Tracking the faulty ranking system

[War]

I think this might be a interesting thread to create, now that the ranking system is saying now that S Africa are "back as # 1 test team" after beating Sri Lanka.

Cricket fans are well aware that since Australia's great era decline in 2007, the ranking system in tests (i'm ignoring ODIs/T20 for now) in which we had specific India & England & AUS team teams being termed # 1, based on their mathematically calculations.

The latest faux pas was when AUS reached 1. According to the system, AUS who were playing its worst test cricket during the 2009 Ashes - 2013 Ashes, since the dark 1980s, somehow after showing an impressive revival beating ENG/S Africa in a 5 month period - somehow became # 1 over the proteas team, who had lost their 1st test series in 4 years.

That was illogical in so many ways & thankfully after beating S Africa, AUS coach Lehmann didn't embrace the # 1 tag.

So now that S Africa are back in their rightful place as # 1, AUS really have to beat them again in re-match to properly take that tag from them.

Otherwise, any other series results scenario's in which the rankings may suggest any other team can eclipse S Africa will be a total farce.

 

[angryangy]

There were a few months where, because neither of them were playing a game, their ratings were separated by a fraction of a point. This happened essentially because England and South Africa lost to such a crap team as Australia. Australia moved from 5th to 3rd at England's expense and then to 2nd in South Africa, displacing India. May cleared 2009 and 2010 out of period 1, so the 2009 Ashes became as relevant as the 1882 Ashes. This nominally brought Australia to 1st, but for all practical arguments, it was nothing more than a provisional tie for first place. As much as it removed a few defeats for Australia, it removed a lot of South Africa's worst performances as well.

In the wake of Australia actually taking the contest up to South Africa; what might have been the best Test series played since 2005; I don't think 3 months of them having the same rating is such a blight on the game. It mostly just shows the difference between South Africa now and past leaders of world cricket. This is also why I think words like "transition" and "rebuilding" are so rubbish. Australia had so much success because there wasn't any one great team, there were several nearly complete revisions of it. The West Indies too, went from Holding to Marshall, from Sobers to Richards. To be this great, you've got to have a rebuilding plan at the same time you are a wrecking ball. But maybe this is hasty judgement, maybe South Africa can move from the success of the Smith era to something even better.

You also have to look at it from the other end. For Australia to get back to the top now, they have to thrash India and probably also perform well in the UAE. If they achieve 2-0 in the UAE, perhaps it would be a well earned number 1. No one has taken two games off Pakistan at home (or "home") in ten years. A good couple of contests await, although India might well flop. An interesting corollary to that is that Pakistan have quietly become a top team and could well remain at 3 by year's end. South Africa's summer against Zimbabwe and West Indies seems decidedly in favour of defending number 1. If they concede a game there, they arguably don't deserve to retain the top position anyway.

 

[PokerAce]

The rankings make little sense, especially when all teams do not play each other in the same cycle. The solution is have teams, play each other over a period of say 3 years and that complete one cycle or seaon. and whoever is top is #1. But then I look at the thrill of a proper 5 match series like Eng vs Ind, tough hard fought, and it has its own charm. which may be lost if a cycle comes in. So I am not sure.

The point is right now the rankings don't make sense. So either go full on and have seasons with all teams playing each other, or just drop rankings all together.

 

[War]

The rankings make little sense, especially when all teams do not play each other in the same cycle. The solution is have teams, play each other over a period of say 3 years and that complete one cycle or seaon. and whoever is top is #1. But then I look at the thrill of a proper 5 match series like Eng vs Ind, tough hard fought, and it has its own charm. which may be lost if a cycle comes in. So I am not sure.

The point is right now the rankings don't make sense. So either go full on and have seasons with all teams playing each other, or just drop rankings all together.

Yes the lack of proper cycle in scheduling is the main reasons for the ranking system being utterly useless, along with the formula they use. Cricket series as we all know are played between teams based on the financial reasoning i.e playing India carries the dollars. Its no longer about fair and balance.

The current ENG/IND series although its hard fought between two teams in a rebuilding stage, really did not deserve 5 tests. India has never played a 5 test series in England before and none since 1984/85. Its all about INDs money smh..

 

[War]

There were a few months where, because neither of them were playing a game, their ratings were separated by a fraction of a point. This happened essentially because England and South Africa lost to such a crap team as Australia. Australia moved from 5th to 3rd at England's expense and then to 2nd in South Africa, displacing India. May cleared 2009 and 2010 out of period 1, so the 2009 Ashes became as relevant as the 1882 Ashes. This nominally brought Australia to 1st, but for all practical arguments, it was nothing more than a provisional tie for first place. As much as it removed a few defeats for Australia, it removed a lot of South Africa's worst performances as well.

In the wake of Australia actually taking the contest up to South Africa; what might have been the best Test series played since 2005; I don't think 3 months of them having the same rating is such a blight on the game. It mostly just shows the difference between South Africa now and past leaders of world cricket. This is also why I think words like "transition" and "rebuilding" are so rubbish. Australia had so much success because there wasn't any one great team, there were several nearly complete revisions of it. The West Indies too, went from Holding to Marshall, from Sobers to Richards. To be this great, you've got to have a rebuilding plan at the same time you are a wrecking ball. But maybe this is hasty judgement, maybe South Africa can move from the success of the Smith era to something even better.

You also have to look at it from the other end. For Australia to get back to the top now, they have to thrash India and probably also perform well in the UAE. If they achieve 2-0 in the UAE, perhaps it would be a well earned number 1. No one has taken two games off Pakistan at home (or "home") in ten years. A good couple of contests await, although India might well flop. An interesting corollary to that is that Pakistan have quietly become a top team and could well remain at 3 by year's end. South Africa's summer against Zimbabwe and West Indies seems decidedly in favour of defending number 1. If they concede a game there, they arguably don't deserve to retain the top position anyway.

There were a few months where, because neither of them were playing a game, their ratings were separated by a fraction of a point. This happened essentially because England and South Africa lost to such a crap team as Australia. Australia moved from 5th to 3rd at England's expense and then to 2nd in South Africa, displacing India. May cleared 2009 and 2010 out of period 1, so the 2009 Ashes became as relevant as the 1882 Ashes. This nominally brought Australia to 1st, but for all practical arguments, it was nothing more than a provisional tie for first place. As much as it removed a few defeats for Australia, it removed a lot of South Africa's worst performances as well.

In the wake of Australia actually taking the contest up to South Africa; what might have been the best Test series played since 2005; I don't think 3 months of them having the same rating is such a blight on the game. It mostly just shows the difference between South Africa now and past leaders of world cricket. This is also why I think words like "transition" and "rebuilding" are so rubbish. Australia had so much success because there wasn't any one great team, there were several nearly complete revisions of it. The West Indies too, went from Holding to Marshall, from Sobers to Richards. To be this great, you've got to have a rebuilding plan at the same time you are a wrecking ball. But maybe this is hasty judgement, maybe South Africa can move from the success of the Smith era to something even better.

You also have to look at it from the other end. For Australia to get back to the top now, they have to thrash India and probably also perform well in the UAE. If they achieve 2-0 in the UAE, perhaps it would be a well earned number 1. No one has taken two games off Pakistan at home (or "home") in ten years. A good couple of contests await, although India might well flop. An interesting corollary to that is that Pakistan have quietly become a top team and could well remain at 3 by year's end. South Africa's summer against Zimbabwe and West Indies seems decidedly in favour of defending number 1. If they concede a game there, they arguably don't deserve to retain the top position anyway.

Your post here is slightly confusing here Sir Angy. But let me try to simply things based on historical precedence of world cricket history.

It is well established now & in hindsight that the Taylor/Waugh/Ponting legendary era of AUS cricket started in West Indies 1995 & ended during the 2006/07 Ashes.

Just as how the Lloyd/Richards West Indies era started in England 1976 & ended in England 1991.

The modern Smith/Amla led era of S Africa has lost two series in the last 7 years at home to AUS strangely. While winning in every test nation except India, where they drew. No team since the McGrath/Warne AUS era ended in Janaury 2007, has such a excellent test record. So how the ranking system at various points in the last 7 years has chosen to place India, England & new version AUS as # 1 at various points made absolutely no cricket sense.

 

[PokerAce]

Yes the lack of proper cycle in scheduling is the main reasons for the ranking system being utterly useless, along with the formula they use. Cricket series as we all know are played between teams based on the financial reasoning i.e playing India carries the dollars. Its no longer about fair and balance.

The current ENG/IND series although its hard fought between two teams in a rebuilding stage, really did not deserve 5 tests. India has never played a 5 test series in England before and none since 1984/85. Its all about INDs money smh..

Yup the whole point of the Big Three revamp was longer Tours on Indian Team to the bigger nations, and they get the money. In return the BCCI gets the power.

 

[War]

Yup the whole point of the Big Three revamp was longer Tours on Indian Team to the bigger nations, and they get the money. In return the BCCI gets the power.

Yea this is why the getting the world test championship was so important. The smart people at the MCC cricket committee of former players know this, but the idiots at the ICC led by ICC according to their nonsensical reasoning, said this was not possible

ICC revamp : 'Big Three were more likely to make progress' - Alan Isaac | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

'Struggled to find Test Championship format'

David Richardson, the ICC CEO, has said the inability to find a suitable format led to the World Test Championship failing to get off the ground.
"I think we were always struggling to find a format for WTC that could be completed within a relatively short space of time and that would not lead to more damage than good," Richardson said. "As we know draws are such an important part of Tests and you've seen numerous formats tried in various countries where you have a final for your domestic competitions and those finals always tend to be damp squibs really because one team is playing for a draw on first-innings lead."
Richardson said the lack of a Test Championship was not a setback for the format as the ICC's rankings were becoming significant. "If you look at it the way the board has looked at it now, we have the ranking system which is becoming more and more prominent, more and more people taking note of it, more teams are trying to end the year as No. 1 and earn the financial prize money that goes with that. There's prestige involved in being No. 1 and holding the mace."

Dave Richardson is quickly becoming the Michel Platini of world cricket. Player turned idiot executive....how in god's name is he seriously telling us that the ranking system is getting more prominence. THE RANKING SYSTEM ARE THE PROBLEM, because they are extremely faulty. That is why test cricket needed the test championship.

The fact that the ICC couldn't find a suitable format, shows their incompetence.

 

[PokerAce]

Yea this is why the getting the world test championship was so important. The smart people at the MCC cricket committee of former players know this, but the idiots at the ICC led by ICC according to their nonsensical reasoning, said this was not possible

ICC revamp : 'Big Three were more likely to make progress' - Alan Isaac | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo



Dave Richardson is quickly becoming the Michel Platini of world cricket. Player turned idiot executive....how in god's name is he seriously telling us that the ranking system is getting more prominence. THE RANKING SYSTEM ARE THE PROBLEM, because they are extremely faulty. That is why test cricket needed the test championship.

The fact that the ICC couldn't find a suitable format, shows their incompetence.

For money considerations a Test Championship can't happen. That would mean Zimbabwe playing the same number of matches as say India or Eng or SA over the same period. This would be financial disaster, as no one really wants to watch Zimbabwe (no disrespect).

 

[War]

For money considerations a Test Championship can't happen. That would mean Zimbabwe playing the same number of matches as say India or Eng or SA over the same period. This would be financial disaster, as no one really wants to watch Zimbabwe (no disrespect).

ZIM shouldn't have been allowed to return to test cricket given their current struggles to be fair. So in a perfect world, a test championship would only be between the 9 nations.

Every team necessarily won't play the same amount of tests also though. Just the same amount of series home/away in structured manner. For example even if sanity prevails and 2 test series are scrapped, nobody will play BANG in anything more than 3 tests.

 

[Slowcoach]

In 2013 and 14 Australia lost 8 Tests and won just 7, how can they be number 1? And how can Pakistan be number 3 when they haven't won a test series since 2012?
Seems that beating South Africa gets you lots of points and warps your ranking, because as most fans know, South Africa are number 1, no matter what stupid rankings say.

 

[Satan666]

India remains locked in the number 5 position after a 3-1 drubbing by the English! Something is definitely wrong here

 

[War]

India remains locked in the number 5 position after a 3-1 drubbing by the English! Something is definitely wrong here

Ye rankings all wrong. Right now we can safely say S Africa, Australia are # 1 & 2 respectively. On current form NZ has a strong case to be called # 3 test team. ENG are fourth fair enough, but INDs recent form means its close between them SRI/PAK. WI Still the weakest, but i'm keeping my eye on them over the next 6 months as they play IND/SA/ENG/AUS - they could either fail miserable, or go have a similar emergence like NZ has had in the last 15 months.

 

[Satan666]

Ye rankings all wrong. Right now we can safely say S Africa, Australia are # 1 & 2 respectively. On current form NZ has a strong case to be called # 3 test team. ENG are fourth fair enough, but INDs recent form means its close between them SRI/PAK. WI Still the weakest, but i'm keeping my eye on them over the next 6 months as they play IND/SA/ENG/AUS - they could either fail miserable, or go have a similar emergence like NZ has had in the last 15 months.

If the correct selctions are made they would have a powerful bowling lineup with Roach/Taylor/Holder/Narine but the batsmen wouldn't be able to stand up to the SA/ENG/AUS fastbowlers, so I dont see them moving up to overtake any team.

 

[sifter132]

I'm had arguments with you in the past over this War. Good to see you're still into this topic

One thing that's worth mentioning. When you look at the Test results from 8th Jan 2009 to now (the day after SA won that landmark series in Australia), South Africa hasn't won a huge amount of Test matches. They are good at winning and not losing series, and not losing Tests, but they really aren't a juggernaut team like the Aussies of 10-15 years back. Eliminating tests vs Zim and Ban...The numbers show that since 8/1/09, Australia has played 62 Tests, won 31 in that time. South Africa has played 45 Tests and won 22. That's an important comparison since Australia has supposedly been weak, lost their crown and been rebuilding, while South Africa have been pumped up a lot as an unbeatable team. Of course South Africa only lost 10 vs Australia's 20 losses over that time, but if you value winning Test matches, like the rankings do, then it becomes more apparent why South Africa haven't been the slam dunk #1 over the last few years. Simply put, a better team should win more Tests!
Another factor worth mentioning: 39 of Australia's 62 Tests (63%) over that time have been vs Eng/Ind/SA - the 3 best teams of the last few years. For South Africa it's 25 of the 45 (56% - with Aus inserted instead of SA, obviously). Australia having a slighter higher percentage of harder Test matches.

 

[War]

I'm had arguments with you in the past over this War. Good to see you're still into this topic

One thing that's worth mentioning. When you look at the Test results from 8th Jan 2009 to now (the day after SA won that landmark series in Australia), South Africa hasn't won a huge amount of Test matches. They are good at winning and not losing series, and not losing Tests, but they really aren't a juggernaut team like the Aussies of 10-15 years back. Eliminating tests vs Zim and Ban...The numbers show that since 8/1/09, Australia has played 62 Tests, won 31 in that time. South Africa has played 45 Tests and won 22. That's an important comparison since Australia has supposedly been weak, lost their crown and been rebuilding, while South Africa have been pumped up a lot as an unbeatable team. Of course South Africa only lost 10 vs Australia's 20 losses over that time, but if you value winning Test matches, like the rankings do, then it becomes more apparent why South Africa haven't been the slam dunk #1 over the last few years. Simply put, a better team should win more Tests!
Another factor worth mentioning: 39 of Australia's 62 Tests (63%) over that time have been vs Eng/Ind/SA - the 3 best teams of the last few years. For South Africa it's 25 of the 45 (56% - with Aus inserted instead of SA, obviously). Australia having a slighter higher percentage of harder Test matches.

Yes S Africa aren't a juggernaut team like AUS of 95-2006/07, but why is that important?. Of all the teams in cricket history that have been legitimate # 1 teams, only WI 76-91 can compare to that AUS teams as everyone knows.

This S Africa which has lost just two series since 2007 is comparable to the ENG great team of 1951-1958, who didn't lose a test series during those 7 years. They drew a lot, especially away from home - but nobody beat them. Last i checked in cricket history, for you to properly dethrone a team in test cricket, you got to beat them in a series (home & away) - then go on your run of dominating.

AUS beat S Africa twice in S Africa (while S Africa won in AUS twice), but that meant nothing cause after the 2009 win AUS declined significantly. While although i expect AUS to step up now, we don't know what AUS win in S Africa means yet for the teams future. The common factor in both series wins was Mitchell Johnson coincidentally bowling in his god mode in S Africa conditions twice in a 5 year period - while being poor in between.

Johnson efforts is one of the few examples in the team sport cricket is, where historically one player might won a series for his team:

- Iverson for AUS vs ENG 1950/51

- Harbhajan vs AUS 2001

- Lara vs AUS 1999

- Botham 1981

- Larwood 1932

Judging a team based on "test matches" makes no sense & as discussed before is one of the major flaws of the rankings. If that was the case cricket teams might as well abandon all series & play one-off test matches & use it to make sweeping generalizations. Thankfully that doesn't happen - it all about the "series", the ability for a team, players to bounce back from a bad start/bad individual form.[DOUBLEPOST=1408921084][/DOUBLEPOST]

If the correct selctions are made they would have a powerful bowling lineup with Roach/Taylor/Holder/Narine but the batsmen wouldn't be able to stand up to the SA/ENG/AUS fastbowlers, so I dont see them moving up to overtake any team.

Ye WI's batting remains their issue - still too dependent on old Chanderpaul in tests.