Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[teamindia]

http://cricket.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/26/srinivas-bhogle-icc-test-ranking-sri-lanka-australia.htm


There are two things that puzzle me about the latest ICC [ Images ] Test rankings. First, that Australia [ Images ] are down to the fourth place, and, second, that Sri Lanka [ Images ] are placed second.

Let's discuss the Sri Lanka ranking first.

Now there's no doubt that they are playing great Test cricket at the moment. Mahela Jayawardene [ Images ], in particular, is batting beautifully. But are they truly second best?

We must first realize that they are ahead of India by only a miniscule fraction of a decimal point: I did my arithmetic and I note that Sri Lanka are 118.83 and India are 118.82 at the moment! So, for all practical purposes, Sri Lanka and India are currently joint-second.

[And, in passing, just a thought: when ICC's David Kendix has all the numbers on the continuum to play with while devising a ranking scheme, why do we have to look at what's at the second decimal place to decide who's ahead?  Surely no two teams can be so equal?]

But to return to Sri Lanka's ranking, let's see who they have played in the recent past and where. Sri Lanka are right now playing New Zealand [ Images ] at home. They are leading the two-Test series 1-0 and are very unlikely to lose the second Test, especially now that they are batting first.

Let's suppose that Sri Lanka are held to a draw in the second Test. The record books will show a 1-0 series victory, but the ICC Test ranking formula would effectively see this as a 2-0 win, because Sri Lanka would've received a bonus point for taking the series!

Now ICC's idea of rewarding a team with an additional bonus point for winning the series is quite a good one, especially if it is a 5 or 4 Test series. It seems a shade generous for 3-Test series, and for 2-Test series it is an unacceptable bonanza.

Before this New Zealand series, Sri Lanka defeated Pakistan 2-0 at home in a three-Test series. The ICC rankings obligingly made it 3-0. The Feb-Mar 2009 series in Pakistan was shared 0-0 after the Lahore [ Images ] incident, and, back in January 2009, Sri Lanka defeated Bangladesh 2-0 in a two-Test away series -- and this effectively became 3-0.

So while Sri Lanka are winning practically everything -- and that's really the best that any team can do -- they are deriving a significant benefit because of three things: (a) Sri Lanka play Test series with relatively fewer matches, (b) they have lately played a lot of cricket at home and (c) they have only encountered weak away opposition recently.

Let me explain the meaning of 'recently', because this is one of the merits of ICC's ranking scheme. The essential idea is that wins in the recent past must get a greater weight than wins in the not-so-recent past. There's no need to quibble about this; it seems to make good sense.

But how recent must 'recent' be? ICC takes it to mean one year (they also  have a curious fixation about the month of August, but we'll let that pass), but, at least for Test cricket, one year seems insufficient -- two years seems more reasonable, especially given the current reluctance to schedule too many Test matches.

I therefore believe (a) ICC should not give such a generous one-match bonus for Test series wins involving just 2 or 3 matches, (b) ICC should distinguish between the home-away results (it's always easier to win at home), and, (c) ICC should not scale down the weight after just one year (two years is better).

I must however acknowledge that the ICC ranking does a good job of taking into account the quality of the opposition.

Just to see how things can go awry, consider the case of Australia in the last 12 months.

(a) Australia played Test series with relatively more (3, 4 or 5) matches, so a bonus point didn't offer a big advantage (and they won only one series anyway!)

(b) they played most of their cricket away, and against quality opposition (India, South Africa [ Images ] and England [ Images ]; even their home series was against South Africa!)

(c) while they have had 12 relatively poor months of Test cricket, the preceding 12 months were very good. It seems unfair to scale down the value of a great series win just because it happened 13 months ago, when a win 11 months ago gets full weight.

Like elephants, rankings too must remember a little more.
Srinivas Bhogle


------

I was also surprised to see SL at no 2.
They haven't beaten Aus, SA, Eng in recent past. Instead of considering performance for last one year they should take X no of tests for each team and rate how they performed in last X no of matches. I do know how will they rate India now because I don't seem India playing test cricket any time soon.

[keep-it-cool]

Sri Lanka does not deserve to be at No.2 in any serious ranking. They only win at home and are horrible overseas. When did they last with a serious test match / series against quality opponents overseas?

My ranking would be as follows:

South Africa
India
Australia
England
Sri Lanka / Pakistan*
New Zealand
West Indies

*It is unfair on Pakistan that they have hardly played test cricket for a while.

[broadbat]

Frankly with only 7 teams , ranking itself is a bit irrelevant. Imagine ATP rankings with only 7 players on tour. They can have a simple method whereby teams holding the most 'rubbers' head the list and use head to head results in case teams are tied.

[dhruvdeepak]

orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr just have a test championship. fkn morons

[vincent]

Well, it is not Sri Lanka's fault if India is not playing Tests anymore. At this rate India will drop down a place every year.

[keep-it-cool]

I dont think that should be such a big problem. Different teams will have different periods in which they play a lot of tests. But it is still very funny to see a team that has not won anything (barring the victories against Bangladesh) abroad in a very very long time sitting at No.2 in the world.

[keep-it-cool]

Forget winning ...when did SL last play Australia or South Africa?

[dextrous]

I dont think that should be such a big problem. Different teams will have different periods in which they play a lot of tests. But it is still very funny to see a team that has not won anything (barring the victories against Bangladesh) abroad in a very very long time sitting at No.2 in the world.

and what, india is known as the team that wins abroad?

[keep-it-cool]

Yes. We won in England, New Zealand, West Indies and also won away tests in SA, Aus & SL. In fact, its been ages since we have lost any away series by more than a one test margin or without winning a test. So India does travel much better than most teams these days.

SA is the best of course.

Forget a series, when did SL last win a test match away against serious competition?

[12th_Man]

Sri Lanka does not deserve to be at No.2 in any serious ranking. They only win at home and are horrible overseas. When did they last with a serious test match / series against quality opponents overseas?

My ranking would be as follows:

South Africa
India
Australia
England
Sri Lanka / Pakistan*
New Zealand
West Indies

*It is unfair on Pakistan that they have hardly played test cricket for a while.

IMO SL of today is a far better team than PAK. Actually I think they prolly would be over Eng as well.

[diwanara]

orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr just have a test championship. fkn morons

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/422574.html

[keep-it-cool]

Well SL, England and Pak are really neck and neck. I think Pak can potentially be better than the other two if they play enough.

[dextrous]

Well SL, England and Pak are really neck and neck. I think Pak can potentially be better than the other two if they play enough.

How are they all neck to neck? SL just thrashed Pakistan.

[keep-it-cool]

I cut some slack for Pakistan because they have hardly played test cricket at the highest level for some time.

Besides, they may have lost 0-2 to SL but it was, by no means, a thrashing. They could have actually won all 3 tests. Give them some more matches under their belt (plus Mohd Asif) and they'll be a force to reckon with.

[keep-it-cool]

Post the SL-NZ series, this is how the top four teams stack up:

SA: 122
SL: 120
Ind: 119
Aus: 116

The India v/s SL test series in India will be interesting as it could see a new No.1 team in test cricket.

If SL win the series (any margin), they'll be No. 1
If India wins the series 2-0, they'll be No. 1

Of course, this could be short lived as SA play England at home. If they win, they would probably be back on top.

I think this is India's best chance to get to that No. 1 spot, even if for a short period.

[dextrous]

good analysis