If India wins this WC...

[Prince EWS]

Serious query. Why do many here feel this way? A team that has been dominant in ODIs for a considerable period of time over the 4 years might just have a bad day in a WC knockout and get knocked out. Will that mean that the other side is greater than this one? To me, 1983 WI team was much better than the 1983 Indian team. Getting upset in the WC final doesn't change that and make that Indian side the best in the world.

I think Burgey's point is that it doesn't matter who the better side is -- certainly not as much, anyway. Sport is about winning; not about proving on-paper superiority. If you're a worse side but you win anyway, you still deserve all the glory. I'm slightly less on board with that than he is -- I think both are important -- but I think he's at least mostly right.

I think the main reason no-one really cares about non-tournament ODIs is the fact that the national selectors clearly don't. Winning a stack of ODIs in between World Cups doesn't mean much if they're won against teams with stacks of players rested, rotated or on trial for the WC.

"Yessss, my team minus three of its best players is better than your team minus four of its! IN YO FACE!"

 

[mohammad16]

I think Burgey's point is that it doesn't matter who the better side is -- certainly not as much, anyway. Sport is about winning; not about proving on-paper superiority. If you're a worse side but you win anyway, you still deserve all the glory. I'm slightly less on board with that than he is -- I think both are important -- but I think he's at least mostly right.

I think the main reason no-one really cares about non-tournament ODIs is the fact that the national selectors clearly don't. Winning a stack of ODIs in between World Cups doesn't mean much if they're won against teams with stacks of players rested, rotated or on trial for the WC.

"Yessss, my team minus three of its best players is better than your team minus four of its! IN YO FACE!"

I suppose you missed out on the countless ODI series India and Pakistan have participated in over the decades. People do tend to care, ODI cricket would die out if the world cup was all we had to look forward to. Perhaps the year right before the world cup consists of ODI games that are strictly used to prepare for the world cup, but certainly not all 4 years.
You are right that people who win the world cup are deserving winners, but this still does not establish them as the best ODI side in the world, just like football world cup winners are not deemed to be the best side in the world.

 

[Zinzan]

The World Cup is the World Cup. No other ODI tournament counts. If you win it, you should automatically be number one in the ODI rankings, which should reset after each WC.

Seriously, who cares about any other ODI series but this? It's that important. So, if you win it, you deserve massive kudos because you've been the best team when it's mattered. Saying team X or Y didn't deserve to win a WC is bollocks. They did what they had to do when they had to do it. Sure teams like SL in 96 and Pakistan in 92 peaked for three weeks, but that's the game ffs. I mean, SA were the best side going into the 99 WC, Australia was terrible during the early stages and managed to drag their way into the Super Sixes before getting on a run. Likewise, the England 05 team got on a roll with their mint eating proclivities to win the Ashes against a far superior Australian side. They weren't fit to carry that Australian team's jockstraps, but they won when they had to. That's sport ffs.

That's what tourneys are about. Teams can win however many football friendlies or however many ODI series in between WCs (or in football, The Euros). No one remembers them. All that gets remembered is World Cups.

Nah, agree with Hendrix...this is why we do discriminate between world rankings and world cup winners, because ODI cricket does exist outside the world cup, whether some people find it meaningless or not.

I don't think anyone would argue against the WC being the pinnacle of ODI cricket, but to say any games outside of it are meaningless begs the questions, why even bother with ODI cricket outside the WC? And while you're there, you might as well apply to same logic to rugby & question why teams bother playing rugby tests, series & other tourneys outside the rugby world cup, given the world cup is rugby's pinnacle too.

 

[Contra]

India were definitely the best team leading into the world cup in 2011, they won most big series/tournaments after 2007 WC and you could sense as an Indian fan that they were legitimate favourites and not just regular Indian optimism at the time.

 

[smalishah84]

yeah india were favorites in 2011

 

[G.I.Joe]

I suppose you missed out on the countless ODI series India and Pakistan have participated in over the decades. People do tend to care, ODI cricket would die out if the world cup was all we had to look forward to. Perhaps the year right before the world cup consists of ODI games that are strictly used to prepare for the world cup, but certainly not all 4 years.
You are right that people who win the world cup are deserving winners, but this still does not establish them as the best ODI side in the world, just like football world cup winners are not deemed to be the best side in the world.

People care about those because of the rivalry. But ask an Indian fan if he'd give up 6-0 for a 100-50 record in random India-Pakistan ODIs and he'll think you're crazy. I'd wager there isn't a Pakistani fan here who wouldn't accept a 100% loss record against India over the next 4 years if it guarantees a Pakistani victory the next time they play India at the WC, letterlone winning the entire thing.

ODI cricket exists outside the World Cup as a means of practice and entertainment and experimentation and revenue generation and avenging Test losses. Sure, we like procrastinating at work watching random ODI series, but does the fan care more about the ICC ODI mace (or whatever it's called) or the World Cup? Do you see South African players and fans console themselves for the lack of a WC by caressing and fondling and making sweet love to that mace?

 

[Burgey]

Nah, agree with Hendrix...this is why we do discriminate between world rankings and world cup winners, because ODI cricket does exist outside the world cup, whether some people find it meaningless or not.

I don't think anyone would argue against the WC being the pinnacle of ODI cricket, but to say any games outside of it are meaningless begs the questions, why even bother with ODI cricket outside the WC? And while you're there, you might as well apply to same logic to rugby & question why teams bother playing rugby tests, series & other tourneys outside the rugby world cup, given the world cup is rugby's pinnacle too.

I do wonder that with rugby, tbf

Edit: actualy, this situation is more analogous to Rugby Sevens rather than rugby tests.

 

[zorax]

Yea winning a WC trumps anything else you could possibly do in ODIs ever.

And India were favourites in 2011, true, but SL Aus and SA were all contenders as well. It's not like 2007 or 1979 where there was one out and out favourite and anyone else winning would be considered an upset.

 

[Burgey]

Serious query. Why do many here feel this way? A team that has been dominant in ODIs for a considerable period of time over the 4 years might just have a bad day in a WC knockout and get knocked out. Will that mean that the other side is greater than this one? To me, 1983 WI team was much better than the 1983 Indian team. Getting upset in the WC final doesn't change that and make that Indian side the best in the world.

Terrible argument, what is the point in playing countless ODI series if the world cup is all that counts? Teams are concerned about ODI rankings all the time, it's one of the reasons why ODI series remain competitive. You could argue that winning the world cup should be given more weight in the ranking calculations, but to render other odi series/tournaments irrelevant in terms of world ODI rankings is BS.

Because that's what tournament play is. It's about winning the tourney, and the only tourney which pits all the nations against one another is the WC. That's why it's really the only ODI tourney which matters. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy ODIs at other times, but I reckon if you asked the players, the vast majority would take winning nothing but the WC over winning every other ODI between WCs but crashing and burning on the big stage.

And there is no point playing countless LO series between WCs, other than to raise money, which tbf, is a not unreasonable motive.

 

[CricAddict]

Because that's what tournament play is. It's about winning the tourney, and the only tourney which pits all the nations against one another is the WC. That's why it's really the only ODI tourney which matters. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy ODIs at other times, but I reckon if you asked the players, the vast majority would take winning nothing but the WC over winning every other ODI between WCs but crashing and burning on the big stage.

And there is no point playing countless LO series between WCs, other than to raise money, which tbf, is a not unreasonable motive.

I agree that the WC is the pinnacle of all ODIs but I seriously doubt the above statement. The players might take winning everything and losing the WC final instead of losing all ODIs and winning the WC final. Will be interesting if there is any past/present player quote on this that someone can post.

 

[smalishah84]

I think Burgey might be speaking from an Australian perspective.

ODIs are given much more weight by the general public in the SC than elsewhere.

 

[mohammad16]

Because that's what tournament play is. It's about winning the tourney, and the only tourney which pits all the nations against one another is the WC. That's why it's really the only ODI tourney which matters. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy ODIs at other times, but I reckon if you asked the players, the vast majority would take winning nothing but the WC over winning every other ODI between WCs but crashing and burning on the big stage.

And there is no point playing countless LO series between WCs, other than to raise money, which tbf, is a not unreasonable motive.

I don't feel it is that black and white. The reason players even become good is due to experience, and that too experience in a competitive environment. The fact that a player averages over 40 in ODIs over 200 some ODIs says something significant about that player, and so do the ODI team records about the respective teams. The world cup is the pinnacle, but you people are being totally unfair in reducing the hundreds of other ODIs played as rather irrelevant and meaningless. The fact that Pakistan has a very good ODI record against India overall is not meaningless, some even say the six Miandad hit in sharjah went onto have a significant impact on both Pakistan and Indian cricket respectively thereafter. In the end we have to realize that the world cup itself is an incredibly small sample, it tells you about a teams ODI pedigree but it also leaves out much.

Someone posed a question whether most Pakistanis would switch records with India due to their world cup failures, perhaps they may, and it might just be an emotional response, but would they be willing to accept something like 0-124 outside of the world cup for 6-0 inside? I doubt it, that would mean tremendously under-appreciating great cricket and cricketing moments that have spanned decades, it would be unfortunate and many great players would be forgotten. Tendulkar desperately wanted to win a world cup, and he was very close to retiring without winning one, despite this he still would have went down as being one of if not the greatest ODI cricketers of all times.

It would be different if we were talking about something of a more appropriate cricketing measurement such as a test championship of sorts, in which the best teams would almost always win, but these are ODI tournaments, and that too once every 4 years, luck does play a greater role, I don't think they mean and determine everything, they are a great spectacle and make for great competition. The world cup is the greatest cricket tournament of all, but it doesn't render everything else useless.

As far as money is concerned, it is all a cash grab, even the world cup itself, the ICC has demonstrated that it couldn't care less about the game itself by bringing the hammer down on associates.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah disagree with that. Consistency over years is what the rankings are about, which is a different thing to what winning a world cup means.

It's up to the fans to decide which they actually care about.

It is possible to care about both, right? As in, the other games and series do matter but the WC performance matters SO much more... I am sure there can be a rankings system that can take this into account..

 

[honestbharani]

I think Burgey might be speaking from an Australian perspective.

ODIs are given much more weight by the general public in the SC than elsewhere.

If other ODIs matter as much as WCs, Saeed Anwar should be more feted than Inzy... He was not.. Inzy is, was and will always be defined by those few knocks at the business end of the 92 WC.. Others ODIs do matter, but the WC matters so so much more...

 

[smalishah84]

If other ODIs matter as much as WCs, Saeed Anwar should be more feted than Inzy... He was not.. Inzy is, was and will always be defined by those few knocks at the business end of the 92 WC.. Others ODIs do matter, but the WC matters so so much more...

When did I ever say that other ODIs matter as much as the world cup?

 

[longranger]

On a slightly different topic, I think we are finally seeing ODIs as the fusion of Test and T20 cricket. Test cricket especially at the start of the innings for technique (from the batting perspective), hanging in there, not losing too many wickets and then setting themselves up for a T20 blast from over 30 / 35 onwards (used to be just from over 40 earlier). On the bowling side, you have bowlers attacking in the first few overs like Test cricket where wickets are everything and a few cheap overs really doesn't merit much attention. However, switch to the final 20 overs and the bowlers have to transform into T20 specialists where they have to ensure they don't go for too many runs.

The beauty of ODI cricket is that it gives teams a chance to recover. An awful early start can be repaired by a number 4 or 5 hitting a century. Similarly, a blazing opening 15 overs doesn't mean that the batting team has run away with the match. Spinners slowing down the middle part of the innings and taking regular wickets can change the complexion of the game.

It's true that bilateral ODI series are barely a patch on the World Cup, but I still think that it's important to both the countries involved. T20s have enough domestic competitions for players to practice, and long Test tours ensure the good players get to play the longer format of the game. Bilateral ODI series remain a necessity for the game. Having more meaningful competitions like the ICC Champions Trophy and Asia Cup / Aussie tri-series can go a long way in continuing the popularity of non-WC ODIs.

 

[Furball]

Terrible argument, what is the point in playing countless ODI series if the world cup is all that counts? Teams are concerned about ODI rankings all the time, it's one of the reasons why ODI series remain competitive. You could argue that winning the world cup should be given more weight in the ranking calculations, but to render other odi series/tournaments irrelevant in terms of world ODI rankings is BS.

TV revenue.

Completely agree with Burgey on this one.

 

[mohammad16]

TV revenue.

Revenue is a priority at all times for certain parties, so what is your point? Players and fans don't just play and watch ODI cricket strictly for or because of revenue, to suggest this is absurd.

 

[Spark]

Revenue is a priority at all times for certain parties, so what is your point? Players and fans don't just play and watch ODI cricket strictly for or because of revenue, to suggest this is absurd.

Sure, but administrators do (well, they schedule them, then force the players to play), which is sort of the point.

 

[Kirkut]

And there is no point playing countless LO series between WCs, other than to raise money, which tbf, is a not unreasonable motive.

That makes Viv's 189* look insignificant.