India retain #1

[tendulkar.com]

With today's defeat, the best possible result South Africa can have in
this series is 2-1 & that puts them 1 point below India.

Ironically, the only way for India to lose their #1 position in 2010
is by actually playing the RSA Test series

[R Bharat Rao]

Which is the way it should be. Head-to-head to figure it out --
rather than having two heavyweight boxers in a two separate rings, and
crown a champ based on who knocks out the most # of other boxers...

Bharat

[tendulkar.com]

No complaints. Just noting the irony that the main driver for
arranging the series was the 'Fear of losing #1 due to lack of tests'.

[alvey]

You've managed to overlook the home ground advantage factor.

hth

alvey

[Don speaks the truth]

duffer, we are playing them away in dec 2010...

Don

[alvey]

2010 looks like someone's trying to kill off Test cricket.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/match/fixtures_futures.html

alvey

[Andrew Dunford]

"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:x0j4za26a0fh$.1uxap542bosmd$.dlg@40tude.net...

No sort of indicator because series only get added once the fixture dates
are confirmed.

Andrew

[Andrew Dunford]

"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c4ba60a-8581-4780...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Have you allowed for a whole years' worth of results 'expiring' in August
2010?

Andrew

[Nirvanam]

On Dec 31, 4:07 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message

I think that will make India's rating better. Its only since after the
world cup 2007 that India started winning more series and more
matches. In 2006 they won against WI but had 3 draws, and lost to RSA
1-2. So those results will go out and the losses to SL 1-2 in 2008 and
Aus 1-2 in 2007/08 will lessen in weight

[Nirvanam]

This link should give you a better idea:
http://static.cricinfo.com/db/DOWNLOAD/0000/0045/ftp_2006_2012.pdf

[Andrew Dunford]

"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74e1c5cc-4df2-4b3d...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Point taken, but the formula is more complicated than merely a win-loss
record, for example matches against teams that were highly rated at the time
count for more than those against lower placed teams.

The other main reason that the expired results must be considered is that
they apply to all teams, not just India. Another team could leapfrog India
by throwing away poor results in 2006, without a ball being bowled.

I have no idea what will transpire, and it isn't actually worth working out
in advance because there are plenty of Test matches to be played between now
and August.

Andrew

[Nirvanam]

On Dec 31, 3:16 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Let's just wait till Aug 2010 to find out, then :-)

[Will S]

"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c4ba60a-8581-4780...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

actually I dint take much notice of the idiotic system that makes India
Number 1

Australia was a clear number 1 for many a year because they were clearly the
best side by a big margin. Nowdays India is number one simply because they
are the best side but not by any big margin. I though Sth Africa would
challenge for this spot especially after beating Oz in Oz but they then lost
at home and then England has gone one up against them.

So how would I rate them all :

1/ India
then its a muddle with SAF just in front of England and then Australia.

After this its a big drop to the rest

[Dave -Turner]

> So how would I rate them all :
> 1/ India
> then its a muddle with SAF just in front of England and then Australia.

Even when losing the Ashes Australia played the better cricket.