ICC Rankings

[Boycs]

Some of us are test fans and not dinosaurs

[Katto]

why any ranking?
test cricket don’t deserve ranking. in fact every test cricket loving dinosaur fan hates “ranking” in test cricket. why bother ? waste of time.

the reason test cricket fans hate the rankings is because they're flawed

I'm proposing fixing the flaw by reducing the ranking importance of dead rubber tests. Its no spectacular achievement to win a dead rubber test as one or both teams take their foot off the gas.

[raja]

Latest.
Australia slip to 4th place, behind NZ.

Is this the highest NZ has ever been? 3?

https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/me ... kings/test

[Going South]

[Going South]

the reason test cricket fans hate the rankings is because they're flawed

look at above pic.
the real reason is that many haters don’t want BCCI at the top with kohli holding the mace. So the sore losers & ball tampering cheaters say “THEY ARE FLAWED”.

hahahahahaha

in what universe following what logic if you count, would make this order incorrect?

if this order is wrong, enlighten us what is the REAL order & justify with a reasoning.

if not, STFU.

[Paddles]

Latest.
Australia slip to 4th place, behind NZ.

Is this the highest NZ has ever been? 3?

https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/me ... kings/test

NZ was #3 not all that long ago.

If they do retrospective rankings, NZ was #2 of 80's behind only WI and may have snuck into #1 for a whee while at some point.

[Katto]

the reason test cricket fans hate the rankings is because they're flawed

look at above pic.
the real reason is that many haters don’t want BCCI at the top with kohli holding the mace. So the sore losers & ball tampering cheaters say “THEY ARE FLAWED”.

hahahahahaha

in what universe following what logic if you count, would make this order incorrect?

if this order is wrong, enlighten us what is the REAL order & justify with a reasoning.

if not, STFU.

India have one of the worst away records and they've played a lot of series at home over the last few years.

I'd have South Africa #1 easy

#2, maybe India, then Australia then Pakistan, New Zealand and England

[Verity]

look at above pic.
the real reason is that many haters don’t want BCCI at the top with kohli holding the mace. So the sore losers & ball tampering cheaters say “THEY ARE FLAWED”.

hahahahahaha

in what universe following what logic if you count, would make this order incorrect?

if this order is wrong, enlighten us what is the REAL order & justify with a reasoning.

if not, STFU.

India have one of the worst away records and they've played a lot of series at home over the last few years.

I'd have South Africa #1 easy

#2, maybe India, then Australia then Pakistan, New Zealand and England

another crap post by Katto, Australia are missing there only world class players and you call them #3, you my friend are stupid!

[raja]

In my heart and mind, England is always No.1 in all formats, whatever the rankings say.

[Going South]

In my heart and mind, England is always No.1 in all formats, whatever the rankings say.

you mean in cricket only right?
not some pissing on pitch contest ?

[Katto]

India have one of the worst away records and they've played a lot of series at home over the last few years.

I'd have South Africa #1 easy

#2, maybe India, then Australia then Pakistan, New Zealand and England

another crap post by Katto, Australia are missing there only world class players and you call them #3, you my friend are stupid!

based on 4 year cycle
you're judging them on 1 test match

[Paddles]

Without Smith and Warner, India has the chance to tour Australia and get its first ever series win there and rob South Africa of earning number 1 having beaten NZ and Aus away, and beating Aus and India at home in the 2 year cycle.

The series against India next year without Smith and his Bradman-esque test scoring at home against Indian seamers, and Warner's support act, makes for what could be a very tense and close series.

[squarecut]

The ranking points that teams earn are based on their performances over three years. In three years every team plays home as well as abroad. The points earned three years ago have less weightage than points earned two years ago whereas points earned in the current year has most weightage. Wins against low ranked teams earns less points than wins against higher ranked points. Overall, the ranking system is quite comprehensive and fair.

India have played away series during their last three years (including their most recent series against South Africa). No doubt their performance abroad has not been all that good. Still they have earned enough points from their matches abroad to hang on to the top. They are on top because other teams too have been poor travellers. So overall, I do not thing one should grudge India their top ranking just because they do not win abroad. They have started winning abroad, at least tests if not series. Believe it or not, they have won series against quite a few test teams abroad during the last three years. It is just that they have not done it against Australia, England and South Africa.

[Katto]

compare South Africa away record vs India

its a no contest

RSA are best, all neutral pundits agree

[squarecut]

You have to compare away record for last three years only. Likewise you have to compare home record as well. It is the combination of away record and home record in the last three years that decide which teams stand where. If South Africa despite better away record are ranked lower then it means that their home record is not all that good.

[raja]

BCCI has a great chance of consolidating its position at the top of the Test rankings, despite losing the recent series to SA.

They tour England this summer - the Test series starts only in July. That's a big plus - usually it is nice and sunny in England, the ball not likely to move quite as much as early in the summer.

They tour Australia later in the year - and play a team without Smith and Warner. If you remember the impact these two guys had last time (and look at Australia probaly still rebuilding its team and dignity), you'll have to admit BCCI has a terrific chance of finally winning a Test series on Australian soil.

If only BCCI had beaten SA this time (and it had its chances!), it could've been sitting with overseas wins against all the big 3.

[Katto]

You have to compare away record for last three years only. Likewise you have to compare home record as well. It is the combination of away record and home record in the last three years that decide which teams stand where. If South Africa despite better away record are ranked lower then it means that their home record is not all that good.

Who have they lost to at home?

[squarecut]

Lost to England at home 2-1 in 2015-16.

[Katto]

Lost to England at home 2-1 in 2015-16.

another era!

[squarecut]

Within the three years under consideration for ranking points.

[Katto]

Within the three years under consideration for ranking points.

the valid argument is, that the system is flawed

[Going South]

Within the three years under consideration for ranking points.

the valid argument is, that the system is flawed

ah. how many years you think is right number of years for ranking then? You don’t go on tours every year to every country. duh! Just because your team did bad at home you want to reduce the years to fit for better record? how convenient!

[Katto]

the valid argument is, that the system is flawed

ah. how many years you think is right number of years for ranking then? You don’t go on tours every year to every country. duh! Just because your team did bad at home you want to reduce the years to fit for better record? how convenient!

my team? I don't think my team is #1 or #2

but I don't think your team is #1 either

[Going South]

so ? you hate BCCI so much that you bat for south africans now?
hahahahahaha
what next?
You now would say you are too ashamed that you not an Australian but an English man at ashes playing cricket stadium too?
lol.
You now can’t go to a shop in England or any place and buy “sand paper” from a hardware store.
i understand.
the pain always pass over time.
Time heals everything.
hang in there.

[Katto]

so ? you hate BCCI so much that you bat for south africans now?
hahahahahaha
what next?
You now would say you are too ashamed that you not an Australian but an English man at ashes playing cricket stadium too?
lol.
You now can’t go to a shop in England or any place and buy “sand paper” from a hardware store.
i understand.
the pain always pass over time.
Time heals everything.
hang in there.

I don't hate BCCI

I'm just realistic

I'm no fan of South Africa and their holier than thou attitude to world cricket. I don't mind their women though

[Paddles]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/874363.html

[Going South]

The first two years get 50% weightage, while the last 12 to 24 months gets 100% weightage. For example, in May 2015, all matches from May 2012 to April 2014 gets 50% weightage, while matches after May 2014 gets 100% weightage.

that’s pretty fair.

[Paddles]

The first two years get 50% weightage, while the last 12 to 24 months gets 100% weightage. For example, in May 2015, all matches from May 2012 to April 2014 gets 50% weightage, while matches after May 2014 gets 100% weightage.

that’s pretty fair.

Any suggested unfairness is not in the weighting. It is the lack of reciprocal evenly matched series (think India hosting Safrica for 4 tests, but then touring there for only 3 tests) and everyone playing differing opposition in differing locations on differing pitches.

For example, in a 2 year group, India may play Safrica, England, NZ and Australia as well as SL and Bangladesh at home, and only WI and SL away. This will then get them to number 1.

Until Pakistan sort of their new batting middle order after YK and Misbah's retirements, I think everyone can agree that India is the best Asian team and play the best cricket in Asia at the moment. But their only non Asian series win of late has been a WI tour, and they're weak home or away, and their home pitches are so tired, despite the differing soil and climate, they're basically Asian pitch conditions, with turn and less bounce.

I think we can widely agree that Safrica despite endless injuries, ABDV unavailability, Kolpak retirements, quota restrictions just consistently tour England, NZ, and especially Australia with a team that either wins the series, or threatens to. This makes them consistently the best team outside Asia. And their record in Asia recently saw them thrash the Bangas at home. This winter they have SL away.

So, who is the best?

This appears to be a matter of preference and some subjective weighting. How do you compare Asia to outside Asia? What bonus credit do you give a team to winning in Australia against Australia? Which like winning in India against India is no mean feat.

I think a fully fit and firing Safrica is the most talented team, but now they've lost Abbott and Morkel, while Steyn is still not back and getting close to his 35th birthday. So its getting murkier. Philander, Rabada, Ngidi is still a class attack, but Maharaj's continuing development is the key to them having more success in Asia, and he still needs a foil for such tours. Markram and de Kock are young, but Faf, ABDV, and Amla do not have that many seasons left. So Safrica's batting strength could fall away sharply after a couple more seasons. A lot of fans are already suggesting that Amla's form is deteriorating.

I think there could well be a lot of retirements in the Safrican team after the 2019 World Cup that will have them in rebuild mode. This was meant to be Morkel's goal, but he left early, so he may happen sooner than later, and may include the likes of Vern. People need to appreciate that these guys on county cricket and home FC deals, earn roughly the same to more than their national contract salaries, which has them touring a lot more than playing every second game close to home with their families. Cricketer lifestyle for players outside the Big 3 nations is a stark contrast to the EWCB, BCCI and CA millionaires. And for many, the financial draw card of international success, is then subsequently remunerated in getting an IPL or various T20 league's cheque.

The current Indian team is a lot younger than the South African team, which is very promising for BCCI fans. The young Indian team under Kohli has time on their side to build together to a very strong and more dynamic side than previous Indian teams, if they get their depth selections right. While the Amla, ABDV, Faf, Morkel, Steyn, maybe even Vern era appears to be within two years of winding down. But with Markram, de Kock, Maharaj, Rabada, and Ngidi all being young, they have a core for the future still. But will they have the batsmen? It took them a long time to get Markram as they struggled with weak opening partners for Elgar series after series. And Bavuma is still far from convincing in the quota spot, despite some solid scores against Australia in the 4th test after sandpapergate.

[raja]

Good points there.
BCCI is a much-improved side now.
There's competition for many spots - so no player can take his place for granted.
Rahane, Ashwin, Jadeja, Vijay, Dhawan are all being pushed by other players.
Umesh Yadav didn't get a single Test in SA - Bumrah did well enough to keep him out.
Although IPL is the big money pot, players still say they want to play for India.
Even Test cricket.

All this bodes well for BCCI.
Even if their No.1 spot right now can be questioned, once they win in England and Australia later this year, I think they will put those doubts to rest.

[Katto]

Good points there.
BCCI is a much-improved side now.
There's competition for many spots - so no player can take his place for granted.
Rahane, Ashwin, Jadeja, Vijay, Dhawan are all being pushed by other players.
Umesh Yadav didn't get a single Test in SA - Bumrah did well enough to keep him out.
Although IPL is the big money pot, players still say they want to play for India.
Even Test cricket.

All this bodes well for BCCI.
Even if their No.1 spot right now can be questioned, once they win in England and Australia later this year, I think they will put those doubts to rest.

[squarecut]

BCCI have won test series in England in the past. So that will be nothing new. Winning in Australia would be something new though.

[Going South]

BCCI should tour australia RIGHT NOW.

[Paddles]

Congrats to Ind and NZ as the only 2 countries to make the top 4 in all intl formats in the current ICC rankings.

Current #1s are:

Test : Ind

ODi : Eng

T20i : Pak.

[raja]

Yaaay!

BCCI have been pushed down to second place by my favourite team, England.

Which reminds me, where's Boycs? Haven't seen him here for a while now.
http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/10 ... ot-in-odis

[Raj92]

Current ICC Ranking :http://crickex.in/team-rankings/

[raja]

Kohli displaces Smith as No.1 Test batsman.

"Apart from Kohli and Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Gautam Gambhir, Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag and Dilip Vengsarkar are the other India batsmen to have achieved number-one rankings during their careers."

Gambhir was No.1? When did THAT happen? I remember one match-saving innings in New Zealand when he batted for ever, but other than that?

https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/1 ... st-batsman

[raja]

Kohli is already No1 ranked in ODIs also.
In T20s, he's 12th though. Room for improvement. :-)

[Paddles]

Kohli displaces Smith as No.1 Test batsman.

"Apart from Kohli and Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Gautam Gambhir, Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag and Dilip Vengsarkar are the other India batsmen to have achieved number-one rankings during their careers."

Gambhir was No.1? When did THAT happen? I remember one match-saving innings in New Zealand when he batted for ever, but other than that?

https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/1 ... st-batsman

16/07/2009 Gambhir went to number 1.

[Katto]

player rankings are the worst thing to happen to cricket

its a team sport

[Going South]

player rankings are the worst thing to happen to cricket

its a team sport

disagree.
if you look at one man show batting or bowling, with single man trying to save the game all by himself match after match you got to recognize it for comparison with other similar players in a calendar year. If not you, many other fans want to know.

[Katto]

player rankings are the worst thing to happen to cricket

its a team sport

disagree.
if you look at one man show batting or bowling, with single man trying to save the game all by himself match after match you got to recognize it for comparison with other similar players in a calendar year. If not you, many other fans want to know.

that is obvious without rankings

rankings don't provide context to individual performances, they do the opposite.

[raja]

Maybe they need to have similar rankings in football too.
To once and for all settle the Ronaldo-Messi debate. :-)

[The Third Man]

Is the standard of opposition taken into account when compiling the batting ranking? For example would a ton against Ireland be worth more than a 50 in an Ashes test? If so, that sounds a bit unfair. Likewise with the bowlers, would an opening bowler who returns 2-20 bowling mostly at the top order get less points than one who gets a 4 for by cleaning up the tail?

[Paddles]

Been reading a lot of whinging about the state of test cricket with home teams being so dominant being a problem for international cricket from Australian quarters. Which isn't exactly the case:

India thrashed SL away.
SL thrashed Pak away.
Eng won in SA away.
SA beat NZ and Aus away.
Aus beat NZ away.
NZ drew in SL, England and UAE.
Aus drew in Bangladesh.
Everyone seems to win in the Windies away.

What is the case is India beats everyone at home lately. And SL by beating Aus, Eng, and SA gives India a buffer to number 1 status, as does Eng beating SA.

But what irks me, is that during the period of Australian domination under McGrath, Warne, Punter at co where SA was #2 by some distance, India's Laxman test was the greatest comeback series, and the 2005 Ashes is meant to have been the greatest series ever. Two home town victories. What made these series so great? Home teams winning against a touring team? Lets add in Lara's series in the late 1990's.

So why is now that this happens more frequently, with Ind, SA, SL, Pak, Eng, NZ, SA and Aus all fighting better at home that test cricket is in trouble? We now have 8 nations competing well at home, 9 if Bangladesh are included, and the West Indies are possibly on the rise.

I don't think International test cricket has been this strong ever. The only legitimate complaint I can see is that India doesn't have to perennial point stuffers like Pakistan who continually challenge Aus and Eng, and everyone else does have to. But people aren't making this complaint. They're just whining that India suck in England, SA, Aus and NZ and shouldn't be number 1.

Well guess what - Australia have sucked in England for a while now too. Lost to SA home and away, and India doesn't lose at home, in fact India bullies SL home and away to boot! So until Aus, SA and Eng can find a team that can beat other and NZ continuously home and away instead of playing paper, rock and scissors with each other, India is getting the job done.

I think many people have grown up with a West Indies super team, then Australia became a super team, and now if there is no super team, believe that International Cricket is in dire trouble. I don't believe it. While a super team is impressive to follow, having a lot of nations strong at home is also enjoyable to follow, because there will be more potentially great series. When Shane Warne became famous, teams didn't just give up on finding a way to counter him, and after a while, he was just a very good bowler, an ATG bowler even, but not series over before it began level of a bowler.

The core to success is not losing at home. That is what NZ did in the 1980's, and away series wins over England and Aus came mid decade. If all the top 8, 9 if not 10 teams make their home grounds a fortress, it makes the away series wins that much more valuable and meaningful. And it won't be like Botham's Ashes, Lara, Laxman and Flintoff vs Australia, or Hadlee 1980 vs WI, but away series wins being celebrated, like Hadlee vs Aus in 1985.

The way it should be!

[Paddles]

Spin vs Seam divide:

I think this is going to become more of a pressing issue with cricket fans.

Fun facts:

India lost away to SA, NZ, Aus and Eng last.

All these teams lost their away to India.

But SA, NZ, Aus and Eng have not managed a single series win away to Sri Lanka Pakistan or Bangladesh in their last away tours.

In this time Pakistan has drawn twice in England!

Spin is no longer the exception to the norm with Ind, Pak, SL, Bangas and even WI until this past season.

With seam or swing in Eng, SA and NZ, and Aussie with hard fast and bouncy roads. WI seems to be the swing vote, having just reverted to the Dukes ball to swing out Bangladesh and SL.

[Going South]

i want to see a stat on number of test matches that did not get to play on 5th day for the last 100 test matches worldwide.
what % of test matches for the last 100 matches got a result before 5th day? how many got result in 3 playing days not counting rain ? how many overs played overall per test match for last 100 year matches and what’s the average number of overs played?

[Paddles]

i want to see a stat on number of test matches that did not get to play on 5th day for the last 100 test matches worldwide.
what % of test matches for the last 100 matches got a result before 5th day? how many got result in 3 playing days not counting rain ? how many overs played overall per test match for last 100 year matches and what’s the average number of overs played?

Why one earth would you exclude rain?

Rained out draws are not the ideal to sell test cricket with.

Sneaking in a result despite rain, glorious!

[Going South]

ok. add rain. still do the stats then.

[sportzcraazy12]

India will remain at first place. India is doing a great job in Australia and earlier played a good series in England as well. These performance will help to hold the first position.

[raja]

New Zealand are now #3 in the Test rankings, above even South Africa.
Is this the highest they've ever been?