ICC Test Rankings = Stupid?

[cricket_icon]

Someone explain the rankings to me....how can India still be 3rd? They haven't won a test series since 2013-14 season, they are 9-4 in their win loss of test series', I think all but one of their test series wins at home and 3 of those series against the windies (2) and nz (1). The other one being a home triumph over australia in 2012/13 if I'm not mistaken.

Shouldn't new zealand be 3rd? and pakistan 4th with england coming in at 5? what is the turn over for the rankings? how long a period of time does it look at? Australia have 1 test series win in 2 years...other teams have done better than that. What is actually going on? I hardly ever look at the rankings but a friend of mine brought it up and it just astounds me how the ICC could have it so wrong.

 

[PokerAce]

Any table where each team, doesn't play every other team over the same fixed period, the same number of times is bound to be a bullsh!t table. The same is true of the ICC Test and ODI tables.

 

[MattW]

The simplest solution for that would be to ignore the fact matches don't happen - with the onus being on the higher ranked team to organise matches with the lower ranked one, and simply award the points as a loss to the higher ranked side if they don't organise at least three tests within a 4 year test cycle.

If a team would rather lose the points than play against a team, fine. But have a negative on it.

 

[cricket_icon]

Any table where each team, doesn't play every other team over the same fixed period, the same number of times is bound to be a bullsh!t table. The same is true of the ICC Test and ODI tables.

The ODI table doesn't look so bad and reflects a good run for Australia and India etc and a bad one for Pakistan and the Windies.

The simplest solution for that would be to ignore the fact matches don't happen - with the onus being on the higher ranked team to organise matches with the lower ranked one, and simply award the points as a loss to the higher ranked side if they don't organise at least three tests within a 4 year test cycle.

If a team would rather lose the points than play against a team, fine. But have a negative on it.

That's actually a very good idea....good ideas never seem to make it into the ICC.

Read something very interesting just now, the top 3 teams with the best win loss ratios in test cricket currently are : SA, Australia and Pakistan....yet Pakistan aren't even in the top 5 (I should add these are the numbers since January 2012).

It is quite a ridiculous set up if the table is THAT wrong, things don't even get this bad at FIFA.

 

[Santander]

No ranking system will ever be fully precise or representative of the performances of the teams involved. Broadly speaking though, the Test rankings are accurate, with SA firmly #1, Australia at #2, England/SL/India/Pakistan/NZ largely inseparable at #3-7, WI trailing the pack at #8 and Bangladesh way adrift at #9. Zimbabwe haven't played enough matches in recent years to really be in the picture. I would prefer an Elo system to be used, but I don't consider the current ranking table to be terribly inaccurate.

 

[cricket_icon]

No ranking system will ever be fully precise or representative of the performances of the teams involved. Broadly speaking though, the Test rankings are accurate, with SA firmly #1, Australia at #2, England/SL/India/Pakistan/NZ largely inseparable at #3-7, WI trailing the pack at #8 and Bangladesh way adrift at #9. Zimbabwe haven't played enough matches in recent years to really be in the picture. I would prefer an Elo system to be used, but I don't consider the current ranking table to be terribly inaccurate.

It's ridiculous if you believe those teams are inseparable, Pakistan have a far superior test track record than India as do NZ. England are at best 5th, then we can start talking about India and SL. Just look at recent test series results, you have to stretch back two seasons to find an Indian test series victory.

I still have no idea how these rankings work. If you had said the ODI rankings are better than I would have agreed. It's laughable to even try and defend those rankings.

 

[Santander]

The rankings are over 4 years and are biased towards teams that play against highly ranked opposition. Sure, it would be better if the ranking period was shorter, but too few Tests are played to produce reasonable rankings for only 2 years. The rankings consider the quality of opposition played, so even losing a series to the likes of SA or Australia is mitigated by this factor. India's ranking reflects the fact that, while they have been poor overall in Tests, almost all of their Test series of the last 4 years were against Australia/SA/England/NZ, and their home series wins against Australia give them a huge rating boost. The same would go for England, whose Ashes whitewash is mitigated by the fact that it was against Australia. (Points for series wins don't care if you win 1-0 or 5-0) It's not the rankings that are unfair, it's scheduling that is. The quality of opposition should have an effect on ranking, and unfortunately, the likes of NZ and Pakistan cannot get enough matches against top-quality opposition to get a firm foothold at the top of the table because of scheduling.

 

[mohit_dude10]

It's ridiculous if you believe those teams are inseparable, Pakistan have a far superior test track record than India as do NZ. England are at best 5th, then we can start talking about India and SL. Just look at recent test series results, you have to stretch back two seasons to find an Indian test series victory.

I still have no idea how these rankings work. If you had said the ODI rankings are better than I would have agreed. It's laughable to even try and defend those rankings.

Pakistan have won what? IIRC just the Aus series in last 3 years. Which India did as well, apart from that they've drawn all their 'home' series. Not to forget, they did draw a series vs Zimbabwe. The only top 3 team they toured during the period (SA) they got blanked 3-0. So how exactly is their track record superior?

 

[CerealKiller]

Pakistan have won what? IIRC just the Aus series in last 3 years. Which India did as well, apart from that they've drawn all their 'home' series. Not to forget, they did draw a series vs Zimbabwe. The only top 3 team they toured during the period (SA) they got blanked 3-0. So how exactly is their track record superior?

Cmon man now don't get butthurt just because he praised pakistan

On a serious note, the rankings don't take in account against who was the series or where. And it's normal that a team performs better at home than away. Every team except sa are "home track bullies"

 

[bigred]

No ranking system will ever be fully precise or representative of the performances of the teams involved. Broadly speaking though, the Test rankings are accurate, with SA firmly #1, Australia at #2, England/SL/India/Pakistan/NZ largely inseparable at #3-7, WI trailing the pack at #8 and Bangladesh way adrift at #9. Zimbabwe haven't played enough matches in recent years to really be in the picture. I would prefer an Elo system to be used, but I don't consider the current ranking table to be terribly inaccurate.

No way you can say those teams are if the same standard. India are an awful test team at the moment, and I don't think they are much above West Indies.

NZ aren't far off SA and Australia in my opinion. Pakistan don't play enough test cricket, but I'd have them in join 4th with England. SL are a mediocre team but better than India.

 

[IceAgeComing]

i always really want to change the thread title to icc = stupid, i dunno why

although the rankings are a very special type of stupid

 

[mohit_dude10]

Cmon man now don't get butthurt just because he praised pakistan

On a serious note, the rankings don't take in account against who was the series or where. And it's normal that a team performs better at home than away. Every team except sa are "home track bullies"

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

 

[CerealKiller]

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

For the record, pakistan won seven, drew nine and lost four series in the last 5 years , with a win-loss ratio of 1.200, behind only south africa, england and australia

 

[Markkkkk]

Test cricket is honestly becoming a laughing stock. The best test team in the world is playing 6 matches in the next year cant average more then 3-4 test series a year is ridiculous. Teams should be playing test cricket as much as possible and none of these crappy series that only have ODI and T20 games...

 

[cricket_icon]

Test cricket is honestly becoming a laughing stock. The best test team in the world is playing 6 matches in the next year cant average more then 3-4 test series a year is ridiculous. Teams should be playing test cricket as much as possible and none of these crappy series that only have ODI and T20 games...

TBF to test cricket, England and Australia have played a heck of a lot in recent years and even Pakistan have upped their numbers. I do agree that I have never been a fan of ODI/T20 only series', which lessen the impact of a tour and in all honesty, only come across as cheap money grabs.