The state of test cricket post Australia's 1995-2006/07 decline

[War]

After seeing England - the # 1 team in world according to the faulty ranking system go down 2-0 in Pakistan and hearing the somewhat expected criticism in some quarter about them being illegitimate # 1 team because of that fairlure in the sub-continent - it made me sit back and analyse how international cricket has shaped has been in the last 5 years since the great AUS # 1 team declined.

As most on planetcricket know i've always maintained the positioning of teams as # 1 in the last 5 years has all been wrong given that the ranking system is very faulty.

How the ICC test ranking system works is as it states here according to the ICC Handbook 2005-06 which the ICC uses to rank teams in the test championship : ICC Test Championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The calculations for the table are performed as follows:
Each team scores points based on the results of their matches.
Each team's rating is equal to its total points scored divided by the total matches and series played. (A series must include at least two Tests).
A series only counts if played in the last three years.
Series played in the first two years of the three-year limit count half; essentially, recent matches are given more weight.

The system is worst way to judge who is best test team in world it does take into account properly the change of personnel in a team due to retirements or player development properly.

Although the history books and most astute cricket pundits always highlight AUS era ended in 2006/07 ashes - the ranking system didn't officially remove that tag from australia until they lost at home to S Africa in 2009 - another blunder.

Plus i dont know how they ever managed to place IND as # 1 when if one just checks cricinfo as does simple mathematics and add up all the series India and South Africa had played from February 2007 - August 2010 (before IND lost 4-0 in ENG)

One would see India played 18 series winning 10, while S Africa played 15 winning 9.

S Africa mathematically had the better winning average, but of course in the series they these sides met between 2008-2010 they drew so that in a way showed both these sides were the two equal best sides in the world.

English cricket after the Moores/Pietersen saga between West Indies 2009 - Pakistan 2010 where the embryonic stages of the Strauss/Flower partnership and development. No one in their right mind was ranking or speaking of England as anything close to best team in the world then and rightly so because they had alot players who did not convince the world they good all-round players.

The 2010/11 Ashes win regardless of how far this team goes in the future, will be regarded by historians im sure as the starting point of this teams greatness. Thats why the West Indies 76-91 dynasty is always started in 1976 in England and AUS 95-2007 dynasty also begins from the 95 win in the Caribbean.

Players for ENG like Anderson, Tremlett, Cook, Bell, Bresnan came of age in Ashes 2010/11. The faulty ICC ranking system which judges form of the a short two year period, does not recongize this and its has incorrectly made a correlation with ENG of between of WI 09 - PAK 2010 to ENG between AUS 2010/11 - IND 2011. Those are two completely different ENG teams that one cannot compare.

With AUS in a mess and S Africa inconsistent and IND ageing - it was fine to say after ENG won 4-0 to say that they had the most settled team in the world - but that's different from saying you are # 1 since this new ENG team has not won enough series to reach that accolade, since they were only 8 months into their potential dynasty.

Now that have failed their 1st sub-continent test badly, things could get a bit tricky, AUS demolition of IND shows they could be on the up again and S Africa team is building a nice balance as well. Talent wise they certainly are not far of England is any facet of the game.

Alot of unknown can happen in the next couple of years which is why as it stands post AUS 2006/07 decline - their is no # 1 team in test cricket, we are seeing a constant fluctuate of form within teams.

The ranking system is what is confusing everything and is giving teams these false hope to reach # 1 status - which is why i always advocate cricket does not need such a system. From 1948 to 2002 cricket was fine without such systems and their was never any problem, we need to go back to those days.

 

[sifter132]

I just made a post about the rankings system in the Pak-Eng thread (http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/international-tours-events/pakistan-v-england-u-e-jan-feb-2011-12-a-76920-53.html#post2264022.

But essentially, I think it does the best that it can, and it fans who expect too much from the rankings that are to blame - like you

Australia not losing their #1 tag til 2009 is not a flaw: who should have taken it from them between 06/07 and 09? India? Nope, Australia beat India in 2007/08. Sure India beat them back in 2008, but Australia's points built up from all those years at the top should have insulated them from one series loss I think you'd agree. England? Nope, they'd just been hammered 5-nil and while they were decent between 06/07-09 they weren't obviously outplaying Australia or not by enough to overtake them. England barely beat Aus in 2009 - one more wicket at Cardiff... South Africa? Maybe, after all they did come to Australia and win, but then Australia went to SA and won straight back. Hardly the performance of an obvious #1.

Then as you point out: India vs SA tussle for top spot was very close. Looking at those series like you did I think SA could have taken the top spot if they'd built on their 08/09 win in Australia. But they didn't have many series scheduled after that and they didn't do overly well in the ones they had scheduled. They lost 2-1 to Aus at home, then drew at home with Eng 1-1 - that was all they did in 2009! I think the system would have penalised them for that lack of Test cricket as it rewards more recent series. Then by the time they went to India in 2010 and drew 1-1, India was the #1, and that whole series came about so that India could defend that ranking.

Anyway, the bottom line is: you don't know what you want with the rankings anyway! So you want the rankings system to forget England's issues before 10/11 and just take the word of 2 series (vs Aus and Ind)? Well it kind of has since England is now #1...Should the rankings reflect retirements and changes in personnel at you say? Then perhaps Pakistan should be #1 - they have a new captain and coach and have won some series lately.

And then up against your arguments are the arguments of those who think the rankings don't go back far enough eg. they don't remember England's last series losses in Asia for example. The argument being that the rankings should take those series into account because England needs to beat everyone everywhere to prove they are the best.

I don't mind your argument about the rankings being unnecessary. But we'd still be arguing about who is the world's #1 team - it's just now we are using numbers in that argument as well, which I personally feel is usually a good thing.

 

[War]

I just made a post about the rankings system in the Pak-Eng thread (http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/international-tours-events/pakistan-v-england-u-e-jan-feb-2011-12-a-76920-53.html#post2264022.

But essentially, I think it does the best that it can, and it fans who expect too much from the rankings that are to blame - like you

Australia not losing their #1 tag til 2009 is not a flaw: who should have taken it from them between 06/07 and 09? India? Nope, Australia beat India in 2007/08. Sure India beat them back in 2008, but Australia's points built up from all those years at the top should have insulated them from one series loss I think you'd agree. England? Nope, they'd just been hammered 5-nil and while they were decent between 06/07-09 they weren't obviously outplaying Australia or not by enough to overtake them. England barely beat Aus in 2009 - one more wicket at Cardiff... South Africa? Maybe, after all they did come to Australia and win, but then Australia went to SA and won straight back. Hardly the performance of an obvious #1.

Then as you point out: India vs SA tussle for top spot was very close. Looking at those series like you did I think SA could have taken the top spot if they'd built on their 08/09 win in Australia. But they didn't have many series scheduled after that and they didn't do overly well in the ones they had scheduled. They lost 2-1 to Aus at home, then drew at home with Eng 1-1 - that was all they did in 2009! I think the system would have penalised them for that lack of Test cricket as it rewards more recent series. Then by the time they went to India in 2010 and drew 1-1, India was the #1, and that whole series came about so that India could defend that ranking.

Anyway, the bottom line is: you don't know what you want with the rankings anyway! So you want the rankings system to forget England's issues before 10/11 and just take the word of 2 series (vs Aus and Ind)? Well it kind of has since England is now #1...Should the rankings reflect retirements and changes in personnel at you say? Then perhaps Pakistan should be #1 - they have a new captain and coach and have won some series lately.

And then up against your arguments are the arguments of those who think the rankings don't go back far enough eg. they don't remember England's last series losses in Asia for example. The argument being that the rankings should take those series into account because England needs to beat everyone everywhere to prove they are the best.

I don't mind your argument about the rankings being unnecessary. But we'd still be arguing about who is the world's #1 team - it's just now we are using numbers in that argument as well, which I personally feel is usually a good thing.

I dont expect anything from the ranking system, as i mentioned before i dont think cricket needs one for any format - especially in tests. Just lets go back to how things were from 1948-2002 when we had no ranking system and all erudite cricket fans and pundits during those 54 years always had a clear understanding of who the best team in the world was.

This is why we had many unofficial # 1 series such as Ashes 58/59, AUS vs WI 64/65, AUS vs WI 68/69, AUS vs SA 69/70, Ashes 72/73, AUS vs WI 79/80, WI vs PAK 87/88, AUS vs WI 90/91 and 92/93, AUS vs WI 94/95, AUS
vs SA 2001/02.

People assessed the state of international cricket before all those series and bestowed the # 1 tag on it before hand.

Between 95-2006/07 as you would agree nobody needed a point system to tell you AUS was the best team in world, it was that obvious. This is why when the first version of the ranking system came out in 2002/03 and they made S Africa # 1 it was such a joke, after one-year earlier AUS had hammed SA 5-1 over 6 tests home away in the unofficial # 1 series.

South African win takes them to top off ICC Test Championship | South Africa Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Fact is AUS dynasty ended after the 2006/07 ashes with all those great players leaving - its not about the culmination or adding up at points gained between 2001-2006.

Just as how the Windies dynasty ended after their 1991 tour to England, although they didn't lose a series until 1995.

Rating every team including AUS started fresh from February 2007, since AUS clearly were never going to be the same again and were going to rebuild and that has been shown pretty conclusively by their performances over the last years. Unfortunately a ranking system given it just studies form over a 3-year period, didn't consider that Warne, McGrath, Langer, Martyn, Hayden, Gilchrist, MacGill, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, all existed within a year of each other.



On S Africa well yea the ranking system did penalize them for the lack of activity in the test arena in 2009, since IIRC India ascended to that # 1 status in December after they beat SRI Lanka after heavy activity in 2009.That was madness.

As i mentioned in the opening post one just has to check cricinfo and view the series by series record by SA and IND between February 2007 - August 2010 (excluding series vs Bangladesh or not) and one would see via simple maths S Africa had the better record and they actually managed to win in England and Australia in that period - while IND just got whitewashed in those countries.

With regards to England the ranking system added up points they attained by winning all of their series (except for the draw in S Africa 2009/10) after that 1-0 loss in the Caribbean 2009. Thus after they defeated AUS and IND that were ranked higher than them at the time - that gave them the # 1 tag.

We are using a bad numbers system to argue who the # 1 and i don't their any formal anyone can come with that can make it right.

 

[War]

Why South Africa are the real # 1

Yes, as i stated in the ENG vs SA series thread, ignoring what the faulty ranking system says, which incorrectly prompted India and England to # 1 in the last few years.

S Africa on the basis of performances based on an in-depth series by series analysis since the decline of Australia after the 2006/07 ashes, are the first proper # 1 on merit.

The faulty ranking system was is such a disgrace, somehow managed to propel India to # 1 circa 2009 - 2011, when they won at home most of the time and never won in in key places like England and Australia.

When they eventually got clattered last year in ENG and AUS, people woke up. The actual truth was that between January 2007 - August 2011, BOTH S Africa and India were the "even" top two teams in world based, on the three 1-1 series draws they had between 2008 and 2011.

If one just checks cricinfo as does simple mathematics and add up all the series India and South Africa had played from February 2007 - August 2010 (before IND lost 4-0 in ENG). S Africa mathematically had the better winning average.



The only reason S Africa got lost the # 1 ranking they had to India in 2009 was because S Africa played limited tests in 2009, so essentially the system penalized them for lack of cricket and thus the India # 1 myth was formed.


England

England's rise to # 1 was alot more folly than India's.

English cricket after the Moores/Pietersen saga between West Indies 2009 - Pakistan 2010 where the embryonic stages of the Strauss/Flower partnership and development. No one in their right mind was ranking or speaking of England as anything close to best team in the world then and rightly so because they had alot players who did not convince the world they good all-round players.

The 2010/11 Ashes win regardless of how far this team goes in the future, will be regarded by historians im sure as the starting point of this teams greatness. Thats why the West Indies 76-91 dynasty is always started in 1976 in England and AUS 95-2007 dynasty also begins from the 95 win in the Caribbean.

Players for ENG like Anderson, Tremlett, Cook, Bell, Bresnan came of age in Ashes 2010/11. The faulty ICC ranking system which judges form of the a short two year period, does not recongize this and its has incorrectly made a correlation with ENG of between of WI 09 - PAK 2010 to ENG between AUS 2010/11 - IND 2011. Those are two completely different ENG teams that one cannot compare.

This new ENG team had not won enough series to reach that accolade when they beat india 4-0 last year , since they were only 8 months into their potential dynasty.

Now that they struggled in the sub-continent test last winter, people began to question their # 1 ranking, when in fact they never were the # 1.

South Africa

A lot of people don't realise that S Africa have not just lost two test series since August 2006. Two test series defeats in 6 years is # 1 ranking stuff.

What has prevented people from labelling S Africa the # 1 clearly, is because they have to their own fault slipped up in a few key series.

When they defeated Australia 2-1 in 2008/09 to claim the # 1 ranking for the first time, they slipped up by losing the return series 2-1.

Then when England visited in late 2009, that series was drawn 1-1 due to one of Ntini controversy and a series where many key players like Kallis, Steyn, De Wet got injured and England survived by their teeth.

Finally as aforementioned in three marquee series vs India they drew all three, due to a combination of weaknesses vs spin and poor selection.

So essentially S Africa although nobody was beating them, the proteas was beginning to develop the "chokers" tag in tests like they have in world cups. This was highlighted by those series in India after winning the opening tests convincingly they allowed India to level that the end.

They didn't allow England to come back in this series and closed it out. Thus in the larger scheme of thing, S Africa are the first clear # 1 in test cricket since Australia have declined and its not because the ranking system said so.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

If one just checks cricinfo as does simple mathematics and add up all the series India and South Africa had played from February 2007 - August 2010 (before IND lost 4-0 in ENG). S Africa mathematically had the better winning average.

their win/loss ration was worse though. they lost more tests than india in the same period despire playing a fewer number.

also, you spoke earlier about the fact that the teams change

look, I am not disputing that south africa deserve the no.1 spot right now, I think they do, Amla is a class act, so is de villiers, smith has always been a personal favourite, and steyn in particular is magnificent, but I do dispute that they deserve it more than england or india did (though, yes, referring back to the other thread appalling was a big overstatement)

south africa only appeal to you as "proper" no.1s because their team looks better on paper than england or india. it helps in your case majorly that you are a fast bowling fanatic and with morkel, philander and steyn the proteas are leagues ahead of other teams in terms of fast bowling. (not to mention that you never rated sehwag who in my opinion, and wisdens by the way, was the best cricketer in the world in 2008-09)

 

[War]

Winning a series is important and is how a team is judged. Not individual tests.

S Africa losing more tests in overall series from February 2007 - August 2011 than India doesn't have any significance.

If S Africa who at the time had won 9 out of 15 series, compared to India's 10 out of 18. Had lets say played the same 18 series and won 12 series, even if they had lost more tests, then it would not be a discussion.

That's flimsy argument was why when these ludicrous mathematical ranking system first came out in 2003, that the then S Africa team was amusing ranked # 1 ahead of Australia caused they had technically lost lest test matches than them.

Yes teams change and this S Africa has had a fairy settled base for the last 6 years in Smith, Amla, De Villiers, Steyn, Kallis, Boucher before retirement due to injury, Morkel.

Petersen as an opener has come in for McKenzie was a success for a short while. Rudolph/Dumminy are more talented middle-order options than Prince. Philander is filling the void left by Ntini. Tahir is potential the top-class spinner they need after having to deal with innocuous Paul Harris for a few years.

So essentially they are at their peak and i can only see them getting better, since i don't see this side breaking up anytime soon.

If you are clear of the of how England have evolved since 2009 en route to the 2010/11 ashes triumph. Then i don't know how you are anyone that has regurgitated that follow argument that England were ever # 1 after defeating India last summer.

Is it that hard to deduce that the "new England" potential dynasty as a team began with the Ashes win? And that it was illogical for them to become # 1 in any way, just 8 months after the Ashes triumph, especially when the "new England" was not yet tested in the sub-continent or in South Africa??

What did India ever do in 2009 to take the # 1 ranking from S Africa, that the proteas claimed in early 2009 by winning in Australia off of them, other than being penalized for inactivity by a faulty mathematical ranking system?


How i judge # 1 teams has nothing to do with what appeals to me. I judge them on performances in series over a extended period of time.

What are all these stereotypes about?. I am not a fast-bowling fanatic, i may enjoy seeing them bowl individually or as a pack more than spinners, but it by no means clouds my judgement about anything.

At no point was India ever better than S Africa since 2007 when Australia's era ended - in tests cricket. I cannot make this point even clearer nor highlight these plain facts to people even clearer.

Coming into this ENG vs S Africa series, initially i didn't think S Africa was better than England on paper fully either. I reckoned in English conditions, England's bowlers would cause their bat's hell and their bowlers would give ENG bat's equal hell in pacer friendly conditions.

Thus the winner of the series would come down, to which batting line-up would be able to withstand the mental and technical test of facing high-quality fast bowling on seaming decks more often than the other.


However SA's batsmen nullified ENGs quicks more often than not, thus the balance shifted and they dominated. So only during the series did i accept the total paper and on-field superiority SA have.

Also although SA's first choice quicks of Steyn/Morkel/Philander are a level ahead of Anderson/Broad/Finn. Its very close in the back-ups or maybe a slight edge to England.

ENG have a solid options like Tremlett, Onions, Bresnan, Meaker, Dernbach, Woakes, probably Rankin to call on.

SA based on those i've seen have De Lange who is clearly one of the best young bowlers in the world, McLaren is solid although often overlooked. But regulars who have been seen on the world stage recently like Tsotsobe (although i dont rate him as test standard) and Parnell are certainly not on the level of other options England have.


Fridel De Wet who played vs Englad in 2009 and Craig Alexander who is saw in the champions league lookx good, but i'm not sure where they are in the views of the SA selectors at the moment.

. What has Sehwag has to do with this???. What kind of correlation are you trying imply injecting him quite strangely here??

If i'm a fast bowling fanatic, then like many Indian fans you support or belief in Sehwag is hilariously warped, since to out of no where bring him into this discussions about the # 1 teams has absolutely no merits.

I don't claim to know more than wisden, so don't mention what they said about Sehwag in whatever year to defend whatever admiration you have towards him. I'm a cricket fan whose views as much as you or anyone in the world has its worth.

Sehwag's awful struggles against quality fast-bowling last year did enough highlight his major flaws that was masked by the amount of runs he scored on roads on flat tracks in the last decade vs crap pace attacks especially.

If he continues those struggles, Wisden will probably mention him again speaking about his fall from grace. I hope you don't forget to check that one out.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

well if winning series is more important then why shouldn't the fact since 2008 the only teams south africa have beaten at home are bangladesh and recently sri lanka matter? that was 3 years without a series win at home to anyone but the whipping boys of test cricket.

also, are you sure you have your stats right. from the period you keep giving I have 11 wins in 17 (2 losses, 4 draws) for india and 8 in 14 (1 loss 5 draws) for south africa. that would make india the superior team, winning 65% of their test series to saf's 57%

ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - South Africa - Test matches - Team analysis

ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

even if you have the stats right it shows what that you've picked a deliberately convenient spot as your test subject, as me putting in an approximation of the same period has lead to a different set of stats that paint a very different picture. or maybe you intended your results to hypothetical, since you did say "if", I thought that initially but why are you arguing winning series matter more if india did win more, but talking about hypotheticals?

I'm sorry war, I'm just not convinced that this isn't because you have a natural preference to south africa's team over india's, meaning it sits better with you that they are also now mathematically the number 1 side.

the reason I brought up sehwag was because it's just more evidence that india never appealled to you as number 1s. another one of your arguements at the time of india topping the table was their series win when touring england shouldn't count as much in the rankings is because england had injuries, which is frankly crazy reasoning.

all the time you've been rallying against the rankings I've been saying it's because you are confusing a mathematical ranking system with the subjective judgement based ranking fans and journalists do. you have thought south africa the best team for a while, that's your opinion to have, but it doesn't change the fact that mathematically other teams were performing better than them, and in a mathematically based ranking system they were thus deserving of being in front of them. I think this counts more in test cricket too where it's far harder to fluke results and saf's inability to beat england for example in that series must be factored in, similarly their draw to india if they were so much the superior side.

 

[angryangy]

I think the problem was that a lot of series wins for South Africa registered when their rival was clearly Australia; not India or England; and frankly, even without Warne, McGrath, Langer and Martyn, there was still a substantial period in which Australia retained the best batting order and coupled it with a healthy pace attack.

And going before that, you do see a South African team that was fairly average, at best underachieving. Around 2006 it seemed quite fair to argue that South Africa were at best a 4th or 5th best side. They lost to plenty of sides and in particular, just couldn't seem to land a blow against a depleted Australia. The batting was a bit in between and the bowling attack was perhaps showing its age. What they did after that was as much about simply not being a bad team as it was about being one of the best teams.

You could nevertheless argue that Australia warranted dismissal about six months earlier; number 1 could easily have been South Africa's if they didn't go ahead and lose three on the trot to Australia. I don't call it choking, I just call it competition. It was still a mark of improvement on past years, but if they were better than Australia then, it wasn't by nearly enough.

While Australia eventually lost the spot, South Africa's surge stalled quite utterly; partly because they take some of the longest winter breaks in Test cricket, but also because they only won one of the next six series. The series they really needed to win was against England. They may have been unlucky with the weather, but the 5th ranked English, who had started to turn their game around, might also have been substantially underrated to not fold more easily.

Whatever the case, it was hardly a fluke, as England continued to play well, while South Africa couldn't shake India, or even take a game off Pakistan, following their dismal depths in the spot fixing fiasco. In the same period, England won 6 of 7 and India 6 of 9. Even though South Africa played far fewer, they needed to not tread water like they did.

What happened on the ladder is indeed explained by performance. Probably the least intuitive element is how England were the form side while India merely tread water better than South Africa. However this is all due to how badly England sucked in the West Indies in 2009. Like South Africa, they showed form when they were far down the table; like South Africa the problem they ran into was the need to sustain that form for years on end.

 

[War]

well if winning series is more important then why shouldn't the fact since 2008 the only teams south africa have beaten at home are bangladesh and recently sri lanka matter? that was 3 years without a series win at home to anyone but the whipping boys of test cricket.

also, are you sure you have your stats right. from the period you keep giving I have 11 wins in 17 (2 losses, 4 draws) for india and 8 in 14 (1 loss 5 draws) for south africa. that would make india the superior team, winning 65% of their test series to saf's 57%

ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - South Africa - Test matches - Team analysis

ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

even if you have the stats right it shows what that you've picked a deliberately convenient spot as your test subject, as me putting in an approximation of the same period has lead to a different set of stats that paint a very different picture. or maybe you intended your results to hypothetical, since you did say "if", I thought that initially but why are you arguing winning series matter more if india did win more, but talking about hypotheticals?

I'm sorry war, I'm just not convinced that this isn't because you have a natural preference to south africa's team over india's, meaning it sits better with you that they are also now mathematically the number 1 side.

the reason I brought up sehwag was because it's just more evidence that india never appealled to you as number 1s. another one of your arguements at the time of india topping the table was their series win when touring england shouldn't count as much in the rankings is because england had injuries, which is frankly crazy reasoning.

all the time you've been rallying against the rankings I've been saying it's because you are confusing a mathematical ranking system with the subjective judgement based ranking fans and journalists do. you have thought south africa the best team for a while, that's your opinion to have, but it doesn't change the fact that mathematically other teams were performing better than them, and in a mathematically based ranking system they were thus deserving of being in front of them. I think this counts more in test cricket too where it's far harder to fluke results and saf's inability to beat england for example in that series must be factored in, similarly their draw to india if they were so much the superior side.

I addressed that 3 year period with S Africa many times. I said in that period the proteas were not as clinical in key series vs major opposition, which was why many people did not give them a clear edge as # 1.

But at the same time especially with regards to S Africa's home record vs major teams in that period - some unusual things occurred, which most people have just viewed too broadly as you have done as "they have been poor vs the big teams at home"

In the larger scheme of their 6 year test performances which dates back to after their 2006 tour to defeat to sri lanka, in which they have lost just two test series, that is just a small blimp.

- After beating winning in AUS 2008/09, they slipped up by losing the return home series to Australia.

- Twice in India in 2008 and 2010, when they had the series lead, in the key final tests they allowed india to come back a draw the series (Although it would have been preferable if the 2010 series had a 3rd test).

- When England drew in S Africa 2010, that was all down to England surviving by their skin of their teeth. People forget the Ntini controversy in that series in which the SA government was preventing him from being dropped just so he can play his 100th test, seriously crippled SA attack which saw Steyn injured in a series for the only time in his career. Kallis unable to bowl on occasions, which gives them that 5-bowler balance people always praise them for. The better white bowler Fridel De Wet not being able to bowl at a key stage in the 4th tests and not being picked ahead of Ntini at various stages of the series.

The only time in that series when S Africa got their full-strength bowling attac k was the final test at Johannesburg in which they totally dominated England, like they did in just concluded series in England.

But too often revisionist of that series, incorrectly paint it as "S Africa have been poor at home, couldn't beat England at home", while forgetting all those factors.

- Same selection issues occurred when India toured in early 2011. Its not India's problem who the saffies picked, but i remember arguing at the time right here on planetcricket that S Africa was not picking a strong enough bowling attack.

Tsotsobe and Harris were poor back-ups to Steyn/Morkel, when they had the likes of De Wet, McLaren and Philander in the wings.

So essentially India's batting after their first test drubbing was able to get on top of that weak S African back-up and survived that series.

Given the way how full-strength, England and Aussie pace attacks who had no weak links dismantled India's much vaunted line-up last year. If India had faced S Africa a few months later when they eventually had Philander and De Lange in their attack, its very likely another possible whitewash would have been bestowed upon him.

- Drawing 1-1 with Australia last year was also a weird series. Yea AUS came back to win a close test after being bowled out for 47, but two test series are so inconclusive.

AUS batting line-up is still very shaky, i'm not sure if in a proper 3rd test in that series that they would have been able to win instead of the proteas. Just like how after Sri Lanka won the 2nd test of their recent series in Durban, SA ended up winning the final test convincingly.


I just glanced at those stats break down you have, its seems as if i have made a mistake with my wording of the time period. I've been repeating this over and over so often now, i made an error.

Well firstly for SA you would have to include to Pakistan tour to SA of 2007. I was thinking that series was going on simultaneously with the ashes 2006/07. But it happened just after, so my initial record of 9/15 series win for SA during that period is correct, which is a 60% series win record.

The idea is to starting counting all teams rankings/series after the 2006/07 ashes which is the end of AUS dynasty after January 6th 2007, Sydney test.

With India is the mistake on my part, i was quoting 10/18, but its 11/18 and i was confusing it by saying end the count before the 4-0 lost in England. That is slightly off since India went into that series as # 1. Thus the count would end after the 4-0.

India would then have the marginal maths edge with 61%. However thats pretty much even, which is why I always said the fact that both sides drew 1-1 in three series between 2008-2010 on the field of play (which is where it matters), that they were always the even two best test teams up until last august.

I have no natural preference to S Africa or no bias vs India. Even in the last year when England my own team was being herald as # 1, i was pretty much he only one that was saying they didn't deserve it so soon. For reasons already stated, long before people were beginning to question them after they struggled in the sub-continent.

And i'm already saying again, that given the ranking system is already stating that if Australia (my next supported team) was the beat the proteas in AUS this year end - that they will become # 1 - that also with the equal crazyness.

Not counting India's win in England 2007 will always be valid. My point for years that it was fluke win because of injuries to England entire first choice attack, that had beaten a legendary AUS team a year before and it should not viewed as significantly as a triumph if the first choice england pace attack was present.

If Australia in their glory days had won in India 2004, a series heralded as the "final frontier" without Kumble/Harbhajan present for example, i would not rate it that highly since that would mean AUS batsmen did to fully conquer the two main bowlers that made India a force at home for 20+ years. Why is this so difficult to grasp??

For anyone to continuously look at this result of eng vs ind 2007 in a positive light, especially when India with pretty much the SAME batting line-up was blasted 4-0 last year against the proper English attack and considering that a proper ENG attack also drew 1-1 in India 2006 when Flintoff/Hoggard etc played - is totally illogical.

Any honest cricket fan would see that and would rate the series accordingly. But a ranking system just gives two points - which obscures the point.

Still your reasons for injecting Sehwag into this discussion makes no sense the further you explain it, my friend. His struggles as a batsman has no relevance here and never factors in to my reasoning in this specific discussion.

Clearly journalist and fans are taking the ranking system to be whole truth and not just something mathematically system, that just gauge's the pulse of world test cricket.

Teams are getting a bloody trophy for reaching the # 1 ranking according to that system. If that isn't a full acceptance of the ranking system being the gospel then what else is???

We are now in an era after 30 years of two teams (Australia vs West Indies) dominating in such a clear cut way, that is was obvious they were # 1. We did not need a ranking system to tell us this. Any idiot who even followed cricket casually could have told you that.

Now were are in this period where teams can become # 1, but they may not be as dominant as two two legendary teams. A ranking system which has such a ludicrous criteria which does the bolded is illogical: ICC Test Championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The calculations for the table are performed as follows:
Each team scores points based on the results of their matches.
Each team's rating is equal to its total points scored divided by the total matches and series played. (A series must include at least two Tests).
A series only counts if played in the last three years.
Series played in the first two years of the three-year limit count half; essentially, recent matches are given more weight.

The bolded means that for eg, the fact that S Africa as you are gesticulating have been a bit under par at home vs the big teams for a 2-3 year period has more weight than the fact that since 2006 they have lost just 2 series. Utter codswallop.


As you said yourself test cricket is a form of the game where you have to earn your wins, its very hard fluke them over the course of a long series (3 tests or more).

What has always made a team good/very good/great/legendary in test history is their consistency to win home/away on a fairly regular basis. Or at a minimum stay competitive away from home, which is always a Achilles heel for most teams i.e asian teas facing the bounce outside the sub-continent and the non asian teams handling the turning tracks

For more than 60 years before 2003, teams would battle home and away to try and reach this consistency. Erudite fans and journalists would asses the state of world test cricket. Then when we recognize when that two teams are better than the rest, a # 1 test series (although it was generally heralded at the unofficial test world championship) would then bowl off.

The historical examples of this being: Ashes 58/59, AUS vs WI 64/65, AUS vs WI 68/69, AUS vs SA 69/70, Ashes 72/73, AUS vs WI 79/80, WI vs PAK 87/88, AUS vs WI 90/91 and 92/93, AUS vs WI 94/95, AUS vs SA 2001/02, AUS vs SA 2008/09.

Now we have a faulty system based on points, that don't take everything into context, who ever minute is creating a "false" # 1 series and teams are rising to this accolade without properly proving themselves over an extended period of time home/away.

Just like how a player full ability is tested for 5-days in a test and teams in a extended series. To become # 1 test team it takes years of testing home/away to prove yourself.

Cricket, test cricket, is unique and is very much has a a relic module in the way we judge our # 1 test teams. It's the ultimate meritocracy, unlike the t20 and 50 over world cups where not necessarily the best teams in the world at the time can a tournament - but equally a team that has a good 3 weeks.

Whether you are a # 1 as dominant and awe inspiring as Windies 76-91, AUS 95-2007, unspectacular but hard to beat like England 1951-1958 or very good but not unbeatable like Sobers windies from 1963-68 and Chappel's Australian's from 72-76. Its takes years to build this position.

Recent # 1's since AUS era ended in 2007, like India and England did not do enough to reach that ranking, while S Africa although they are not perfect (but are on the verge of getting their) have done much more and have the best merit to the tag.

 

[Owzat]

I just made a post about the rankings system in the Pak-Eng thread (http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/international-tours-events/pakistan-v-england-u-e-jan-feb-2011-12-a-76920-53.html#post2264022.

But essentially, I think it does the best that it can, and it fans who expect too much from the rankings that are to blame - like you

I was briefly talking about the rankings with a friend/colleague at work on Friday. I said I see the flaws, it would be better if the rankings were only done say once a year. Having them constantly shifting just makes it look bad, and you can barely call it a "Championship".

Maybe every two years would be better, enough results for positions to not be influenced by one Test result.

We were also discussing Duckworth Lewis, he pointed out something I didn't know which is in (Olympic?) boxing they used to show the points for each boxer throughout the round, he said they stopped doing it. We were talking about the joke match where India and England were hurrying up or time wasting while constantly having one eye on who was winning ball by ball with rain in the air.

Would England have gone for glory in the last Test had they not known the ranking situation was reliant on that result? Not that I think they would have necessarily secured a draw, it just ruins cricket when sides are playing to some set of convaluted points system that determines either who wins (D/L) or who is top (rankings) Let's play cricket ON THE PITCH, not off it and in systems.

 

[War]

Would England have gone for glory in the last Test had they not known the ranking situation was reliant on that result? Not that I think they would have necessarily secured a draw, it just ruins cricket when sides are playing to some set of convaluted points system that determines either who wins (D/L) or who is top (rankings) Let's play cricket ON THE PITCH, not off it and in systems.

Yea exactly. As i suggested earlier, if as the ranking system is saying that if Australia were to defeat South Africa in the upcoming 3 tests down under this winter, they will be # 1.

How ridiculous would it look to see at the end of the series, Michael Clarke collection the long championship mase, from ICC CEO Dave Richardson.

Australia would have done nothing to be a # 1 in any form or fashion, which is just further why the system is utter codswallop and why cricket just shouldn't have ranking system being the means in which teams are ranked # 1 in tests.

To get a proper test # 1, the entire future tours programme needs revamped in which teams play each other evenly over a 2 years period. Too often countries avoid play countries in test series and play certain nations too often.

Once this done, then a form of test championship that has been mooted can be played, where based on performances a team will reach # 1.

 

[sifter132]

^Yep, if the future tours programme was symmetrical and fair, then a simple W/L standings would be able to decide the winner. But it's not - boards are too greedy to offer the same number of series to Bangladesh or NZ as they do to Australia or India.

The alternative then is the Test world championship - but that got put on the back burner very quickly last year, once a) India got hammered out of the #1 ranking, and b) it wasn't going to be hosted in India... and of course it got scrapped for financial reasons - no Indian support. Now it's scheduled for 2017!

 

[Epic]

And we have the Champions Trophy next year.

 

[sifter132]

Yes Test Championship got turned into Champions Trophy, because the advertisers saw India win the World Cup but lose the Tests. Therefore more potential dollars in another Champions Trophy. I wasn't suggesting India FORCED the change through politics, it's just their really good results in one format and really poor results in the other made it a logical decision for the money men. That's how powerful the Indian cricket market is.

I read that the 2017 Test Championship will pick the top 4 teams on the rankings/or whatever table they have to play in a tournament of some kind.

 

[Epic]

Yes Test Championship got turned into Champions Trophy, because the advertisers saw India win the World Cup but lose the Tests. Therefore more potential dollars in another Champions Trophy. I wasn't suggesting India FORCED the change through politics, it's just their really good results in one format and really poor results in the other made it a logical decision for the money men. That's how powerful the Indian cricket market is.

Makes sense, Cricket is run by the advertisers these days.

I read that the 2017 Test Championship will pick the top 4 teams on the rankings/or whatever table they have to play in a tournament of some kind.

Hope they tell us how it's going to work by 2015, done poorly it will fail.