Publications
Partners
But therein lies the question. Is the number 1 ranked side supposed to be the one playing the best AT THE MOMENT, or the one playing the best OVER A PERIOD.
I wouldn't deny that Aus are playing the best AT THE MOMENT, but how well will they do when Johnson has to play in India/Sri Lanka etc? Have they proven that they can beat any opponent in any conditions, or have they only confirmed that they are a threat on juicy pitches?
Thing is - its impossible to create a perfect system. As an example, it stands to reason that you should earn more points by beating BETTER opponents. Consider England. A year ago you had to play well to beat them, and would have earned a few points by winning a series say 3-2. Immediately afterwards they fall apart, and Aus beats them 5-0 (and lets be honest, Bangladesh would have won a series against THAT English performance). Aus rake in the points for beating a "good" side 5-0...even though they were simply not a good side at that point. Not a system that you can fix though - we just have to accept that it will throw out anomalies at times...
I wouldn't deny that Aus are playing the best AT THE MOMENT, but how well will they do when Johnson has to play in India/Sri Lanka etc? Have they proven that they can beat any opponent in any conditions, or have they only confirmed that they are a threat on juicy pitches?
Thing is - its impossible to create a perfect system. As an example, it stands to reason that you should earn more points by beating BETTER opponents. Consider England. A year ago you had to play well to beat them, and would have earned a few points by winning a series say 3-2. Immediately afterwards they fall apart, and Aus beats them 5-0 (and lets be honest, Bangladesh would have won a series against THAT English performance). Aus rake in the points for beating a "good" side 5-0...even though they were simply not a good side at that point. Not a system that you can fix though - we just have to accept that it will throw out anomalies at times...
