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

[TIF]

If 2007 World cup pools were based on team rankings in the 2003 world cup, the same way it was done for the u-19 World cup this year, then that would make it totally interesting to see what type of pools were made. Also, it would have meant that Pool C would have become a joke of a pool and the 3 other pools, all got 3 big teams.

Heres how the teams finished in 2003 World cup, based on how they finished in their respective pools -

1 - Australia
2 - India
3 - Kenya
4 - Sri Lanka
5 - New Zealand
6 - Zimbabwe
7 - West Indies
8 - England
9 - South Africa
10 - Pakistan
11- Holland
12 - Canada
13 - Bangladesh

Ratings 14-16 are based on the ICC Trophy 2005 -

14 - Scotland
15 - Ireland
16 - Bermuda

Now,

Pool A - 1-8-9-16 - Australia, England, South Africa, Bermuda
Pool B - 2-7-10-15 - India, West Indies, Pakistan, Ireland
Pool C - 3-6-11-14 - Kenya, Zimbabwe, Holland, Scotland
Pool D - 4-5-12-13 - Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Canada, Bangladesh

Look at Pool C over here, it would have contained 2 teams who have deteriorated due to internal problems since 2003 and 2 European teams just beginning to get a taste of ODI cricket. The 2 qualifiers from this pool, would have been hammered in the super-8s.

As for Pools A, B and D, 1 out of the 3 big teams would have missed out and the minnow in these pools would be hammered by other teams to up their net run-rate. Also, it would have been unfair for a big team to miss out and 2 "minnows" qualify not on their own strength, but due to faulty grouping.

Note: This post was only hypothetical and is made only for a bit of interesting reading.

[Autobahn]

Well it does show how well the pools where put together in the coming world cup.

[Richard]

Seeding in ODIs is notoriously difficult, anyway, and based on the present dubious system even more so.

[sirjeremy11]

Surely that would have been too much of a joke, even for the ICC.

[Richard]

Quite why they can't just use a simple system I don't know:
Count only games between the top 8 teams - all others are irrelevant.
Count everything in all games equally - no biasing towards higher-placed opponents or less recent games.
Count only games in which there was no reduction in overs.
Count simple runs-scored\overs-faced (assuming all bowled-out innings were of 50 overs) tallies, divide one by the other.
Count matches only from the last 12 months - remove everything from the 13th-most-recent month on the 1st day of every new month.
Then you'd have an easy ranking system which everyone could understand and which didn't base much on assumptions.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Seeding in ODIs is notoriously difficult, anyway, and based on the present dubious system even more so.

It's got the better 8 sides 2 in each group - so what's the problem with it?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Quite why they can't just use a simple system I don't know:
Count only games between the top 8 teams - all others are irrelevant.
Count everything in all games equally - no biasing towards higher-placed opponents or less recent games.
Count only games in which there was no reduction in overs.
Count simple runs-scored\overs-faced (assuming all bowled-out innings were of 50 overs) tallies, divide one by the other.
Count matches only from the last 12 months - remove everything from the 13th-most-recent month on the 1st day of every new month.
Then you'd have an easy ranking system which everyone could understand and which didn't base much on assumptions.

You'd also have the farce where beating the WI is worth as much as beating Australia.

[Richard]

So it's a farce that beating WBA is worth the same as beating Chelsea?
No, it's not.
It's called a fair points system.
No-one except Test and ODI cricket have the ludicrous system of the weighting of points according to the supposed strength of the opposition (where beating Australia even if they're short of 4 or 5 top players they're assumed to be full-strength).
According to such, it should be scrapped as soon as possible.
Can you imagine such a situation being used in the World Cup?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

It's got the better 8 sides 2 in each group - so what's the problem with it?

That's not exactly difficult - no system, however poor, could rank Bangladesh, Kenya or Zimbabwe close to the top 8.
The problem are things like the stupidity of Sri Lanka being ranked below England and suchlike.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

So it's a farce that beating WBA is worth the same as beating Chelsea?
No, it's not.
It's called a fair points system.
No-one except Test and ODI cricket have the ludicrous system of the weighting of points according to the supposed strength of the opposition (where beating Australia even if they're short of 4 or 5 top players they're assumed to be full-strength).
According to such, it should be scrapped as soon as possible.
Can you imagine such a situation being used in the World Cup?

Yes, and in Test and ODI Cricket it is not a league.

Where all play all then the same number of points per game is fair, but in this case strength of opposition is much fairer.

And it's not the only sport to have such a system either - in fact to a degree, Football has it, as well as things like Golf and Tennis.

[Richard]

Football - or, at least, club football in every country I've ever seen tables for - has a proper points system with equal points for victory\draw, whoever the opponent.
Tennis and gold I didn't mention, because they're not team sports.
It doesn't matter whether it's a league or a rankings-system (the current ranking-systems are, of course, ludicrously, labelled "championships"), points distribution has to be equal to be credible.

[marc71178]

And if teams had a set program so all played all an equal number of times that would be more relevant.

I suppose that Rugby isn't a team sport either then?

[Richard]

I'm unaware of the mechanisms of rugby rankings. Please update me?
There is a set program so that teams play others on reasonably equally regular intervals. I don't see that a discrepancy of a game or 2 really matters that much.
I see that the idea of assuming a team at the top are always going to be stronger is far more damaging to the credibility.

[marc71178]

Not just Rugby, but also Football.

In fact I believe the rankings in both those sports have some bearing on the World Cup seedings.

And it's not just a discrepancy of 1 or 2 games between sides in Cricket.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Not just Rugby, but also Football.

Indeed?
Do you think you could actually describe them, then?

In fact I believe the rankings in both those sports have some bearing on the World Cup seedings.

Well, obviously - I've never had a problem with that.

And it's not just a discrepancy of 1 or 2 games between sides in Cricket.

No?
Most series\tournaments involve 3-5 games between each side, depending on various factors.