ICC Test Rankings = Stupid?

[cricket_icon]

Butthurt? I just stated a fact that Pakistan with just 1 series win in last 3 years aren't doing any better.

Pakistan hammered a far better Australian side than India did and they have test series wins and test wins in the recent months. The last Indian test win was some 2 seasons ago, whatever you think of Pakistan, how can a team with 0 test series wins in 2 seasons be ranked 3rd? It makes no sense. Not to mention Pakistan have just beaten SL in SL today and haven't lost a test series at "home" (loose term of the UAE) in quite a while.

India lost to England in that same time span, at home, where they are supposed to be a very good team.

It's good to see most of the cricket fans here can see how ridiculous the rankings are.

 

[War]

@cricket_icon Its very stupid every observant cricket fan knows this - been discussed before Tracking the faulty ranking system - Cricket Discussion on PlanetCricket Forums

The many faults of the ranking system is why post the end of the Australia dominant 1995-2006-07 era, India & England were incorrectly elevated to # 1 over S Africa, when in fact S Africa have always been the best test team since February 2007.

Only recently when Australia beat them at home can we saw for the first time realistically in the last 8 years that a team could be better than them, which is why we need re-match between these two sides ASAP.

 

[cricket_icon]

@cricket_icon Its very stupid every observant cricket fan knows this - been discussed before Tracking the faulty ranking system - Cricket Discussion on PlanetCricket Forums

The many faults of the ranking system is why post the end of the Australia dominant 1995-2006-07 era, India & England were incorrectly elevated to # 1 over S Africa, when in fact S Africa have always been the best test team since February 2007.

Only recently when Australia beat them at home can we saw for the first time realistically in the last 8 years that a team could be better than them, which is why we need re-match between these two sides ASAP.

oops, didn't see that thread.

And yeah, I'd like to see SA v Australia again but it's weird that the saffers are playing such little test cricket. We also need to see Pakistan v England/SA by the end of 2016. I think Pakistan are touring here.

And how I would love to see England v NZ in NZ. These two teams have given us excellent cricket throughout the early summer.

 

[War]

oops, didn't see that thread.

And yeah, I'd like to see SA v Australia again but it's weird that the saffers are playing such little test cricket. We also need to see Pakistan v England/SA by the end of 2016. I think Pakistan are touring here.

And how I would love to see England v NZ in NZ. These two teams have given us excellent cricket throughout the early summer.

Why PAK vs ENG/SA?

AUS & SA are way above the rest in tests, so a re-match with them before end of 2016 (especially before some older AUS players retire) is the only relevant world test championship clash. NZ could have something to say about that, because they are the closest to those two teams based on form in last two years.

 

[cricket_icon]

Why PAK vs ENG/SA?

AUS & SA are way above the rest in tests, so a re-match with them before end of 2016 (especially before some older AUS players retire) is the only relevant world test championship clash. NZ could have something to say about that, because they are the closest to those two teams based on form in last two years.

Pakistan are the 3rd or 4th best test side based on the last season of cricket. Decimating Australia, easily beating Bangladesh, drawing with NZ...but all at home. I wana see them in England and then maybe SA in 2017. The Pakistan test side is starting to look exceptional, they just need a seriously quick, Pakistani style fast bowler to compliment Junaid Khan, Wahab Riaz and the others.

 

[Excommunicado]

I have to pretty much agree with you (with the yearly Test rankings), it was a surprise England and India turned out to be ahead of Pakistan. England have been terrible since the Ashes in Australia, and India pretty much the same whilst Pakistan whitewashed Australia, beat New Zealand, and etc.

However the updated Test Rankings (as of 7th July 2015) are very accurate and sum up what's ACTUALLY happening in cricket. South Africa and Aussies, leading deserving. Pakistan and NZ in their respective positions and Sri Lanka, India and England where they ACTUALLY belong as of current, in Test cricket.

 

[Aislabie]

Well, I've had a little bit of spare time and thought I'd turn my hand to some Test rankings. I kept things simple, using the following rules:

• If the higher ranked team wins the series, rankings remain unchanged
• If the series is drawn, rankings remain unchanged
• If the lower ranked team wins the series, they move above their opponent
• If a team is playing their first series and lose, they join the bottom of the table
• If a team is playing their first series and draw, they join below their opponent

That gives me the following Test rankings table:

1. SOUTH AFRICA
2. NEW ZEALAND
3. PAKISTAN
4. SRI LANKA
5. AUSTRALIA
6. ENGLAND
7. INDIA
8. WEST INDIES
9. BANGLADESH
10. ZIMBABWE
11. Ireland
12. Afghanistan
13. Scotland
14. United Arab Emirates
15. Namibia
16. Kenya
17. Canada
18. Papua New Guinea
19. Netherlands
20. Uganda
21. Bermuda
22. Nepal
23. Malaysia
24. United States
25. Hong Kong
26. :cay: Cayman Islands

 

[cricket_icon]

Well, I've had a little bit of spare time and thought I'd turn my hand to some Test rankings. I kept things simple, using the following rules:

• If the higher ranked team wins the series, rankings remain unchanged
• If the series is drawn, rankings remain unchanged
• If the lower ranked team wins the series, they move above their opponent
• If a team is playing their first series and lose, they join the bottom of the table
• If a team is playing their first series and draw, they join below their opponent

That gives me the following Test rankings table:

1. SOUTH AFRICA
2. NEW ZEALAND
3. PAKISTAN
4. SRI LANKA
5. AUSTRALIA
6. ENGLAND
7. INDIA
8. WEST INDIES
9. BANGLADESH
10. ZIMBABWE
11. Ireland
12. Afghanistan
13. Scotland
14. United Arab Emirates
15. Namibia
16. Kenya
17. Canada
18. Papua New Guinea
19. Netherlands
20. Uganda
21. Bermuda
22. Nepal
23. Malaysia
24. United States
25. Hong Kong
26. :cay: Cayman Islands

That is actually pretty damn spot on. Send your formula over to the fools at the Big Three club (Can't really call it the ICC).

I have one little change, Australia and England both above Sri Lanka but not by much.

 

[Aislabie]

That is actually pretty damn spot on. Send your formula over to the fools at the Big Three club (Can't really call it the ICC).

I have one little change, Australia and England both above Sri Lanka but not by much.

Well, if England beat South Africa or Pakistan, or Australia beat New Zealand, then they'll shuffle up. I think this system is pretty much how boxing rankings are done, but don't know enough about the sport to know for sure.

Limited overs rankings are much more difficult, though; owing to the amount of tournament play that takes place, I can't just take series results.

 

[Aislabie]

It's raining at the moment, so I've made rankings for all three formats and published them on my blog.

Spoiler: Test Rankings

1. SOUTH AFRICA
2. NEW ZEALAND
3. PAKISTAN
4. SRI LANKA
5. AUSTRALIA
6. ENGLAND
7. INDIA
8. WEST INDIES
9. BANGLADESH
10. ZIMBABWE
11. Ireland
12. Afghanistan
13. Scotland
14. United Arab Emirates
15. Namibia
16. Kenya
17. Canada
18. Papua New Guinea
19. Netherlands
20. Uganda
21. Bermuda
22. Nepal
23. Malaysia
24. United States
25. Hong Kong
26. :cay: Cayman Islands

Spoiler: ODI Rankings

1. AUSTRALIA
2. ENGLAND
3. NEW ZEALAND
4. BANGLADESH
5. INDIA
6. SOUTH AFRICA
7. SRI LANKA
8. PAKISTAN
9. WEST INDIES
10. IRELAND
11. Zimbabwe
12. Afghanistan
13. United Arab Emirates
14. Scotland
15. Hong Kong
16. Netherlands
17. Papua New Guinea
18. Namibia
19. Kenya
20. Nepal
21. Uganda
22. Canada
23. Bermuda
24. Oman
25. Denmark
26. Argentina
27. United States of America

Spoiler: Twenty20 Rankings

1. SRI LANKA
2. ENGLAND
3. INDIA
4. WEST INDIES
5. AUSTRALIA
6. SOUTH AFRICA
7. BANGLADESH
8. PAKISTAN
9. NEW ZEALAND
10. NETHERLANDS *
11. Zimbabwe
12. Hong Kong *
13. Scotland *
14. Ireland *
15. Afghanistan *
16. Oman *
17. Namibia
18. Papua New Guinea
19. Kenya
20. United States of America
21. Jersey
22. Nepal
23. United Arab Emirates
24. Italy
25. Canada
26. Uganda
27. Bermuda
28. Denmark

* Subject to WT20Q placings

 

[cricket_icon]

Well, if England beat South Africa or Pakistan, or Australia beat New Zealand, then they'll shuffle up. I think this system is pretty much how boxing rankings are done, but don't know enough about the sport to know for sure.

Limited overs rankings are much more difficult, though; owing to the amount of tournament play that takes place, I can't just take series results.

I wouldn't really use boxing as a good example here, there's a lot of corruption. There have been instances when fighters have remained and even moved up rnakings even after they have died.

 

[Markkkkk]

Surely rankings can be done by saying winning away: 3 pts, winning at home: 2 pts, drawn series : 1 pt, loss: 0 pts.

 

[PokerAce]

Surely rankings can be done by saying winning away: 3 pts, winning at home: 2 pts, drawn series : 1 pt, loss: 0 pts.

But who are u playing. Suppose SL play home series agaisnt Zim, B'desh and WI and win, and say India go to Aus and SA and Eng and perhaps draw a series or two, then its still not a fair table.

A table cannot be fair till every team, plays every other team, home and away, over the same fixed period.

Say ICC could say that everyone starts from scratch now and over the next 4/5 years each team will play every other test playing nation, once home and once away ... and at the end of it all, the team at the top shall be the #1 test team in the world. That is a fair and meaningful league and a meaningful test champion.

As of now, SL (or anyone) can whip WI, Zim and B;desh at home and become #1 while another sides play tough away series, then its not a meaningful table.

 

[Markkkkk]

But who are u playing. Suppose SL play home series agaisnt Zim, B'desh and WI and win, and say India go to Aus and SA and Eng and perhaps draw a series or two, then its still not a fair table.

A table cannot be fair till every team, plays every other team, home and away, over the same fixed period.

Say ICC could say that everyone starts from scratch now and over the next 4/5 years each team will play every other test playing nation, once home and once away ... and at the end of it all, the team at the top shall be the #1 test team in the world. That is a fair and meaningful league and a meaningful test champion.

As of now, SL (or anyone) can whip WI, Zim and B;desh at home and become #1 while another sides play tough away series, then its not a meaningful table.

Well India hasnt won a series so they should be lower but yea I get your point, ideally this is how it should run as its more reliable and it seems to be the best option...

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Well India hasnt won a series so they should be lower but yea I get your point, ideally this is how it should run as its more reliable and it seems to be the best option...

I think it would be rather ridiculous to say Pakistan is a better test team than India. India won a test in England and didn't embarrass themselves in Australia either. I only ever see Pakistan play in the sub continent. Unfortunately, these rankings and any ranking system is bollocks. I've for very long said that Cricket needs an overhaul.

Who the bloody hell cares about these ODI series or a random T20? It's like going for a one time watch movie. Have some pop corn or beer and that's that. It's not like a World Cup?

My suggestion is that the ICC needs to divide cricket into two formats.

The Test Championship, spread over two years. (Each team plays the other thrice. Once at home, one away and once neutral)

The ODI Championship, spread over a year. (Each team plays the other thrice. Once at home, one away and once neutral)

That way, every game in every year will lead to an eventuality.

T20 doesn't need an international format. Franchise cricket is enough. Just a World Cup every 4 years.

The only issue with my suggested format is in the tests when teams compete at a neutral venue. It will be hard to get people to come to the ground.