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

[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.
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.

 

[marc71178]

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?

 

[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?

 

[GIMH]

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

 

[Richard]

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have missed Test-series they'd otherwise have played due to the fact that their Test status has been temporarily withdrawn, twice.

 

[marc71178]

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.

 

[Richard]

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).

 

[marc71178]

So you're going to counter my point by reiterating it?

That's a new form of debating...

 

[Richard]

Err, what?
You said 5 years was a long time in Test cricket. I said, no, not really it isn't.

 

[marc71178]

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.

 

[Robertinho]

5 years is definitely a long time, Richard. You don't think Australia will be much different when McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist and co retire? Big difference, buddy.

 

[Richard]

Err, yes - sometimes 5 years is a long time. Point is, all 3 of McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist are likely to retire within, probably, 2 years. In that event, 2 years is a long time.
Equally, you can have 5 years where little changes.
And it's not fair to try to compensate for one of these eventualities by biasing the points according to supposed strength of opposition.

 

[GIMH]

My honest opinion is this, and it's pretty simple -

In international cricket, in either form, there is no real way of fairly ranking the sides, because of the length of the Test cycle, and I feel that neither system really works. At least in One day cricket a side can claim to be World Champions. Test Cricket is quite subjective, as the "How would you rank the teams?" at the main board proves, and while most seem to agree with the Australia-England top 2, not all do, and a league system is the only way of fairly ranking teams, but a league system cannot realistically be used with such disparity in time between series.