India: Deserved of No. 1?

[aussie]

You wouldn't have had to waste your time gathering that stuff if you'd bothered reading others' posts properly when you're debating something with them. Its been mentioned before, I'll say it again. The ranking algorithm that made SA #1, and the ranking algorithm that made India #1 are not the same. The ICC had to overhaul it and put a new one in place after it was clear how ridiculous that was.

Yes i know that (cant remember anyone was mentioning this before) & the current system is still flawed. Since being ranked # 1 test team is a special destinction that has to earnt overtime like what past AUS, WI & ENG teams did.

So INDs rise to number 1 however long it lasts, has to have reservations since the ranking system has a bug (has not catered in all the peripheral factor since 2006/07 when AUS dynasty ended to over the past 2 1/2 to 3 years).

Theirfore if in another 2-3 months given how close it is at the top & IND/AUS/SA tussle around for the top spot. Neither side will deserve that accolade unless one can prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are the best team in the world.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The other teams didn't earn it over time, aussie. They maintained it over time. Earning is what you've already done the moment you climb into that chair. Maintaining it is what the Australian and WI did after they reached the #1 spot.

 

[aussie]

Yes maintain is a better word..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes i know that (cant remember anyone was mentioning this before) & the current system is still flawed.

If, as you claim, you knew the system was different why did you keep on saying that it was the same one that ranked South Africa Number 1 you daft jessie.

 

[aussie]

If, as you claim, you knew the system was different why did you keep on saying that it was the same one that ranked South Africa Number 1 you daft jessie.

I thought it was widely know by everyone that ranking system was adjusted slightly in recent years. So i didn't see the need to mention it when making that general point..

 

[marc71178]

If by slightly you mean being completely rewritten then why not say that?

 

[aussie]

If by slightly you mean being completely rewritten then why not say that?

I dont know if it was a complete rewrite or a slight adjustment. But as aformentioned by G.I Joe, the ICC did change something in the ranking system in recent years to try a prevent a situation like what occured with SA being ranked # 1 in 2003 from occuring again.

This is where the recent talk of getting Test match world cup or whatever would/could work well for test cricket.

 

[jeevan]

Yes i know that (cant remember anyone was mentioning this before) & the current system is still flawed. Since being ranked # 1 test team is a special destinction that has to earnt overtime like what past AUS, WI & ENG teams did.

So INDs rise to number 1 however long it lasts, has to have reservations since the ranking system has a bug (has not catered in all the peripheral factor since 2006/07 when AUS dynasty ended to over the past 2 1/2 to 3 years).

Theirfore if in another 2-3 months given how close it is at the top & IND/AUS/SA tussle around for the top spot. Neither side will deserve that accolade unless one can prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are the best team in the world.

For the hundred-and-thirty-fifth time on this thread: The present ICC test rankings account for performance over time, three years to be precise per...
http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net...FF6812A97BEED9873F82973E_1251697906076_17.pdf

BTW what is this bug and what is the peripheral factor that you speak of?

 

[jeevan]

I dont know if it was a complete rewrite or a slight adjustment. But as aformentioned by G.I Joe, the ICC did change something in the ranking system in recent years to try a prevent a situation like what occured with SA being ranked # 1 in 2003 from occuring again.

This is where the recent talk of getting Test match world cup or whatever would/could work well for test cricket.

Is this test match world cup a tournament?

If it is a single tournament - how does that square with "earned over time" (not to mention the diversity of playing conditions which all accept as a big factor in test cricket prowess).

 

[Sir Alex]

I thought it was widely know by everyone that ranking system was adjusted slightly in recent years. So i didn't see the need to mention it when making that general point..

I dont know if it was a complete rewrite or a slight adjustment.

 

[aussie]

Bad choice of words there shotta. Initially i should have just said "adjusted". But overall i dont know how big is the difference between ranking system when SA where ranked # 1 in 03 crazily & IND now.

 

[bagapath]

Bad choice of words there shotta. Initially i should have just said "adjusted". But overall i dont know how big is the difference between ranking system when SA where ranked # 1 in 03 crazily & IND now.

much much bigger than the difference between the system that ranked SA on top two months ago & the one giving the top spot to Ind now...

 

[Sir Alex]

Bad choice of words there shotta. Initially i should have just said "adjusted". But overall i dont know how big is the difference between ranking system when SA where ranked # 1 in 03 crazily & IND now.

If you were not sure about how different both systems are I think you shouldn't have endeavoured to comment that the present system is flawed by comparing it to it's previous version.

 

[jeevan]

Bad choice of words there shotta. Initially i should have just said "adjusted". But overall i dont know how big is the difference between ranking system when SA where ranked # 1 in 03 crazily & IND now.

Well, the current ICC ranking system lists Australia between 13 and 19 points ahead of SA over the 2nd half of 2003 that it covers.

International Cricket Council - Match Zone - Test Ranking

 

[honestbharani]

Aussie, you got no idea what you are talking about. Of course, it was mentioned earlier in this thread that the rankings system was changed since that SA-Aus guffaw... And of course, it is MUCH different to the one that it has replaced... And of course, IT IS much fairer than the last one and by all means, a much better one... Can you really come up with a system as to WHY India should not be ranked #1 going by performances over the last 3 years?


If you cannot, it is obvious that we do deserve to be #1 and to be called the best in the world on that basis, for however long it lasts...

 

[aussie]

much much bigger than the difference between the system that ranked SA on top two months ago & the one giving the top spot to Ind now...

Nah that was the same new ranking system...

 

[aussie]

For the hundred-and-thirty-fifth time on this thread: The present ICC test rankings account for performance over time, three years to be precise per... http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net...FF6812A97BEED9873F82973E_1251697906076_17.pdf

Right here is the problem. 3 years ago IND where nowhere near the best team in the world AUS was since McGrath & Warne in there ranks.

When they retired after the 06/07 Ashes, SA basically immediately became the best team in the world although they didn't officially recieve that claim unitl they defeated AUS in 08/09.

BTW what is this bug and what is the peripheral factor that you speak of?

For example IND beating England in 2007. ATS if i'm correct ENG where ranked ahead of IND right?. So according to ranking system you get higher points for winning a series againts a superior ranked side.

The bug is that ENG where weakened in that series (the entire 1st chocie bowling attack was missing).

Plus there was AUS losing in IND 08. AUS where always likely to lose in IND when the McWarne retired with that bowling attack ATT. System didn't account for AUS obvious decline due to lost of these legends after Ashes 06/7. So IND gained points again for beating the superior ranked team.

The ranking system doesn't cater for such factors

A similar thing recently happened with Bangladesh beating a weakened West Indies team.

Is this test match world cup a tournament?

If it is a single tournament - how does that square with "earned over time" (not to mention the diversity of playing conditions which all accept as a big factor in test cricket prowess).

I'm not sure myself. This is the last i heard of it. See ICC mulls Test championship | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

ICC mulls Test championship
Cricinfo staff

June 19, 2008

Text size: A | A
'Twenty20 will benefit ODIs' - Dave Richardson

"Already we have seen that the approach to the batting, fielding and bowling skills involved have to be improved if you want success in Twenty20. Those skills are going to have a direct benefit on 50-over cricket. I think 50-over cricket is the perfect balance between Tests and very short, action-filled Twenty20."






The ICC is considering a Test championship to ensure that, amid the increasing popularity of the Twenty20 format, "a special place is maintained for Test cricket in the calendar".

"The ICC will consider a number of options in the upcoming board meetings (in Dubai later this month), one of which is an option to introduce a Test championship or league," the ICC's acting chief executive, Dave Richardson, said at the launch ceremony of the Champions Trophy in Pakistan.

The details of the championship, though, are yet to be worked out. "There are so many ways this could be done, a league over one year, two years or four years," he said. "I am certainly in favour of looking at such an option to make sure we provide a good quality context for Test cricket to take place so that it can be preserved as the pinnacle of the game."

Richardson acknowledged that domestic Twenty20 leagues such as the IPL had been a "fantastic success" but maintained that international cricket remained the game's highest level. "If you ask any player around the world what he would like to do, he would like to play Test cricket for his country."

The first ICC Test Championship was launched in May 2001 and was a ranking system based on the results of the most recent series (a minimum of two Tests constituted a series), home and away, between each of the teams. It was then revamped in 2003 to reflect the results of each Test, rather than an entire series, and also to take into account the strength of the opponents while awarding points.

 

[jeevan]

Well let's apply aussie's logic to another situation and see if that makes sense:

South Africa ascended to the #1 ranking in August and on the back of the Ashes loss by the Australians. That lasted four months and fell in the very first series that the #1 ranking was up for grabs (there were 2 other series in this period, but Bang-WI was irrelevant to rankings and NZ was ranked too low for NZ-SL to assist SL any in terms of points).

This means SA did not deserve their #1 ranking in 2009. In fact since SA did nothing at all to go from #2 to #1, there's more the case to dismiss their ascent as a mere statistical anomaly (compared to India, who had to shut out #2 from any wins and then beat them cleanly to get there).

{ To restate for the benefit of the comprehension-impaired amongst us, these are not my opinions. These are the result of applying someones logic in a different situation, as a means to demonstrate the flaws in that logic. I have no problem with SA being ranked for a few months in 2009, and should they continue their good work of past 3-4 years might yet see that ranking again in 2010.}

 

[jeevan]

Right here is the problem. 3 years ago IND where nowhere near the best team in the world AUS was since McGrath & Warne in there ranks.

When they retired after the 06/07 Ashes, SA basically immediately became the best team in the world although they didn't officially recieve that claim unitl they defeated AUS in 08/09.



For example IND beating England in 2007. ATS if i'm correct ENG where ranked ahead of IND right?. So according to ranking system you get higher points for winning a series againts a superior ranked side.

The bug is that ENG where weakened in that series (the entire 1st chocie bowling attack was missing).
Plus there was AUS losing in IND 08. AUS where always likely to lose in IND when the McWarne retired with that bowling attack ATT. System didn't account for AUS obvious decline due to lost of these legends after Ashes 06/7. So IND gained points again for beating the superior ranked team.

The ranking system doesn't cater for such factors
A similar thing recently happened with Bangladesh beating a weakened West Indies team.



I'm not sure myself. This is the last i heard of it. See ICC mulls Test championship | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

First of all, India werent the top side 3 years ago and no one's claimed it for then. Its precisely what they've done in those 3 years that makes it count. (And BTW, the core of the team that got to #1 and includes Sehwag,Fab4, Zaheer,Harbhajan,Kumble have beaten McWarne in their prime).

Also when you define prowess to be demonstrated over a long period of time (3 years in case of this particular ranking system) - being immune to retirements and of injuries to players is not a bug, it's a very strong feature.

It's a team ranking. Players will retire and will get hurt, having a deep bench to fill those shoes temporarily and permanently is very much a part of overall strength. (India too has had it's share of retirements of stalwarts and injuries to very key players in this time frame).

Heck being able to keep your players in good health is a major factor too, if your replacements are not to the same standard.

 

[aussie]

Well let's apply aussie's logic to another situation and see if that makes sense:

South Africa ascended to the #1 ranking in August and on the back of the Ashes loss by the Australians.

Yes. But that was flaw still. SA should have been ranked # 1 basically since January 09 when they won in AUS.

That lasted four months and fell in the very first series that the #1 ranking was up for grabs (there were 2 other series in this period, but Bang-WI was irrelevant to rankings and NZ was ranked too low for NZ-SL to assist SL any in terms of points).

This means SA did not deserve their #1 ranking in 2009. In fact since SA did nothing at all to go from #2 to #1, there's more the case to dismiss their ascent as a mere statistical anomaly (compared to India, who had to shut out #2 from any wins and then beat them cleanly to get there).

No way. SA performances from between SRI 2006 to AUS 08/09 (the series in SA). Clearly earnt them the right to be claim they where the form team in test cricket. Given the AUS after the losing its dynasty in 06/07 & 07/08 where clearly in rebuilding phase.

When they won vs AUS in AUS. That pretty much was the culmination of 3 years of good work. But AUS winning the return series in SA exposed Saffies slightly given that the main ingredient of that 3 year success (ther 5-man bowling attack Steyn/Ntini/Morkel/Kallis/Harris) - turned into a one-man attack in Steyn alone.

So what we have now is basically a 3 way tie between SA/AUS/IND. India being ranked # 1 via the flawed ranking system is just a testament to their improvement nothing more. Being ranked # 1 team is a special honour

When history is written. People will not speak of 2-3 months etc or however long it last of IND being the number # 1 test team. Only AUS, WI & ENG will have that honour bestowed on them. So the ranking system is unfortunately is doing a disservice to this special honour.

{To restate for the benefit of the comprehension-impaired amongst us, these are not my opinions. These are the result of applying someones logic in a different situation, as a means to demonstrate the flaws in that logic.

There is no flaw in the logic. All it proves is why the test ranking system has it mistakes

I have no problem with SA being ranked for a few months in 2009, and should they continue their good work of past 3-4 years might yet see that ranking again in 2010.}

Yes its very likely. Along with AUS or IND continuing the improve as well.