ICC explains it all.

[Rik]

The rankings take account of the fact that India got through to the final playing Kenya in the Semi and lost to Australia in the final. Add those 2 series losses against mid-to-low table sides and you will see why they are rated so low. The rankings do not take into account the importance of the matches, they only take into account the strength of the opposition and the result. It's a table that changes after each match or series (not sure which), and therefor India's low position shows that they have lost to 2 teams they needed to beat to be ranked above. It all makes perfect sense and seems fair. I can't see where the ICC have "stuffed up" F_L...

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Who is to blame India to play the lesser nations though ? LOL ITS THE ICC !! they make up the international shedule for a country for the year and its upto the country to follow it from what i know... there are some flaws in the ICC's system which they need to look into deeper,
Okay if i understand India playing smaller nations doesnt help its rankings , then what benefit does becoming a runners up in World Cup 2003 give?

And also anilvarma has summed up his thoughts very well ..

 

[marc71178]

Wrong Lord, the ICC set up the Test programme, but they do not set up all these tinpot Tri-Series.

Also, is it the ICC stopping India and Pakistan playing? No.

Finally. Is it the ICC's fault that India lost 4-3 to WI and 5-2 to NZ?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Okay if i understand India playing smaller nations doesnt help its rankings , then what benefit does becoming a runners up in World Cup 2003 give?

When India play a weaker nation, they do benefit in rankings, but the benefit is not as great as if they play an equal or a stronger opposition. Playing against a Bangladesh or a Kenya is almost inconsequential because they are ranked so low. If Bangladesh were to win only one game against Australia though, they would experience a substance rise in their ranking.