole point as well - you can't do the thing faultlessly.
The best thing is purely and simply not to try to do the thing at all.

Either way that doesn't say anything about the fact that they've been playing pretty poorly and getting the results they deserve, but you still can't give the other side credit for it.

Because it was just a poor side beating an even poorer side.

 

[marc71178]

Of course, yes. New Zealand are poor aren't they?

I forgot that you can decide that sort of thing and ignore their record (which has only recently taken a downturn)

 

[Richard Rash]

No, you didn't.
Just coincidence that I've managed to come-up with an answer for everything, I suppose.

No you haven't. You haven't replied to my last three statments further up because you have run out of things to say to back your very poor argument up presumably.

 

[marc71178]

I've already told you that there was already a better system - the original simple one.

How was a system that rated SA as number 1 when the Australian side was at just about it's strongest a better system then?

 

[Pratters]

How was a system that rated SA as number 1 when the Australian side was at just about it's strongest a better system then?

The original system was flawed because every one didnt the other teams by then. South Africa beat Bangladesh I think and got to number one. Australia hadnt played Bangladesh by then. It was a flaw which should have been removed from the system.

Apart from that, the system was dran good and simple to understand. Effective as well.

 

[marc71178]

But it paid no attention to dominance.

Say, for arguments sake, Australia won every series with white-washes but lost 2-1 twice against SA, and SA won every series 2-1.

That would then have SA top, when Australia are far more dominant.

A system doesn't have to be that simple to be effective (just look at PwC)

 

[tooextracool]

Which all depends on the perception.
They've hardly played any series that provide a fair test for ages - either at home or away to subcontinental teams (which most sides win and lose respectively), against Bangladesh, or at home to West Indies (both of which everyone wins).
The New Zealand series was the only real 50\50 series since the combined Australia series in 2001\02. The England one is the next one.
If they lose that, we can describe them as a side playing poorly.

well losing 5-1 to australia says a lot. and personally, most teams end up beating pakistan in pakistan so really losing to them is only an indication of being poor.

 

[tooextracool]

Dippenaar maybe, but McKenzie after the Trent Bridge Test had an average in the middle-order of 40 (and surely you'll agree that it's totally ridiculous to include opening innings in a middle-order player's career). It's only since the test at The Oval that McKenzie's started to underperform so woefully.

another way of looking at it, is that he averages 40+ at home and 28 away. again not something of a test class player.

You deserve to lose if you bat rubbish.
Otherwise, even if you bowl poorly you still deserve to draw if you bat well.
In this one match, South Africa didn't (aided by Martin's unusual good match). So they deserved to lose. But they had to underperform to do so.

and they played poorly because martin bowled well, hence they didnt under perform, just that the opposition actually bowled well.

 

[Pratters]

But it paid no attention to dominance.

Say, for arguments sake, Australia won every series with white-washes but lost 2-1 twice against SA, and SA won every series 2-1.

That would then have SA top, when Australia are far more dominant.

A system doesn't have to be that simple to be effective (just look at PwC)

If you win a series 2-1 or 4-0, the net result is a win which should be most imprtant in the end. Its the same as football where if you win a match 6-0 or 1-0, the points rewarded are equal. Like Goal Difference, a mach win-loss difference could eb computed to find out which team has been better in case of tie after computer series points.

but the current system is too complex for any one to follow properly. The last one gave most points to the team which has dominated the series' most. If they had played equal number of series against same teams, the South Africa achieving number one wouldnt have happened. A sligh modification was required which the ICC obviously didtn have the insight to have.

 

[tooextracool]

Even being hammered by Australia was rather predictable given that every other side had gone to pieces, dropped catches and suffered injuries and other omissions - add that to the sequence I've shown above.

it was predictable because they were no longer a good side, and their poor bowling showed up.

 

[tooextracool]

He didn't play The First Test - his contribution to The Third didn't save them from defeat.
If he hadn't bowled well in The Second, it would have been drawn and the series - with hindsight - lost..

which changes the fact that he bowled well throughout the series how? he took 18 wickets from 2 games, certainly more than 1 good spell in the entire series.

It was even poorer than ever that game - normally you can at least rely on accuracy (which is all you really need to stop Styris getting a score) even if you can't rely on penetration.

this is a load of rubbish. the SA bowlers were as accurate as always. the only reason why pollock(since hes the only one who is usually economical anyways) had a poor ER was because players like cairns and oram smashed them all over the park not because of the bowlers bowling any worse.
with regard to series, yes he maybe poor, but hes quite capable of hammering un pentrative bowlers on flat pitches, as his 119 in india would say.

 

[tooextracool]

Why not?

so if australia beats bangladesh does it mean they dont deserve to win since bangladesh is poor?

 

[tooextracool]

It is.
It didn't play like it in that match, but it is nonetheless - it played like it on most other occasions.

we've already dealt with the other occasions, such as the hammering in pakistan, SL, india and against australia.

 

[tooextracool]

Because the ratings-system is a farce? Surely that's obvious to anyone?
Almost everyone loses in Sri Lanka and India - likewise almost everyone beats all the subcontinental teams and West Indies at home, and loses to Australia.
The only true genuine contests for South Africa are against New Zealand and England.
Because they've drawn two series they should have won - and are now on track to lose another - their results seem poor.

yes thats the important thing, they were too poor to win the 2 series in NZ and england. hardly surprising that you failed to bring up their loss in pakistan either.

 

[marc71178]

but the current system is too complex for any one to follow properly.

Actually no, it's a fairly simple concept that doesn't take much understanding

 

[Richard]

Of course, yes. New Zealand are poor aren't they?

I forgot that you can decide that sort of thing and ignore their record (which has only recently taken a downturn)

And I've already shown why their record taken simply on surface-value is incredibly deceptive.

 

[Richard]

No you haven't. You haven't replied to my last three statments further up because you have run out of things to say to back your very poor argument up presumably.

Probably because I hadn't actually noticed them.
Soon to be corrected.

 

[Richard]

How was a system that rated SA as number 1 when the Australian side was at just about it's strongest a better system then?

Because all it needed was a little patience.
South Africa would have been ranked 1 for 5 months at the most.
The best team doesn't always top the table - Aston Villa lead the Premiership for more than 1\2 the season in 1998\99 - and for crying-out-loud, Ipswich were genuine contenders for a top-three place in 2002\03 (IIRR - might have been 2001\02).