This was going to be a reply to the Shoaib Malik top ODI all rounder thread, but then i figured ill start a new discussion.
ICC really needs to implement a relative point system. People who have played Yahoo! pool will sort of get the drift of what i’m saying.
Say there are three entities (team or individual player) A, B and C
A stands at 100 points
B stands at 200 points and
C stands at 300 points
If A beats B in a match, A will get 10 points and B will lose 10. However if A beats C in a match, A will get 15 points and C shoud lose 15 ponts as A beat a stronger opponent and C lost to a much weaker opponent.
Similarly if C beats B in a match, C will get only 8 points. And if C beats A at in a match, C will get only 5 points.
And so on and so forth.
These principles could be applied to individual players too. A strong batsman hits a weak bowler for 6, his rating shouldn’t go up very much. However if the same batsman hits a strong bowler for a 6, he should see a significant increase in his rating.
I do believe if such a system is properly implemented, and flaws and kinks worked out over a 3-4 year period.. this could turn out to be a very effective tool in guaging a team/individual’s true standing.
well its another issue to decide which is a strong team and which is a weak team
another thing is that a weak bowler/batsmen can have bowl/bat really well at times, and a good bowler/batsmen can be out of form, so to say someone gets more points even tho they are playing a good bowler who is atm bowling terribly is unfair
hope that made some sort of sense
^ Right but a strong bowler/batsman will have a few bad patches but in the long run his transient points will all even out. Unless he's a strong bowler like Shoaib Akhtar who's bad patches usually outnumber his good patches.
yeah true^
i was just thinking along the lines of: lets say kenya destroys brett lee and notches up a lot of points when he is out of form, then he comes back into form and destroys South Africa. Now Kenya will have more points than SA?
and also most teams are so close to each other, so hard to say #2 is a stronger team than #5 when they differ by few points
I thought there was some sort of accounting for this in the current rating system ? I know at least the batting and bowling ratings reflect degree of difficulty - so if you score a lot of runs in a highscoring game, doesnt translate to a very high rating, whereas if you score the same runs in a low scoring game your rating is much higher. dont know what the deal is for allrounders.
Pidbull in your scenario, that will create a tiny rift in an already established system. In reality putting Kenya against Australia and South Africa is like putting 20 against 100 and 80. A one off fluke win by Kenya will bring it up to max 30. But SA and Australia can very easily gain back the advantage in the next 2-3 games. For kenya to be on top of SA, it will have to beat SA repeatedly for atleast 5-6 games.
Giant: there probably is, but its not effective enough. Or there just arent enough variables being applied here.
e.g. the points england gets for beating bangladesh is much lower than what it gets for beating australia....
similarly south africa gets lesser points for beating australia than bangladesh wud get for beating australia....
same is the case for a player's performance (batsman or bowler) against players/teams of different ratings....