A Headline that never was

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by munnabhai: *
and icc rankings r a sham. no difference between home-away matches, no differences between deciders and incosequentioal matches. no difference whether one plays bangladesh or australia.

[/QUOTE]

Munney you couldn't be more wrong, Here is how it works :-



The formula used by the ICC to determine 
ranking positions takes into account the 
following factors: 


- results from all ODI matches played over 
the previous two to three years
- strength of opposition, with greater reward 
for beating higher ranked opponents
- greater importance is placed on more recent 
results, with older matches dropped every 12 months
- all matches have equal status, with no account 
taken of venue or margin of victory 


I dont know much about rediff, so cant comment.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *

Munney you couldn't be more wrong, Here is how it works :-



The formula used by the ICC to determine 
ranking positions takes into account the 
following factors: 


- results from all ODI matches played over 
the previous two to three years
- strength of opposition, with greater reward 
for beating higher ranked opponents
- greater importance is placed on more recent 
results, with older matches dropped every 12 months
- all matches have equal status, with no account 
taken of venue or margin of victory 


I dont know much about rediff, so cant comment.
[/QUOTE]

ok, i may be wrong on a few pionts. but this is what rediff has to say about icc rankings:

The real problem with the ICC ODI ratings is its inability to accord a higher weightage to winning performances in ODI tournaments or series. Every match is 'equal' in the ICC ODI ratings -- be it the World Cup final or a first round match between England and Zimbabwe in the Morocco Cup! All that the ICC ODI rating ends up achieving is to give one point (or a little less or more) to the winning team and take away, at the same time, one point (or a little less or more) from the losing team.

Munna - Rediff is not flawless either. For Example,

Who decides what rating should be given to which tournament. For example For Rediff & Indians a Tournament in sharjah where India is not participating may not mean anything, but for the teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka & SA it may mean a lot and for them ratting would be a lot higher than what Rediff may assign.
Bottomline Rediff was not very happy with ICC ranking, so it came out with its own rating and had to justify the reason for the need to have a new rating .

Why dont you try to understand one simple thing, Rediff has to sell its stuff and its in their interest to build a media hype and that's why the new rating system, which will keep India in TOP 5 most of the times.

I agree with Asif_K

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
Munna - Rediff is not flawless either. For Example,

Who decides what rating should be given to which tournament. For example For Rediff & Indians a Tournament in sharjah where India is not participating may not mean anything, but for the teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka & SA it may mean a lot and for them ratting would be a lot higher than what Rediff may assign.
Bottomline Rediff was not very happy with ICC ranking, so it came out with its own rating and had to justify the reason for the need to have a new rating .

Why dont you try to understand one simple thing, Rediff has to sell its stuff and its in their interest to build a media hype and that's why the new rating system, which will keep India in TOP 5 most of the times.
[/QUOTE]

the wieghtage of a tournament is based on the number of teams participating in the tournament.
1point for 2 sides,
2points for 3
4 for icc champions trophey
8 for WC.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by munnabhai: *
the wieghtage of a tournament is based on the number of teams participating in the tournament.
1point for 2 sides,
2points for 3
4 for icc champions trophey
8 for WC.
[/QUOTE]

Munnabhai - As I said, rediff is not perfect either.

Suppose India plays a 2-side series with Australia and a 2-Side series with Bangladesh, now according to rediff both series are worth 1 point, but in reality the India-Australia series should have a much higher rating than a India-Bangladesh rating.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *

Munnabhai - As I said, rediff is not perfect either.

Suppose India plays a 2-side series with Australia and a 2-Side series with Bangladesh, now according to rediff both series are worth 1 point, but in reality the India-Australia series should have a much higher rating than a India-Bangladesh rating.
[/QUOTE]

that difference between sides is considered for individual matches. which is fair enough.

Munna.