ICC Test Rankings = Stupid?

[LiveLoveABD]

don't post like this, its only going to lead to arguments. treat all members, especially staff members, with the respect that you'd like others to treat you.

Also you can't directly say "India have done better outside the subcontinent" because firstly that's a load of rubbish - they've won 1 test away since 2010 - and secondly you don't have an equal sample: in those last ten series Pakistan have one series outside the subcontinent (South Africa), while India have had five, across which they've managed to win a single Test.

I also have no truck in this (Scotland then England, pro-development of the game outside the test countries above all though) other than the fact that a strong India and a strong Pakistan is very good for World cricket and for us neutrals. I am critical of the BCCI but that's because I'd argue that every fan of cricket should be - messing around with tours and costing other boards millions because you dislike their chief executive, having high up executives highly linked to match fixing and all-round corruption and the fact that you have an entire country denied access to the IPL for... some reason not to mention their cash grab at the expense of associate and affiliate ICC members is harmful to the game generally; especially as this is coming from the biggest and most influential board. That doesn't mean that I don't support India as a team or look upon them in a negative way because I can separate the politics from the sport. The fact that Indian authorities seem willing to stand up to the BCCI is a positive and hopefully will lead to change that helps the entire game.

I'm going to answer in reverse-

Now, I'm completely on board with all the mess that the BCCI creates in regards to FTP's. I'm not in favor if it. I've said that a lot of times on the boards here. Hell, our own board treats it's own spectators like crap. Just like you, I also hope that the mess sorts itself and we have a few good people take the sport forward. However, there's a certain reason why a certain country is denied access to IPL and I've said this a million times that those reasons are bigger than cricket. I see a lot of jealousy and judgement calls towards it. Why only in the case of India? Cricket in the sub-continent is a massive sport, certainly the sport for Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India. Bangladesh is growing quite rapidly, and I respect my country's leaders views on it. I respect my country for it's stand and there's no need to make it look like India is in the wrong here. We don't want to get into debates with that sort of stuff, but a quick search on the internet is enough.

Secondly, India lost in Australia for sure, but they played really well over there. India came very very close to winning a test match and the result could have really gone either way in two tests. It's not just about stats. So, take a deep breath and watch the four test matches patiently. May be, what is being said is not 'rubbish?' Not just that, India put themselves in brilliant positions in SA and NZ to win test matches only to have our bowling let us down.

Thirdly and most importantly, I've had a few arguments here, which is normal on a forum. I treat people with respect and I don't see any reason why I should respect a 'staff member' more than anyone else. Neither of us got abusive, he was insinuating and being sarcastic, yet, you see it fit to interrupt in an argument and catch me by the collar?

 

[LiveLoveABD]

A published cricket journalist. A cricket fan. A human being. A realist.

Quite the opposite. I don't especially like either team, but do appreciate reasoned argument.

This depends upon each individual ground (SSC vs Eden Gardens), but I'll accept a general trend that Asian pitches take more spin.

Also, the UAE can be found in the Middle East, not the Indian Subcontinent.

Which India have not done, besides a single win in England, in a series they lost 3-1. Granted, Pakistan also failed to do so in their one series in South Africa.

Not relevant to a Test match discussion.

India beat NZ in NZ 6-7 years back, and that was their last great achievement. They also have had five such series in this period, as opposed to just one for Pakistan.

This is an impossible argument to make, based on any kind of reasoned argument. In the same way, it is difficult to make an argument for Pakistan being a significantly better side. Hence why I said they were roughly equal.

Journalists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past. Your passion is your profession but that doesn't mean someone in a different field can't be equally passionate or more? I don't know where you're going with the human being and realist stuff but if it's meant to be a dig, I'll just let it be. Still don't see the logic of asking someone to get on with it in life in a debate.

You've taken my point about sub-continent conditions so I'm not going to get into the geography of it. I do consider West Indies also sub-continent type conditions. Thanks for correcting me for the geography.

India won a test at Lord's and then got clattered. I actually genuinely believe that they played better cricket in Australia than in England, overall. Just because the score book says they didn't win a test doesn't mean they played poorly. They played quite admirably in NZ, SA and Aus. The point simply is, that since we were talking about ratings, which is impossible to decipher, my opinion stands that in conditions that aren't suited to spin, India are a better team than Pakistan. I'm entitled to an opinion whether you agree or not. I could feel that India is streets ahead and you 'could' be wrong. It's my thinking. So it doesn't give you the liberty to first be sarcastic, then ask us to grow up and then ask someone to get on with their life etc. etc.

Your opinion in my eyes, on this board is as valuable as any others. It can differ with mine, be right or be wrong.

 

[IceAgeComing]

I'm going to reply to you in the proper order since going backwards would confuse me

I'm not asking you to respect Staff members more than others, I just don't like people who go for personal attacks rather than criticising the point the other person is making. Sarcasm and cynicism is a valid rhetorical device (it is wasn't, I'd be screwed) and its often a valid way to express an idea. There are differences between a debate and an argument: the former is good and the whole point of forums, the latter often leads to fallout which I honestly don't want to deal with.

"Our bowlers let us down" is quite a big thing: you can't win tests unless you manage to take twenty wickets, that's the thing that makes them unique. That's kind of India's biggest weakness, and its a bit like saying that Australia bowled well in the Ashes and would have competed more had they batted well. Stats are a very valuable. Also lol if you think I'm going to watch four old Test Matches featuring two teams I'm not that into, I like cricket but not that much!

That entire third paragraph can be answered by looking at the whole point of international sport: that it is meant to be a way for nations to compete on equal terms without political nonsense getting in the way. Sport has always supposed to be a way to bring the world together, to allow people to peacefully compete and to bring together people that would normally be encouraged to not like each other. Sure, you can have games between literal enemies get ugly but the factors that led to the Blood in the Water match (the fact that the USSR invaded Hungary because their new Prime Minister wanted to reform their communist system and be a little more independent from Moscow, and because having tanks attack a peaceful revolution is never a good thing) are obviously not that relevant when you consider India/Pakistan. I can understand why India wouldn't want to tour Pakistan but I'm not saying that they should because it would be a very stupid thing to do, but touring the UAE is perfectly possible and would be peaceful. Sport should have nothing to do with politics, with the obvious exception of competing in places where players or supporters are in real danger of physical harm.

I supposed I am a little biased in this thing: I do appreciate the fact that Pakistan seem to be the only major test country that seems to care a little bit about the development of the game outside of the ten test nations. I think that they are still the only test country to actually have a multi-game tour of Scotland - sure it was as a warmup to the Champions Trophy a few years ago and one of the games was rained out, but its more than Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, the West Indies, Sri Lanka, or our amazing next-door neighbours do!

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Very good post. I'll respond tomorrow. Crashing.

 

[Aislabie]

I don't know where you're going with the human being and realist stuff but if it's meant to be a dig, I'll just let it be.

Kind of a dig, more just a succinct way of pointing out once more that I'm entirely unbiased about it all.

Don't see the logic of asking someone to get on with it in life in a debate.

Just that there must be better things for you to do than repeating yourself deep into the night.

I do consider West Indies also sub-continent type conditions.

There are slow, turning pitches in the West Indies (Trinidad) and faster, bouncier pitches (Barbados). It varies, much the same as anywhere else, and you can't apply such broad strokes to something as subtle as a cricket wicket. The county ground in Northampton was one of the world's most spin-friendly pitches for years, at which time Jason Brown, Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann often bowled in tandem there with prolific success.

India won a test at Lord's and then got clattered. I actually genuinely believe that they played better cricket in Australia than in England, overall. Just because the score book says they didn't win a test doesn't mean they played poorly. They played quite admirably in NZ, SA and Aus.

Not just that, India put themselves in brilliant positions in SA and NZ to win test matches only to have our bowling let us down

It doesn't matter how you play for three-quarters of the game. In the 2009 Ashes, Australia's bowlers consistently out-bowled England, their batsmen consistently out-batted England, but they lost it in a selection of crucial moments - Anderson and Panesar, for example. Being a good team is far more about taking opportunities, and India fail time and again to take these opportunities away from home.

India are a better team than Pakistan. I'm entitled to an opinion whether you agree or not.

Absolutely true. Even if it is demonstrably incorrect.

It doesn't give you the liberty to first be sarcastic, then ask us to grow up and then ask someone to get on with their life

This was far more regarding the playground tittle-tattle that was going on on the previous page. If I offended you, I apologise.

I don't see any reason why I should respect a 'staff member' more than anyone else.

There isn't one. Respect everyone equally.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Besides the "subcontinent = spin" thing is starting to break down a little: you certainly still have lots of spinning wickets but I'm sure that in domestic cricket and the IPL you are starting to see actually green wickets and that's something that would benefit India in the long term

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Okay, since you both have put forward both your points very respectively, I respect that and will agree to disagree. Also, I will take some of the points you guys have made on board and learn from it. If I offended either or was a bit vehement in proving a point then I apologize as well.

@ The Author- Unfortunately, after working I only have two passions which are Formula 1 and cricket. So, I don't have better to do on weekdays.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Besides the "subcontinent = spin" thing is starting to break down a little: you certainly still have lots of spinning wickets but I'm sure that in domestic cricket and the IPL you are starting to see actually green wickets and that's something that would benefit India in the long term

I think, a lot of 'playing abroad' trouble has to do with soil. The previous domestic season saw a LOT of green pitches and while it helps preparing batsmen, our bowlers get even more spoilt. I'm not going to take names, but people who are well over the hill bowling absolutely military medium were picking 6-7 wickets in an innings and looked unplayable. But, when they go abroad they get pasted because they're not used to bowling four sessions at full pelt. By bowling four sessions, I don't mean it's a fitness issue but they can't be consistently consistent. The same thing with our spinners. They're only effective when it's spitting out of the rough or there's uneven bounce.

I think we are not yet at a stage where say an India can replicate a seaming swinging pitch and I don't think England can prepare the sort of rank turners you get in India. It might turn in England, It might seam in India, but the 'degree' is something we are yet to say simulate.

Another absolute bummer is that when teams travel, the home team makes sure there are extreme conditions. When England came to India last after India got drubbed 4-0, each groundsman in India knew they had to prepare spitting cobras. It backfired, but I think it takes away from the game, the groundsman and in most cases the eventual spectacle.

 

[War]

Yeah, it's a rigid system at times. Shouldn't the fact that neither SA nor Bangladesh got much cricket on a tour which was competitive but washed out be taken into consideration? Maybe the points reduction should have been frozen, with the same happening for other similar series' in the future.

Its not surprising that in a computerized ranking system that the points would still count despite the rained out results, its hard to set up a mathematical formal not to consider such things.

This is why tests need the test championship because these strange discrepancies happen all the time and we should not be using such a faulty system to judge who is best test team and have the ICC ridiculously giving them a mace at the end

 

[War]

State of teams in Rankings

Just reading posts from members debating the merits of who is better between India & Pakistan had me thinking of the state of rankings especially after Australia's Ashes defeat.

Pakistan indeed have not played much away from home so its hard to judge them properly, but equally I don't know that a India team who is rebuilding and is trying a new interesting strategy of 5-bowlers (that has not been tested vs major nations) is better than PAK.

However that is moot point.

AUS Ashes loss opens a interesting can of worms for me. After AUS had defeat S Africa in early 2014, I've always been of the view that world cricket needed a immediate series re-match between S Africa & AUS because on form they were two best teams and we needed to see if S Africa post Kallis/Smith were now weaker than an re-energized Australia under Clarke.

Now we know that Clarke's new Australia is over after a good 16 months of good test cricket. S Africa post Kallis/Smith is still working on their balance especially now with Kallis is gone - but by default are probably still the best team in the world and we will know more about them after their tour to India later this year - the one place they have not won in 7 years of successful test cricket where they only lost to Australia twice (2009 & 2014) in that period.

So right now i think New Zealand could be a interesting chance to make a step-up - they have not lost a test series in 2 years, have on paper the most settled test side - could the Kiwis catch a rebuilding Australia down under this christmas?

England also have the making of decent side, impressive overseas performances vs PAK in UAE and S Africa could also see them rise.

 

[PokerAce]

Whoa haven't been on here in a while. That India-Pak thing got interesting. I would have loved to join in missed all the fun. Dang. @The Author

Anyway here is the thing -

First of all factoring in of the fact that Pakistan don't have home matches - err... why should that be factored in. If the teams who toured there didn't get ... you know ... shot at, perhaps there would be more cricket happening there. If however the rest of the world nations seem so damn worried about it, they are welcome to tour Pakistan. I wonder why I don't see Eng, Aus, SA, making a bee line to tour Pakistan.

Also whats the deal with Ind-Pak doing equally well. Since the 2011 WC Pakistan have had a hard time of it. CT didn't make it past the first round (got beat by India along the way). WC got only to the quarters (again got beat by India in the process). I totally see your point about how Pakistan are doing so much better than India, or no I don't.

Oh the past few test series - what a fine comparison. India have had 5 consecutive away tours, playing 4 of them in totally alien conditions (never I recall any side having done so). Do you know why, because India wants the other boards to make money from the tours. India is the big money tour, and boards want to host them. So India takes the pain to go on a fking virtaul world tour, playing cricket in 3 different continents. Do I see you wanting to factor that in. NOPE ! But Pakistan having to play in Dubai must be factored in !!

Do you really think a realistic meaningful sports table is meant to factor all these things in to begin with.

On a side note, I feel if any other country had 5 consecutive away tours (with not one home test series in between over 2 years), the moaning on this board would never stop, along with non stop how the big is making teams tour too much and what not.

Anyway so the comparison is India in alien conditions, making money for the other boards against Pakistan playing their cricket in UAE which is basically a second home to them, in regard to conditions.

What have Pakistan achieved - They beat Australia convcingly - Yes so, India white washed Aus too when Aus toured here (4-0), I believe was the scoreline. Infact Aus have not won a test in India for 11 years.

What else did Pakistan do, yes they drew with NZ, well India haven't hosted NZ anytime recently so lets not compare, though I will say the last time NZ tourned India, it was not even a contest to be honest, with India basically cake-walking it. What else, yes they beat SL in tests. Okay Ind-SL is on right now, and India look like taking the lead there.

So quite demonstrably Pakistan since 2011 have been way behind India especially in ODIs. As for tests Pakistan have not beaten any side worth note that India haven't also beaten when India played them in familiar conditions.

What else were you saying ... oh India boycott Pakistan ... what again is your problem with that. I dont see you calling for bilateral series between Isreal and Palestine for football or cricket or squash or swimming or handball or louge or ... even you get the point by now. Politically as things stand Ind-Pak cricket on a bilateral level cannot (and perhaps should not) happen. Again that is not something to factor in.

Don't get me wrong on the ICC ranking thing - they are dumb as they come, till every team plays every other side over the same period, the same number of times, that table will be pointless and stupid.

 

[cricket_icon]

Whoa haven't been on here in a while. That India-Pak thing got interesting. I would have loved to join in missed all the fun. Dang. @The Author

Anyway here is the thing -

First of all factoring in of the fact that Pakistan don't have home matches - err... why should that be factored in. If the teams who toured there didn't get ... you know ... shot at, perhaps there would be more cricket happening there. If however the rest of the world nations seem so damn worried about it, they are welcome to tour Pakistan. I wonder why I don't see Eng, Aus, SA, making a bee line to tour Pakistan.

Also whats the deal with Ind-Pak doing equally well. Since the 2011 WC Pakistan have had a hard time of it. CT didn't make it past the first round (got beat by India along the way). WC got only to the quarters (again got beat by India in the process). I totally see your point about how Pakistan are doing so much better than India, or no I don't.

Oh the past few test series - what a fine comparison. India have had 5 consecutive away tours, playing 4 of them in totally alien conditions (never I recall any side having done so). Do you know why, because India wants the other boards to make money from the tours. India is the big money tour, and boards want to host them. So India takes the pain to go on a fking virtaul world tour, playing cricket in 3 different continents. Do I see you wanting to factor that in. NOPE ! But Pakistan having to play in Dubai must be factored in !!

Do you really think a realistic meaningful sports table is meant to factor all these things in to begin with.

On a side note, I feel if any other country had 5 consecutive away tours (with not one home test series in between over 2 years), the moaning on this board would never stop, along with non stop how the big is making teams tour too much and what not.

Anyway so the comparison is India in alien conditions, making money for the other boards against Pakistan playing their cricket in UAE which is basically a second home to them, in regard to conditions.

What have Pakistan achieved - They beat Australia convcingly - Yes so, India white washed Aus too when Aus toured here (4-0), I believe was the scoreline. Infact Aus have not won a test in India for 11 years.

What else did Pakistan do, yes they drew with NZ, well India haven't hosted NZ anytime recently so lets not compare, though I will say the last time NZ tourned India, it was not even a contest to be honest, with India basically cake-walking it. What else, yes they beat SL in tests. Okay Ind-SL is on right now, and India look like taking the lead there.

So quite demonstrably Pakistan since 2011 have been way behind India especially in ODIs. As for tests Pakistan have not beaten any side worth note that India haven't also beaten when India played them in familiar conditions.

What else were you saying ... oh India boycott Pakistan ... what again is your problem with that. I dont see you calling for bilateral series between Isreal and Palestine for football or cricket or squash or swimming or handball or louge or ... even you get the point by now. Politically as things stand Ind-Pak cricket on a bilateral level cannot (and perhaps should not) happen. Again that is not something to factor in.

Don't get me wrong on the ICC ranking thing - they are dumb as they come, till every team plays every other side over the same period, the same number of times, that table will be pointless and stupid.

You seem highly offended, take it easy. First off, this isn't a discussion on ODI cricket, so all of what you said about that will be discarded.

Now, we're talking about Pakistan playing a lot of "home" test series', discarding all of that, Pakistan are still winning and often winning comfortably. Add to that just beating Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, aren't they away series? Just because they are on the same continent doesn't make them home series. Pakistan have won those comfortably too. Pakistan, over the course of 3-4 years have played the better test cricket, destroyed very good teams and had the most successful test captain. In fact, India's test number one spot was built almost entirely on home test series' for them, so why is there no moaning about that?

Fact is, most modern test sides are winning at home and losing away , with SA, NZ, Aus and Pak being the rare exceptions here. England have India from a few years back (India losing at home further strengthens my argument). The fact is, the rankings are starting to sort themselves out, I still hold SA as number one and it makes sense. NZ or Pakistan as no. 2 and both ranking above Australia, who have played 4 test matches recently, won one emphatically but lost every single other test in embarrassing fashion, especially the previous two ending in 2 and a bit days. That should all factor into the current rankings. SA, NZ/PAK, England, Aus, SL, India seems about right in rankings, taking in everything that has happened in the last 2 or 3 seasons.

Now, I don't know if you're replying to me when talking about bilateral series' and all that rubbish. You are using irrational, personal arguments for a thread which is about winning test series' and being rewarded for it. Keep the politics and your personally feelings out of it.

 

[CerealKiller]

Since the 2011 WC Pakistan have had a hard time of it. CT didn't make it past the first round (got beat by India along the way). WC got only to the quarters (again got beat by India in the process). I totally see your point about how Pakistan are doing so much better than India, or no I don't.

First of all, we're talking about test matches here. Secondly, even if we did poorly in ODIs when compared to India, we still managed to beat you in an ODI series on your own pitches.

Oh the past few test series - what a fine comparison. India have had 5 consecutive away tours, playing 4 of them in totally alien conditions (never I recall any side having done so). Do you know why, because India wants the other boards to make money from the tours

From great power comes great responsibility.

Anyway so the comparison is India in alien conditions, making money for the other boards against Pakistan playing their cricket in UAE which is basically a second home to them, in regard to conditions.

Exactly: you can't compare the 2 teams. So how is India a better test team than Pakistan?

 

[cricket_icon]

State of teams in Rankings

Just reading posts from members debating the merits of who is better between India & Pakistan had me thinking of the state of rankings especially after Australia's Ashes defeat.

Pakistan indeed have not played much away from home so its hard to judge them properly, but equally I don't know that a India team who is rebuilding and is trying a new interesting strategy of 5-bowlers (that has not been tested vs major nations) is better than PAK.

However that is moot point.

AUS Ashes loss opens a interesting can of worms for me. After AUS had defeat S Africa in early 2014, I've always been of the view that world cricket needed a immediate series re-match between S Africa & AUS because on form they were two best teams and we needed to see if S Africa post Kallis/Smith were now weaker than an re-energized Australia under Clarke.

Now we know that Clarke's new Australia is over after a good 16 months of good test cricket. S Africa post Kallis/Smith is still working on their balance especially now with Kallis is gone - but by default are probably still the best team in the world and we will know more about them after their tour to India later this year - the one place they have not won in 7 years of successful test cricket where they only lost to Australia twice (2009 & 2014) in that period.

So right now i think New Zealand could be a interesting chance to make a step-up - they have not lost a test series in 2 years, have on paper the most settled test side - could the Kiwis catch a rebuilding Australia down under this christmas?

England also have the making of decent side, impressive overseas performances vs PAK in UAE and S Africa could also see them rise.

New Zealand look to be a fast rising side, drawn series' against Pakistan and England, winning a rousing test here in Cook's backyard. In fact, last 8 series, stretching back 2 seasons they are: W4-L1-D3.

England have been great against Australia but I see nothing and no one in their team to suggest they can win away so it carries on the status quo if England losing against Pakistan and SA. I hope it's different but I can't see that happening.

 

[PokerAce]

First of all, we're talking about test matches here. Secondly, even if we did poorly in ODIs when compared to India, we still managed to beat you in an ODI series on your own pitches.

From great power comes great responsibility.

Exactly: you can't compare the 2 teams. So how is India a better test team than Pakistan?

Wow your response is to quote Spiderman.

Look I know you are a Pakistan fan and this is the kind of response, I would expect from a Pakistan fan. You will naturally defend your team, and that is fine. I really don't want this to turn into an Indo-Pak long debate, which will soon turn into nonsense within a few posts as invaribly all Ind-Pak arguments tend to turn into.

The post was in any case intended at Author, who as someone not from either India or Pakistan doesn't get the India - Pak eqaution to begin with, and presumed to be all judgemental, sititng on his high chair.

So I will just give you a thumbs up for that quote.