semi finalists = joke

[Magrat Garlick]

No, a team falling from second to sixth in the rankings due to an away series in Sri Lanka is a joke.

 

[cbuts]

beating who 2-1, we beat pak 5-1

south 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

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

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]

if u read my first post, u will see that i mentioned that this arguement is a very old one

 

[Magrat Garlick]

beating who 2-1, we beat pak 5-1

Yup, it's a bit hard to win 5-1 when you play three games, isn't it?

south 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

http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/odi/archive.html

ICC One-Day International Championship Table [ as at end of July 2004 ]

Team Rating
1 Australia 136
2 South Africa 113
3 New Zealand 113
4 Sri Lanka 112
5 Pakistan 107
6 India 105
7 England 101
8 West Indies 101
9 Zimbabwe 62
10 Kenya 28
11 Bangladesh 1

Good memory, that.

 

[luckyeddie]

if u read my first post, u will see that i mentioned that this arguement is a very old one

So why keep banging on about it? All you're doing is annoying people (well, you're certainly annoying me anyway).

Put some thought into your posts. Come up with a viable alternative - what would your ideal draw have been with the benefit of 20:20 vision?

 

[cbuts]

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. actually the pakistan - nz series in nz, in jan/feb was either a 5 or 6 game series.

 

[cbuts]

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

 

[cbuts]

its a concept that most other sports dont have a problem with. the joke nations then could be distrubuted out according to ranksings to. the worst into the aussie pool. 2nd worst into sl, etc.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

Granted, they were fourth (because the ICC system suddenly removes a whole year of matches without anyone playing anything...)

actually the pakistan - nz series in nz, in jan/feb was either a 5 or 6 game series.

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?)

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

But they were. The trouble was, due to TV rights, they had to schedule the matches four months in advance.

 

[cbuts]

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.

i dont remeber england playing pakistan recently???

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

Funnily enough, everybody here apart from the New Zealanders acknowledge the Pickup/Bazza rankings...

http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/odi/2003.html

ICC One-Day International Championship Table [ as at end of December 2003 ]

Team Rating
1 Australia 136
2 South Africa 118
3 Pakistan 111
4 Sri Lanka 107
5 England 106
6 India 105
7 West Indies 101
8 New Zealand 97
9 Zimbabwe 68
10 Kenya 28
11 Bangladesh 0

Now, how fair was it back then, I wonder...

i dont remeber england playing pakistan recently???

NatWest Challenge 2003.

 

[cbuts]

funnily enough december is a bit further back than 4 months as mentioned in ur last post.

alot changes in a 14 months. to go back to a series that long is just stupid

 

[Magrat Garlick]

funnily enough december is a bit further back than 4 months as mentioned in ur last post.

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.

alot changes in a 14 months. to go back to a series that long is just stupid

Funny, because the ICC rankings who are held in such high esteem include all ODIs since August 2001...

Edit: never trust ICC websites. It's actually August 2002.

 

[cbuts]

yea but it carries only a littleweighting. 8 months of cricket changes alot. personally u need to go to the latest possilble

 

[luckyeddie]

yea but it carries only a littleweighting. 8 months of cricket changes alot. personally u need to go to the latest possilble

Do the same with tests and you'd be joint bottom with the Windies.

 

[cbuts]

??? the very latest ranknigs still ahs us a long way above the windies

 

[luckyeddie]

??? the very latest ranknigs still ahs us a long way above the windies

You are missing the point.

 

[marc71178]

why should average teams get through to the higher rounds,

How are Pakistan (for beating India), England (for beating Sri Lanka) and West Indies (for beating South Africa) average?

 

[marc71178]

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.

I assume you checked these "large amounts"?

If NZ Cricket is that bad that missing out on $50000 will have effects in the future, then it's in a seriously critical way.

Could it just be you're a sore loser?