Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: If 2007 World cup pools were based on team rankings in the 2003 world cup

  1. #16
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,500
    FIFA World Rankings are to an extent used to determine seedings, but they are extremely discredited round the world, USA are at #5, while they are a decent side they are never top 5 material, and it is BECAUSE FIFa gives out more points for some tournaments than others.

    Laregly though, performance in qualifying and the last 2 world cups is what decides seeding, and this is why England got Paraguay and Trinidad
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  2. #17
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    So... football rankings are stupidly weighted too?
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #18
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Indeed?
    Do you think you could actually describe them, then?
    They weight performances based on competition and level of opposition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Well, obviously - I've never had a problem with that.
    So why do you in Cricket?



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    No?
    Most series\tournaments involve 3-5 games between each side, depending on various factors.
    Just one example will show how unbalanced teams are in the amount they play each other:

    England since 1/1/04 have played 43 ODIs:

    Australia - 8
    Bangladesh - 3
    India - 3
    New Zealand - 2
    Pakistan - 5
    South Africa - 7
    Sri Lanka - 1
    West Indies - 9
    ZImbabwe - 5

    So your simple points system immediately falls down as it doesn't have equality of games played.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    So why do you in Cricket?
    Err - I don't, Einstein - I have a problem with the system itself.
    Just one example will show how unbalanced teams are in the amount they play each other:

    England since 1/1/04 have played 43 ODIs:

    Australia - 8
    Bangladesh - 3
    India - 3
    New Zealand - 2
    Pakistan - 5
    South Africa - 7
    Sri Lanka - 1
    West Indies - 9
    ZImbabwe - 5

    So your simple points system immediately falls down as it doesn't have equality of games played.
    Which doesn't especially matter - you're never going to get exactness on anything, and for me the strength of the opposition was relatively constant.


  5. #20
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,680
    In a league where all play all you get exactness so a simple points system works.

    In international cricket, no such level happens so a simple points system would be a recipe for total farce.

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    In Test cricket, we had, previously, a simple system where all played all, only the most recent was counted, and all points were distributed equally.
    Then ICC decided they couldn't stomach South Africa being top for a couple of months (when The FA stomach Coventry or Middlesbrough being top for a couple of early rounds quite easily) and they had to have a World-renowned mathematician create this artiface.
    All right, that's not possible in ODIs, but I question why something similar can't be adopted instead of the current ludicrous system.

  7. #22
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    In Test cricket, we had, previously, a simple system where all played all, only the most recent was counted, and all points were distributed equally.
    And games from 5 years ago had relevance - which is useful how exactly?

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Err - it was the last time they played each other, chum...
    You could argue the same: games from September had relevance in April? How?

  9. #24
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,500
    Yes, FIFA rankings are stupid, but I don't think many people take much notice of them, France won the World Cup in 98 and the Euros in 2000, and were easily the best side in the world but they were ranked at 2, because Brazil got to the World Cup Final and won the Copa America (I think).

    Basing teams on their last results would seem fairer, though I suppose it would bring in results from years ago, home draws for ZImbabwe against New Zealand and England, and most notably, an away win in Pakistan.

    Though, that's in Test and we're talking ODIs

    nevermind

  10. #25
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I'd simply completely ignore anything regarding Zimbabwe and Bangadesh, anyway - not least because Zimbabwe have missed Test-series they'd otherwise have played due to the fact that their Test status has been temporarily withdrawn, twice.

  11. #26
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Err - it was the last time they played each other, chum...
    You could argue the same: games from September had relevance in April? How?
    Well let's think about it - the sides are broadly the same.

    Certainly far more similar than from games 5 years ago as your system would advocate.

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Err, I think not.
    In Test cricket there is far less change than in club football - never mind club football a few years ago (pre transfer-windows).

  13. #28
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,680
    So you're going to counter my point by reiterating it?

    That's a new form of debating...

  14. #29
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Err, what?
    You said 5 years was a long time in Test cricket. I said, no, not really it isn't.

  15. #30
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,680
    5 years is a heck of a long time - teams have changed so much in that time that a game from 5 years is irrelevant to current sides.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Cup XI's
    By Ford_GTHO351 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 17-02-2004, 03:10 AM
  2. Canada declares interest in co-hosting 2007 World Cup
    By Legglancer in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-04-2003, 03:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •