View Full Version : New World Champions
dr nick
24 Dec 2002, 08:03
It will be official as of 6/1/3, south africa will be the new world champions barring a miracle from pakistan.
i hear the reasons trotted out all the time.... Australia couldnt beat india away, Australia couldn't beat the West Indies in the carribean, nor the Kiwi's at home whereas South Africa did.
but the real reason is that South Africa have had the opportunity to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe where Australia has not.
Australia did 'have the chance' to play Zimbabwe but chose not to because of the state of the country.
They will get their chance to play Bangladesh next year.
dr nick
24 Dec 2002, 08:51
Originally posted by Jaymin
Australia did 'have the chance' to play Zimbabwe but chose not to because of the state of the country.
can you blame them??
TigerCraig
24 Dec 2002, 09:22
Same as the reason certain bowlers get hatfuls of wickets - they get to beat up on Bangladesh every second week :mad:
red+black
24 Dec 2002, 13:04
Originally posted by TigerCraig
Same as the reason certain bowlers get hatfuls of wickets - they get to beat up on Bangladesh every second week :mad:
yes, i'm sure the greatest bowler of all time, muttiah muralitharan has the greatest number of wickets against both zimbabwe and bangladesh
ps. just made that up, but u get the gist
red+black
24 Dec 2002, 13:06
we'll be back on top if we beat the windies away, so hopefully won't have too long to wait to reclaim what is rightfully ours. funny how we are miles and miles ahead of all competition yet on the table we cling to a mere 0.009 point lead :rolleyes:
Jim Boy
24 Dec 2002, 16:17
Originally posted by nicko18
It will be official as of 6/1/3, south africa will be the new world champions barring a miracle from pakistan.
i hear the reasons trotted out all the time.... Australia couldnt beat india away, Australia couldn't beat the West Indies in the carribean, nor the Kiwi's at home whereas South Africa did.
but the real reason is that South Africa have had the opportunity to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe where Australia has not.
I have to say I really don't care. The whole way in which the test table works is stupid. Why should five year old results have a bearing on who is the best team today?
Originally posted by nicko18
but the real reason is that South Africa have had the opportunity to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe where Australia has not.
I've just checked this out...
South Africa have 17 series that count for the Test championship, Australia have 13.
Currently it stands at
Australia 20/13 = 1.54
South Africa 26/17 = 1.53
Removing the four extra series South Africa have had. Home wins against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. And an away win against Zimbabwe. That brings it to:
Australia 20/13
South Africa 18/13
South Africa drew their last home series against Pakistan, so a series win brings them one extra point, which we're assuming is going to happen, that brings it to:
Australia 20/13
South Africa 19/13
So we're still in front, but only just.
dr nick
24 Dec 2002, 17:29
Originally posted by DaveW
I've just checked this out...
South Africa have 17 series that count for the Test championship, Australia have 13.
Currently it stands at
Australia 20/13 = 1.54
South Africa 26/17 = 1.53
Removing the four extra series South Africa have had. Home wins against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. And an away win against Zimbabwe. That brings it to:
Australia 20/13
South Africa 18/13
South Africa drew their last home series against Pakistan, so a series win brings them one extra point, which we're assuming is going to happen, that brings it to:
Australia 20/13
South Africa 19/13
So we're still in front, but only just.
and thats perhaps a more accurate reflection dave, plus if we lose to the windies, then we will be equal, which is probably fair enough because our record for travelling needs to improve if we are to be unanimously considered the best. if we lose to the windies that will be india, the carribean and sri lanka where we have failed to take a series.
i'm still of the opinion we need a world cup of test cricket played over 12 months. 16 tests in a year (1 home, 1 away vs each country) and a 3 test final. 16 tests accounts for the fact that bangladesh would not qualify for the world cup. if 16 is too demanding (which i think it isn't) 14 home and away, where zimbabwe dont qualify.
Well of course SA don't deserve to be top but I would dispute that they will become world champions.
The Test Championship is a rolling league that is not decided until everyone has played everyone else twice over 4 or 5 years (can't remember which).
It's like saying the bloke leading the world championhsip 10,000m race at 6,000m is the 10,000 world champion.
wagstaff
27 Dec 2002, 21:07
I should add that South Africa will have further opportunities to add to their points tally during the middle of next year when they travel to England for a five-test series.
Incredibly enough, they lost the last series played there in 1998.
But I can't see England doing that again this time.
Originally posted by DIPPER
Well of course SA don't deserve to be top but I would dispute that they will become world champions.
The Test Championship is a rolling league that is not decided until everyone has played everyone else twice over 4 or 5 years (can't remember which).
It's like saying the bloke leading the world championhsip 10,000m race at 6,000m is the 10,000 world champion.
Thats not true, its like going around the track indefinately. Whoever is in front is the current champ.
A better analogy would be the womens tennis rankings, they are based on the 12 months immediately up to the current point in time. Whoever leads is the world number one. (unlike the mens, where the world number one isn't decided until year end)
Nige_Bix
27 Dec 2002, 22:35
Well I've seen a few of the SA matches on cable this year and bottom line is that Australia is a far better team than South Africa and the formula, whatever it is, is a joke if they have to lose the no1 position!
dzm
dr nick
27 Dec 2002, 22:52
Originally posted by DaveW
Thats not true, its like going around the track indefinately. Whoever is in front is the current champ.
A better analogy would be the womens tennis rankings, they are based on the 12 months immediately up to the current point in time. Whoever leads is the world number one. (unlike the mens, where the world number one isn't decided until year end)
you beat me to it dave, you are quite right. infact thats why Australia is in possesion of the ICC world championship trophy at the moment because they are current world champions.
if it were the "10,000m race" analogy, every time a new nation entered the whole thing would be postponed for some 6 years.
dr nick
27 Dec 2002, 22:53
Originally posted by dezzmo
Well I've seen a few of the SA matches on cable this year and bottom line is that Australia is a far better team than South Africa and the formula, whatever it is, is a joke if they have to lose the no1 position!
dzm
you'd like the cricinfo ratings dzm.... before the 3rd test, England were the world champions :eek:
wagstaff
27 Dec 2002, 23:03
Originally posted by nicko18
you'd like the cricinfo ratings dzm.... before the 3rd test, England were the world champions :eek:
Is that the 'knockout' system like boxing where if a side beats the best, they automatically get the mantle of being the world's best? Without any consideration to performances the team has done otherwise?
Now that is a nonsense of a system.
dr nick
27 Dec 2002, 23:20
Originally posted by wagstaff
Is that the 'knockout' system like boxing where if a side beats the best, they automatically get the mantle of being the world's best? Without any consideration to performances the team has done otherwise?
Now that is a nonsense of a system.
yep, and wpuld you believe... surprise surprise... its also the system Mark Taylor thinks should be adopted??
it was his team that was announced world champions after beating the west indies once... never mind they hadnt lost a series for something like 20 years, but one win and bang!!
also nevermind the fact that teams may go for decades not having an opportunity to gain the title. if sri lanka had beaten england, we would have to wait till we played sri lanka to claim it back, but then zimbabwe might beat sri lanka, another 4 years till we play them, but the west indies might knock them off before we play them... another 4 years to play WI.
utterly ridiculous system.
Hey... don't go bagging the heavyweight system too much. No one takes it seriously. Its just a "fun" sort of title purely for interest sake. Even Zimbabwe took had possesion of it at one stage (I think they beat India after India beat us in 1998.) Nobody regards the title-holder as necessarily being the best in Test cricket. Mark Taylor I think just made that off-the-cuff remark after the beating the West Indies (the first time they'd suffered a series defeat in ages) in 1995.
Back to the original topic, its looking very gloomy already. In typical Pakistani style they have crashed from 0/77 to 8/120 in response to South Africa's 368. :( :mad: