ODI Status

[Richard]

International cricket should be between 2 countries. It's that simple. Any time a World or Continental XI is involved, it should be given List A or first-class status.

Or charity stroll-in-the-park, for the occasions when that's what it is.

 

[GIMH]

International cricket should be between 2 countries. It's that simple. Any time a World or Continental XI is involved, it should be given List A or first-class status.

Yeah, agree with this completely

 

[Poker Boy]

Of course they shouldn't be ODIs (neither should non WC games involving ICC associates) but that's the common sense argument which is why the ICC don't agree with it. By all accounts the 1970 ROW games where far more competitive than the ICC "Waste of Time" (sorry Super) series and I read somewhere there was an Australia v ROW series in the 1970s too which featrued Lillee taking eight wickets for not many and a Sobers 250 that Bradman said was his idea of the perfect innings so that was obviously Test quality.It should be "all or nothing" either give these games retrospective Test status or take it away from the 2005 game but don't hold your breath...

 

[Richard]

Of course they shouldn't be ODIs (neither should non WC games involving ICC associates)

Could quite happily live with WC games involving associates not being ODIs either.

but that's the common sense argument which is why the ICC don't agree with it. By all accounts the 1970 ROW games where far more competitive than the ICC "Waste of Time" (sorry Super) series and I read somewhere there was an Australia v ROW series in the 1970s too which featrued Lillee taking eight wickets for not many and a Sobers 250 that Bradman said was his idea of the perfect innings so that was obviously Test quality.It should be "all or nothing" either give these games retrospective Test status or take it away from the 2005 game but don't hold your breath...

Never know - someone with some sense might organise a coup and sort this out...

 

[sohummisra]

Not really, his stats (against Test-class teams) of the last 4 years have been distinctly average.

Again, it becomes a question of which statistic you wish to see. If you wish to see his stats against Test-class teams of the last 4 years to determine if he's the better batsmen, surely it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to filter by matches played for a country, rather than a mixed-nationality opposition. Tendulkar still leads aggregate runs in ODIs and Tests by a fair margin, but anyone who has watched cricket recently knows that he has not been in the top 3 batsmen in the world in recent times. The statistics provide the proof for that, but should not provide the basis.

Why even bother having the classification at all, then? Simple. Because it matters from a statistical POV. Most cricket followers love stats, and you need a status feudal system (ODI, List-A-limited-overs, and I'd have a third one - List-B-limited-overs) to generate that.

I'd definitely agree that you need to separate ODI, List-A and List-B. But this tournament was devised as one that pitted international players against each other, which is definitely of the same league as (if not higher than) international cricket. That the players decided to opt out is another thing altogether, and one that neither the ACC, ACA or ICC foresaw (although they should have when the latter devised the FTP).

Classifying Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka as the same as South Africa vs Pakistan is ludicrous.

I'm not sure I understand this... In the long run, the statistical importance of the games against 'minnows' has a lesser effect. Also, by this system you will have to keep shuffling teams around and that will cause a larger headache for statisticians than the introduction of mixed-nationality teams has caused. For example, West Indies, by all tokens, would qualify to the highest rung in the 70's and 80's but now they would have to strive to reach the middle rung.

I'm a statistics whore myself, and I agree that most cricket fans are, to a certain degree. But statistics never tell the whole story. In short, statistics are only important for the statistics themselves, and not the actual cricket being played.

 

[sohummisra]

International cricket should be between 2 countries. It's that simple. Any time a World or Continental XI is involved, it should be given List A or first-class status.

That is the opinion of the majority of cricket fans. Surely one can understand the basis of labeling as international cricket a match involving 7-8 countries, though?

 

[sohummisra]

Of course they shouldn't be ODIs (neither should non WC games involving ICC associates) but that's the common sense argument which is why the ICC don't agree with it. By all accounts the 1970 ROW games where far more competitive than the ICC "Waste of Time" (sorry Super) series and I read somewhere there was an Australia v ROW series in the 1970s too which featrued Lillee taking eight wickets for not many and a Sobers 250 that Bradman said was his idea of the perfect innings so that was obviously Test quality.It should be "all or nothing" either give these games retrospective Test status or take it away from the 2005 game but don't hold your breath...

Whose opinion should be used? You cited Bradman's as a basis to claim that those series are test quality. Was Shaun Pollock's century not ODI quality? He was not exactly playing a bunch of useless bowlers--Mortaza, Zaheer, Asif and Harbhajan usually make it to their country's first team on a regular basis. It's a Catch-22 situation to wait after the series is over to award it international status, as well. If it's international status, it is more likely that international super-stars will come and make it worthwhile. If it's not awarded status beforehand, the star players may not participate, and you will never know if the series would be worthwhile or not.

The simplest thing would be to introduce a new class of matches for this very purpose. These matches aren't quite Tests (as per the traditional definition) or ODIs (they're a modern version of the game, so the definition isn't quite traditionally rooted) but they are not quite List A or First Class games, either.

 

[sohummisra]

Never know - someone with some sense might organise a coup and sort this out...

Need to get the statistician community in touch with the underworld.

 

[Richard]

Again, it becomes a question of which statistic you wish to see. If you wish to see his stats against Test-class teams of the last 4 years to determine if he's the better batsmen, surely it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to filter by matches played for a country, rather than a mixed-nationality opposition. Tendulkar still leads aggregate runs in ODIs and Tests by a fair margin, but anyone who has watched cricket recently knows that he has not been in the top 3 batsmen in the world in recent times. The statistics provide the proof for that, but should not provide the basis.

The key with stats is to look beyond the obvious. An overall career average rarely tells you much about a player with a career of much length. Sure, it's easy enough to filter-out the stuff that shouldn't be there, but most of the time the stats that are presented don't do such a thing. You've got to make your own stats if you want the interesting stuff, and only the really committed do that.

I'd definitely agree that you need to separate ODI, List-A and List-B. But this tournament was devised as one that pitted international players against each other, which is definitely of the same league as (if not higher than) international cricket. That the players decided to opt out is another thing altogether, and one that neither the ACC, ACA or ICC foresaw (although they should have when the latter devised the FTP).

I agree - but there's no reason you can't be both flexible and retrospective. It's turned-out these games don't really deserve ODI status, so strip it of them when that become apparent.

I'm not sure I understand this... In the long run, the statistical importance of the games against 'minnows' has a lesser effect. Also, by this system you will have to keep shuffling teams around and that will cause a larger headache for statisticians than the introduction of mixed-nationality teams has caused. For example, West Indies, by all tokens, would qualify to the highest rung in the 70's and 80's but now they would have to strive to reach the middle rung.

Nah, there's just 2 things - ODI-class and not ODI-class. WI have always been. Almost invariably, if a team becomes Test\ODI class it stays that way. Only Zimbabwe have ever ceased to be having been. WI are bad, but there's no way they're no longer good enough to be Test\ODI playing. Bangladesh, TBH, weren't the best analogy because they're currently an undecided case - they may be just about to break into the big-time. Canada would have been a better team to replace them with.

But games against substandard sides have a huge effect - look at Mohammad Yousuf, for instance. There was a time when adding Bangladesh to his real Test-matches increased his average by about 7 or 8 runs. And the effect in ODIs is potentially even greater.

 

[Richard]

Need to get the statistician community in touch with the underworld.

I have my plans...

 

[pasag]

Agree that stats aren't the be all and end all and shouldn't play a major part in determining status or anything and I don't see them really as anything more than a tool to use in debates on forums and discussions with mates (although I hold them highly in that regard and is another reason why cricket is awesome). But still, these should not be given status regardless, for the reasons Brumby and sideshowtim pointed out.

 

[stumpski]

And surely, the meaning of 'international' is, between nations? You can make an exception for West Indies, but not the Rest of the World.

Bill Frindall is still refusing to include these matches in his records section in Playfair. I know he feels quite strongly about this.

 

[sohummisra]

Meh, I still don't agree with the exact theory of staying away from it because it will 'pollute the integrity of international cricket', which is essentially how I read that argument.

 

[Richard]

And surely, the meaning of 'international' is, between nations? You can make an exception for West Indies, but not the Rest of the World.

Not neccessarily, but any team which has "Rest Of" in the title I'm always hugely reluctant about having any status at all.

 

[Richard]

Meh, I still don't agree with the exact theory of staying away from it because it will 'pollute the integrity of international cricket', which is essentially how I read that argument.

Haha, I do. Elitism is precious to cricket for the most part.

Can't imagine Finland playing Tests and nor can many.

 

[sohummisra]

And surely, the meaning of 'international' is, between nations? You can make an exception for West Indies, but not the Rest of the World.

Depends on what level you want to interpret nations. It is a competition between nations, it is just that it is many nations competing against many nations, rather than one nation against another. I especially think the statistics problem has less of an importance in ODI cricket which was but invented recently. Test cricket separation I agree with, seeing that it has a longish history behind it.

 

[sohummisra]

Haha, I do. Elitism is precious to cricket for the most part.

Can't imagine Finland playing Tests and nor can many.

Forget Finland. The Rest of the World need to prepare for China.

 

[stumpski]

Don't have any problem with the expansion of ODI status to the best of the Associate countries, though. After all, dozens of countries play football internationals, some of them downright awful - but as far as I know nobody has suggested taking away international status away from matches involving Liechtenstein, San Marino and the like. When Germany beat San Marino (or whoever it was) 13-0 last year, was anyone saying the goals shouldn't count in the players' records?

 

[Richard]

Football's not elitist the way cricket is.

 

[silentstriker]

To be honest, what does it matter whether a match has official ODI status or not? The only people it should matter to is statisticians and stat-whores, which basically causes a bit of a headache to them. Apart from that, I don't think ODI status has any meaning for the cricket fan, really.

My head will explode. Stats are amazingly important to the game of cricket, and anything that devalues them is automatically not good for the sport in my opinion.

Stats are only as important as we wish them to be. Especially if you're Indian, because statistics are the only thing that is keeping Sachin Tendulkar at the top of the current batsmen in the world.

He isn't at the top if you look at statistics, and hasn't been for at least five years. It's up to you to analyze statistics properly.

Cricket fans = stat-whores in my experience. Especially @ CW

Yup. I think most serious cricket fans would categorize themselves this way. Not all, but a good majority I feel.

I don't see them really as anything more than a tool to use in debates on forums and discussions with mates

That's disturbing pasag, really disturbing to hear.