God is an Englishman wrote:
No it applies to all of them, eg. sth Africa and England lost a few wins from their rankings. Australia lost 2 losses.
As for Woods missing a cut would have affected his rankings and positively affect it when the cabernet result drops off the other end.
In other words, they are only concerned with recent history? Case closed. If you want the other extreme, we should never have ever lost our no1 ranking seeing we have beaten ALL test playing nations more than they have beaten us.
Perhaps the ICC should consult you before issuing OFFICIAL rankings in future.
God is an Englishman wrote:
No it applies to all of them, eg. sth Africa and England lost a few wins from their rankings. Australia lost 2 losses.
As for Woods missing a cut would have affected his rankings and positively affect it when the cabernet result drops off the other end.
In other words, they are only concerned with recent history? Case closed. If you want the other extreme, we should never have ever lost our no1 ranking seeing we have beaten ALL test playing nations more than they have beaten us.
Perhaps the ICC should consult you before issuing OFFICIAL rankings in future.
When have I said the ranking is wrong? I have merely pointed out that you had to rely on shit results disappearing rather than winning it on the pitch like the last 2 holders.
God is an Englishman wrote:
No it applies to all of them, eg. sth Africa and England lost a few wins from their rankings. Australia lost 2 losses.
As for Woods missing a cut would have affected his rankings and positively affect it when the cabernet result drops off the other end.
In other words, they are only concerned with recent history? Case closed. If you want the other extreme, we should never have ever lost our no1 ranking seeing we have beaten ALL test playing nations more than they have beaten us.
Perhaps the ICC should consult you before issuing OFFICIAL rankings in future.
When have I said the ranking is wrong? I have merely pointed out that you had to rely on cabernet results disappearing rather than winning it on the pitch like the last 2 holders.
We did win it on the pitch. Otherwise we wouldnt be NUMBER ONE!!!
God is an Englishman wrote:When have I said the ranking is wrong? I have merely pointed out that you had to rely on cabernet results disappearing rather than winning it on the pitch like the last 2 holders.
So you're saying had australia not won the last two series they would still have still gained top ranking on behalf of shit results disappearing.
God is an Englishman wrote:When have I said the ranking is wrong? I have merely pointed out that you had to rely on cabernet results disappearing rather than winning it on the pitch like the last 2 holders.
So you're saying had australia not won the last two series they would still have still gained top ranking on behalf of cabernet results disappearing.
no, but the 2 wins alone were not enough. They had to rely on an accountant.
Did they finish a series and get handed the sceptre? No, they won it on paper - not on grass.
Bomber wrote:We did win it on the pitch. Otherwise we wouldnt be NUMBER ONE!!!
So I assume after the last game of a series they handed you the sceptre did they?
Is there a sceptre? News to me. When is the "season" officially over? I'm sure there were other test series going on after we beat the saffers. You have to wait until a fair amount of games are played you'd think.
Bottom line, WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!
Bomber wrote:We did win it on the pitch. Otherwise we wouldnt be NUMBER ONE!!!
So I assume after the last game of a series they handed you the sceptre did they?
Is there a sceptre? News to me. When is the "season" officially over? I'm sure there were other test series going on after we beat the saffers. You have to wait until a fair amount of games are played you'd think.
Bottom line, WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!
England were handed the sceptre straight after they won the series that got them there.
