Bangladesh may miss out on Champions Trophy

[sirjeremy11]

The format for this years Champions Trophy sees the top 6 ranked ODI countries automatically qualify, and then the next four having to play off against each other for the last two spots. The rankings will be taken on April 1. This puts Bangladesh in a rather interesting position. Here are the possible rankings for Kenya, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe at April 1...

Kenya win 5-0 - KEN 78 ZIM 38
Kenya win 4-1 - KEN 62 ZIM 40
Kenya win 3-2 - KEN 38 ZIM 47
Zim win 3-2 - KEN 30 ZIM 46
Zim win 4-1 - KEN 15 ZIM 47
Zim win 5-0 - KEN 12 ZIM 48

(Please note - Kenya and Zimbabwe ratings are approximate as, depending on the order the games are won and lost by each team, they will get different points. This is because of some rule where you get more/less points depending on the closeness/disparity of the teams. But give or take a couple of points, the above is what will happen)

Bangladesh win 3-0 (vs SL) - 25
Bangladesh win 2-1 - 21
SL win 2-1 - 17
SL win 3-0 - 13

As you can see, even if Kenya only win 1 or 2 of these games, Bangladesh are in big trouble. Not only will this put them in a poor light, but it will make a mockery of the ICC's ranking system, and hence, their "Champions" Trophy. And since there are no more ODI's scheduled for these teams before April 1, the only way the ICC will keep Kenya out of this one is if they say they haven't played enough games to have a "Full Rating" and so do not qualify.

Personally, I would like to see Kenya in ahead of Zimbabwe and keep Bangladesh.

The other thing is that as the even is being held in India, it would be a shame if Bangladesh were not included in it.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't see how it would make a mockery of the rankings system, though I generally don't support such systems. IMO Kenya is a better ODI outfit than Bangladesh and the rankings should at least reflect that.

I think the ICC will find a way for Bangladesh to play in the CT, as Bangladesh is their little pet project and the ICC is essentially run by Asia. I've read that Zimbabwe is in the greatest danger of missing out (among Test-playing nations) pending the result of their series against Kenya. I don't know the intricacies of the situation though.

[sirjeremy11]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I don't see how it would make a mockery of the rankings system, though I generally don't support such systems. IMO Kenya is a better ODI outfit than Bangladesh and the rankings should at least reflect that.

I think the ICC will find a way for Bangladesh to play in the CT, as Bangladesh is their little pet project and the ICC is essentially run by Asia. I've read that Zimbabwe is in the greatest danger of missing out (among Test-playing nations) pending the result of their series against Kenya. I don't know the intricacies of the situation though.

I think it makes a mockery of the rankings systems when Kenya can come along, play a few games against a very weak Zimbabwe side, and potentially, depending on a couple of current series, be ranked just under West Indies. The other mockery it makes is that there is no way that Zim are better than Bangladesh at the moment. And if Bangladesh miss out to Zim at the Champions Trophy...

And the intricacies of the situation are stated above. Unless ICC do something about Zimbabwe or somehow change their own rules, Bangladesh are very likely to miss out on this competition.

[sirjeremy11]

And I am certain that good old BCCI would much rather have Bangladesh in there than Zimbabwe...

[Richard]

However clever a mathematician David Kendix is, I feel he was misguided in something when drawing-up his ODI rankings.
The best way to do ODI rankings would be to simply class every game between the top 8 as equal (totally exclude those outside the top 8), then add all runs scored, add all overs faced (assume a side who's been bowled-out has faced all their allotted overs), divide one by the other and rank accordingly.

[sirjeremy11]

Originally Posted by Richard

However clever a mathematician David Kendix is, I feel he was misguided in something when drawing-up his ODI rankings.
The best way to do ODI rankings would be to simply class every game between the top 8 as equal (totally exclude those outside the top 8), then add all runs scored, add all overs faced (assume a side who's been bowled-out has faced all their allotted overs), divide one by the other and rank accordingly.

Yes. Unfortunately, they have not come up with a formula that takes into account what happens when all the best players leave their team due to being completely disillusioned. I hear they are working on one though that will use logarithms to take into account that you have yet to reach your potential.

My main point is that the ICC's little pet project (Bang), may well be left out of one of their showpeice fixtures because of a system that they take as gospel. Why not just say who they want in the damn thing and go from there? They probably will anyway!

[Richard]

You simply can't try to define such things. Even when West Indies did lose most of their front-line players they were still much stronger than Zimbabwe have been post-fallout.
You just have to make a differential between "ODI-class" and "not ODI-class" and then classify all games equally.

[sirjeremy11]

Well, when it comes to West Indies, they will certainly be playing the qualifying round of the Champions Trophy, while the other team looks like being either England (depending on how the first two games against India) or Sri Lanka (who have 3 ODI's vs Pakistan). They will be pitted against Zimbabwe and Kenya (unless, as I have said above, rules and/or results change) to see who qualifies. Hopefully, we get Zim vs Eng, and Windies vs Ken - two fixtures with a little history behind them.

Still would rather see Bangladesh though...

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

However clever a mathematician David Kendix is, I feel he was misguided in something when drawing-up his ODI rankings.
The best way to do ODI rankings would be to simply class every game between the top 8 as equal (totally exclude those outside the top 8), then add all runs scored, add all overs faced (assume a side who's been bowled-out has faced all their allotted overs), divide one by the other and rank accordingly.

And then how exactly do they incorporate Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (who are full test nations), Kenya (who are a full ODI nation), and the teams which qualify for ODI status on the back of good placings in the ICC Trophy? Just give them a static ranking and change it on a whim?

That ranking system would be utterly ridiculous, and defeat the purpose of having the ranking system to begin with (seeding for the world cup).

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I don't see how it would make a mockery of the rankings system, though I generally don't support such systems. IMO Kenya is a better ODI outfit than Bangladesh and the rankings should at least reflect that.

Absolutely spot on.

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I think the ICC will find a way for Bangladesh to play in the CT,

Now THAT would make a mockery of the system and everything else.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

And then how exactly do they incorporate Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (who are full test nations), Kenya (who are a full ODI nation), and the teams which qualify for ODI status on the back of good placings in the ICC Trophy? Just give them a static ranking and change it on a whim?

That ranking system would be utterly ridiculous, and defeat the purpose of having the ranking system to begin with (seeding for the world cup).

No, you just don't include Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe or any other Associate Nations.
Give them their own ranking - most people can quite clearly see that they're totally in a different league to the top eight.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, you just don't include Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe or any other Associate Nations.
Give them their own ranking - most people can quite clearly see that they're totally in a different league to the top eight.

They aren't associate nations, two of them are test nations and Kenya (along with 4 other nations now) are ODI nations. How exactly would a ranking only of the top 8 countries help determine seedings for the world cup? And, incidentally, how would it deal with incidents such as Bangladesh beating Australia? Did that just not happen in your world?

[Jono]

SJS I love your sig.

When I was 12th man in one game this season I decided to take a viewpoint that I was the Pratt of my team after I took a stunning catch on the square leg boundary when I was subbed on the field. From now on I'll use Tendulkar as an example if I'm ever 12th man again.

That and I'll complain to the selectors that bringing down gun players from the higher grades when they have a bye is BS. Especially since our win that game was protested and we lost the points. 8-X

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

They aren't associate nations, two of them are test nations and Kenya (along with 4 other nations now) are ODI nations. How exactly would a ranking only of the top 8 countries help determine seedings for the world cup? And, incidentally, how would it deal with incidents such as Bangladesh beating Australia? Did that just not happen in your world?

Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent Kenya's level of cricket is much more comparable to that of the Associate Nations than the top 8. Look carefully, I never said any were Associate Nations.
Seedings for the World Cup don't need to bother with the non-ODI-standard teams - the format is clearly designed to get rid of the 8 substandard teams quickly and allow the top 8 to play most of the cricket. Whoever gets whoever outside the top 8, it's the same thing. They'll thrash them anyway (unless someone gets food-poisoning again like Sri Lanka in 2003).
Bangladesh beating Australia was comparable to Somerset beating Australia.
How do you deal with that?
Why, prey, do you need to deal with that?
Rankings refer only to teams contained within their number.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by sirjeremy11

Bangladesh are very likely to miss out on this competition.

Thats not a bad thing, the only problem is the fact that Zimbabwe would replace them