Idea: Rankings determine World Cup qualification

[Skater]

I have taken into account the fact that hardly anyone understands the official country rankings system, and that the matches are less competitive and teams play poorer because of it.

Therefore, I suggest that the rankings are made more into like a league table and the status at the next World Cup is determined by them.

I have thought more about the latter point than I have the former. For example, if these were the rankings on a certain date:

1. Australia
2. England
3. South Africa
4. India
5. New Zealand
6. Pakistan
7. West Indies
8. Bangladesh
9. Zimbabwe
10. Ireland
11. Kenya

Only the top five or six automatically qualify for the next World Cup. The rest play football-style qualifying groups with the associates. This, with some ironing, would make more competitive international cricket as the teams will be fighting for places in the top six.

On my example:

Automatic qualifiers: Australia, England, South Africa, India, New Zealand
Into qualifying groups: Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Kenya.

Please extend on my idea.

 

[Kev]

How are the matches less competitive and how exactly do the teams play poorer because you don't understand the ranking system

 

[Skater]

How are the matches less competitive and how exactly do the teams play poorer because you don't understand the ranking system

It takes a lot to move in the rankings, and when you do you don't know how.

 

[Kev]

You kinda missed my point.

But ok, How about this.

Currently the rankings are calculated over a 3 year period, but the most recent 2 years counts for half, effectively giving more recent results more weighting. If you want more movement, perhaps making the last years worth of matches count for half (instead of 2) would create more fluidity.

But if you sit down before a series with a pen and paper, its not too hard to work out what points are at stake, ok yes its difficult for a casual observer to grasp without knowing how they are worked out, but its not rocket science.

 

[Skater]

You kinda missed my point.

But ok, How about this.

Currently the rankings are calculated over a 3 year period, but the most recent 2 years counts for half, effectively giving more recent results more weighting. If you want more movement, perhaps making the last years worth of matches count for half (instead of 2) would create more fluidity.

But if you sit down before a series with a pen and paper, its not too hard to work out what points are at stake, ok yes its difficult for a casual observer to grasp without knowing how they are worked out, but its not rocket science.

I still say that is complicated and too inaccessible.

I would go for 5 points for a win, 2 for a tie or no result and 0 points for a loss. If the team wins by 100 runs or more or by 5 wickets or more then they receive 1 bonus point. For example:

1. Australia - 100 points
2. England - 95 points

If England won by 4 wickets or less or by under 100 runs, Australia would stay top. If England by 5 wickets or more or by 100 runs or more, England would overtake Australia. There would be more at stake on one game.

 

[Kev]

The problem is, teams dont play each other on an equal basis. So you have to weight the points based on the quality of the teams, otherwise England could just schedule matches against Bangladesh over and over.

 

[Skater]

The problem is, teams dont play each other on an equal basis. So you have to weight the points based on the quality of the teams, otherwise England could just schedule matches against Bangladesh over and over.

The ICC would have to arrange set fixtures then like FIFA and UEFA do in football. Five matches vs each country per year or something like that.

 

[Kev]

Of course, if there was a rigid structure where each nation played each other nation an equal number of times over a set period (with equal amounts of games in the series too) it wouldn't be required to have such a weighting system. But it just ain't going to happen is it.

 

[Skater]

Of course, if there was a rigid structure where each nation played each other nation an equal number of times over a set period (with equal amounts of games in the series too) it wouldn't be required to have such a weighting system. But it just ain't going to happen is it.

I know, which is why it is being suggested on an online forum instead of in an ICC head office meeting.

 

[Kev]

Well i think its unlikely that they'd let you into one of their meetings anyway.

But its obvious that if they played each other equally, a nice simple system could be used (maybe even something like points in CCh). But its not worth discussing your system unless fixtures are rigid, which they aren't.

 

[Skater]

Well i think its unlikely that they'd let you into one of their meetings anyway.

But its obvious that if they played each other equally, a nice simple system could be used (maybe even something like points in CCh). But its not worth discussing your system unless fixtures are rigid, which they aren't.

The system is like Maltesers though, one things leads to another.

This ranking is introduced, fixtures become rigid, etc.

 

[Kev]

Has to be done at the same time, one cant work without the other.

 

[sohum]

Speaking of Maltesers, I haven't had one in like 3 years.

I don't think this system will work because fixtures aren't rigid. I don't think we should move towards rigid fixtures, either, because I much prefer a 5 match series rather than one-off ODIs. Coordinating this with all the domestic schedules will be impossible as well, and you cannot exactly go around telling other boards how to organize their domestic fixtures.

I think the rankings work fine because no one really looks at them. Cricket is one of those games where the top 6 could probably beat each other on their day--maybe even the top 8. So it doesn't really matter if you're ranked 1 or 5 except to boost your ego.

 

[baburao]

This formula can work with champions trophy only.Like first 6 teams will play it.

 

[Sureshot]

The ICC would have to arrange set fixtures then like FIFA and UEFA do in football. Five matches vs each country per year or something like that.

What?

Five matches vs each country per year? Only Shoaib and Asif could cope with that much cricket...