Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
No, a team falling from second to sixth in the rankings due to an away series in Sri Lanka is a joke.
Whilst your desire to see New Zealand cricket on a secure financial footing is laudable, don't you think that the time for moaning about the allocation of the seedings for this tournament should have been made a long, long time ago?cbuts said:cricket is a sport, wth bills, without money the game fails. the quality of domestic cricket slips - it was only 2 seasons ago our domestic players went on strike because of no money in the game. i simply want the game in my country to survive at a competitive level.
Yup, it's a bit hard to win 5-1 when you play three games, isn't it?cbuts said:beating who 2-1, we beat pak 5-1
http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/odi/archive.htmlsouth africas fall from started witht eh nat series last year. they wernt no.2 when they came to nz, and they werent no 2 when they left ehre and went to srilanka either. they were about 5th from memory
So why keep banging on about it? All you're doing is annoying people (well, you're certainly annoying me anyway).cbuts said:if u read my first post, u will see that i mentioned that this arguement is a very old one
Granted, they were fourth (because the ICC system suddenly removes a whole year of matches without anyone playing anything...)cbuts said:remeber the rankings recaculatoin that would of taken place before that tour to srilanka.
as i said they wernt no.2 when they wne tto sri lanka.
Correct. However, England only played three matches against Pakistan, so they weren't given the opportunity to win 5-1 (they might, they might not...who knows?)cbuts said:actually the pakistan - nz series in nz, in jan/feb was either a 5 or 6 game series.
But they were. The trouble was, due to TV rights, they had to schedule the matches four months in advance.cbuts said:i ahvent brought up this topic for months. and i feel since the tournament has now progressed to this stage its a sensible time to bring it up. do it on the rankings. aus and sa - 1v8. srilanka and india - 2v7, nz v wi - 3 v 6 and pak v eng- 4v5
Funnily enough, everybody here apart from the New Zealanders acknowledge the Pickup/Bazza rankings...cbuts said:well i dont think we have been ranked 8th for a long time. i personally like they way the icc does the rankings. ive yet to see a fairier system.
NatWest Challenge 2003.i dont remeber england playing pakistan recently???
However, it is not a long time (cricket-wise at least) as you mentioned in your last post. A cut-off is always arbitrary, and to go by rankings at the start of the year seems sensible to me.cbuts said:funnily enough december is a bit further back than 4 months as mentioned in ur last post.
Funny, because the ICC rankings who are held in such high esteem include all ODIs since August 2001...alot changes in a 14 months. to go back to a series that long is just stupid
Do the same with tests and you'd be joint bottom with the Windies.cbuts said:yea but it carries only a littleweighting. 8 months of cricket changes alot. personally u need to go to the latest possilble
You are missing the point.cbuts said:??? the very latest ranknigs still ahs us a long way above the windies
How are Pakistan (for beating India), England (for beating Sri Lanka) and West Indies (for beating South Africa) average?cbuts said:why should average teams get through to the higher rounds,
cbuts said:the large amount of prze money that we misse dout on due to this draw **** up will ahve effects for nz cirkcet in the future.