> Not despite being imprerfect but BECAUSE they are imperfect (and quite
> possibly erroneous).
> Think of a hypothetical RSA meet (say round about the time of the CWC)
> where an absolutely correct and foolproof set of rankings are being
> Mike Holmans returns to the table with a round and says "So SA are
> number one. Can't argue with that."
> Moby says "no, you can't"
> Larry says "And Sri Lanka 4. Can't argue with that either".
> Hamish says "Australia 2nd. Fair dinkum."
> How much fun is that?
> As they are now they provoke all kinds of argument and hyperbolic
> arguments about umpires and form and so on. This is MUCH more what you
> need down at the local. Pubs in Aussie will be really lively places in
> about a week's time, business will be good and the debate will be
The ICC test rankings at least take many series into account, and regardless
of recent form or results, imho are a fair indication of the respective
ranks for teams. It might have been less controversial had the ICC waited
till *all* sets of series were completed, but what the heck, if RSA gets
there, they deserve it. The fact that Australia held it for such a long
time, and will recover it back almost within a few months is fair too.
Contrast this with the WC winners, which may or may not be indicative of the
best team, as plenty of upsets can happen, not to mention beneficiaries of
rain-outs, luck in pool-placement, etc.
Short of having a World Test Cricket Championship, this is as good a way as
any to settle it. Controversies and all.
I agree with you, the imperfection makes it that much more fun.