Why would that be funny? For me, the main thing is winning matches, so the team that wins more matches should be ranked better. If they introduce the old system it would mean set ratio would be the 2nd criterion again and that would be worse than the points rule. Sometimes a team can lose a set because of 5 unconcentrated minutes but still overall dominate the match and win "only" 3:1 while 3:2 usually means that the match was between two nearly equally strong teams. However the counterargument would be that a 3:1 can also be very hard-fought...
Eventually there is no "perfect" system, everything has pros and cons, but I think taking the number of victories first and then the points is a good choice.
What would be drawback of system which every taken sets count as 1 point?