What does it mean to be no.1?

[Howe_zat]

I was thinking about this a fair bit today, and went on to King Cricket to find that they, as they often do, have articulated my thoughts quite well.

A lot of people quibble with the ICC’s Test rankings, but we think they’re pretty good. The rankings are more weighty than simply saying which is the best team at any given moment. They reward sustained excellence.

You can say that they should recognise which is the best team right now, but how do you do that? You’ve got to impose some sort of timeframe on what you’re measuring because you need data. For example, a team doesn’t become the best in the world the very moment it takes a wicket or scores a run, which is what would happen if you evaluated too short a timeframe.

Similarly, a team doesn’t become the best in the world when it wins a Test match, or a series. It doesn’t even become the best team in the world by winning three or four series in a row. At present, these are all just steps towards that number one ranking and we think that method of calculation actually gives the rankings a fair bit of cachet.

When number one isn’t the best

It’s counter-intuitive, but it may be that the number one ranked side isn’t the best at a particular moment. This is because it would be unreasonable to expect superiority every second of every match. There’s a fluidity to being the best and the rankings merely reflect which team tends to perform better more often.

There are also different margins when it comes to being number one. When India became number one, many people evaluated their case with reference to the recent, great Australian side. That was unfair and inaccurate. India had been performing better than everyone else for a decent period of time. They justified their ranking. Australia, on the other hand, had been so superior for so long that they were top by a distance. They were different kinds of number one.

Room for improvement

Being the number one Test side isn’t like winning the World Cup. There’s no end point, it’s just a constantly shifting evaluation. There are always more challenges. Maintaining your position is one challenge. Winning a difficult away series you’ve previously drawn or lost is another.

Test cricket is all about competing against different teams in different conditions. You can lose to a team away and still be considered better than them, because you might thrash them in your home conditions.

No team has ever done a grand slam of home and away against every other Test nation. It’s virtually impossible. That’s a good thing. For every side, there is always room for improvement; there are always more targets. Test cricket is simply far too beautifully complex for anyone to ‘win’ at it.

That’s why we watch. That’s what we talk about. That’s the whole point.

 

[silentstriker]

I know this wasn't the question:

It was the culmination of a dream as a fan. Going through the nineties, getting beat repeatedly overseas, game after game (not a single win in a decade!), series after series...the fact that I actually lived to see this year long period - let alone the fact that it was only ten or fifteen years from that period - was such a huge moment as a sports fan. I personally never thought in a million years it would ever happen, there was the interest in the game, yes, but virtually everything was against it. I don't care about world cups and all that, but being #1, even if it's not something that culminates in a final with a trophy or anything, was really special. It would be great if they can get there again obviously but I've achieved what I wanted as an India fan.

What does it mean to be #1? The question itself is kind of irrelevant - there is too much objectiveness. Does the 'best team' always win the championship trophy? No. But as long as there is a criteria and tournament to decide on a best, that's the best team. At the end of this series England will be the best because that's the criteria we've chosen - which is fine.

When the Test Championship rolls around, that'll be the new criteria, and IMO a better one.

 

[Cevno]

Agree with the article Howe_zat posted almost completely.

 

[Uppercut]

IIRC it means that haters can suck it

 

[flibbertyjibber]

IIRC it means that haters can suck it

Yep soon to be a phrase taken by England fans on CW.

 

[keeper]

Having suffered so much for so long as an England supporter it's great to see them do so well. On top of the world.

The rankings, however, mean nothing to me. I know where I think the England side sit at any moment in time and don't need what I feel is a fairly artificial league table to tell me. In fact, I think personal judgement deals with the nuances better (such as determining how this team would do in Asia for example).

Each to their own though

 

[smash84]

Having suffered so much for so long as an England supporter it's great to see them do so well. On top of the world.

The rankings, however, mean nothing to me. I know where I think the England side sit at any moment in time and don't need what I feel is a fairly artificial league table to tell me. In fact, I think personal judgement deals with the nuances better (such as determining how this team would do in Asia for example).

Each to their own though

well said

 

[Ikki]

As an Aussie, I think the sentiment "You're either first or you're last" is a common perception.

 

[ankitj]

IIRC it means that haters can suck it

This.

/thread

 

[Agent Nationaux]

To me the ICC ranking is fair in deciding the no 1 position. All the great teams in the past including the current England and the Indian teams (3-4 years back when it was on top) have maintained and achieved their no 1 position through hard work. As a Pakistani fan I envy those other fans because we have all the talent in the world to be no 1 and despite all that Pakistan has never been at the top. We are an indisciplined bunch.

 

[smash84]

We are an indisciplined bunch.

No ****....

 

[honestbharani]

It just means you are better than the rest of the sides.. </bleeding obvious>

 

[Ruckus]

Because the ICC rankings don't change the weighting with regards to home/away matches, I really don't find them very credible. I would say the only case where they are useful indicators of the no. 1 is when you have a very dominant team - it means the problem of home/away weighting is kind of redundant simply because a dominant team tends to win everywhere anyway.

 

[benchmark00]

I don't need rankings, or anyone else, to tell me who the best team is.

 

[Turbinator]

No. 1 is not a status, or a rank. It's a way of life. It's waking up each morning, looking your missus in the eye and telling her you love her. And then, and only then, will you be No. 1

 

[Ruckus]

I don't need rankings, or anyone else, to tell me who the best team is.

Unless you literally watch every test match though over an extended period of time, then it's gonna be pretty difficult to make a judgement based on your own viewings. In any case, there are personal biases you can't really avoid which can influence who you think is the best. That's why you need an objective ranking system, but unfortunately atm the one in use is pretty flawed. It would be boring without a ranking system anyway...its always fun to have bragging rights.

 

[benchmark00]

Why would there be personal biases? Some people are able to objectively judge their teams performances. Just because I'm from Australia it doesn't mean I think Australian players are the best. Over the course of a year I would say I'd see most if not all test teams play at least once or twice, as well as reading about their performances etc.

The rankings aren't based on subjectiveness of seeing a team play, it's merely based on results, so I trust my eye far greater than a rankings system.

 

[Burgey]

No. 1 is not a status, or a rank. It's a way of life. It's waking up each morning, looking your missus in the eye and telling her you love her. And then, and only then, will you be No. 1

Til you go to work and the milk man pops over...

 

[Ruckus]

Why would there be personal biases? Some people are able to objectively judge their teams performances. Just because I'm from Australia it doesn't mean I think Australian players are the best. Over the course of a year I would say I'd see most if not all test teams play at least once or twice, as well as reading about their performances etc.

The rankings aren't based on subjectiveness of seeing a team play, it's merely based on results, so I trust my eye far greater than a rankings system.

Everyone has biases, many you aren't really even aware of. Also if you're only seeing teams play once or twice, that isn't exactly the best sample size is it? What if the two times you saw a team play they just happened to be performing below their usual standard?

When you're judging who is the 'best' team isn't that going only by results?

 

[benchmark00]

Everyone has biases, many you aren't really even aware of. Also if you're only seeing teams play once or twice, that isn't exactly the best sample size is it? What if the two times you saw a team play they just happened to be performing below their usual standard?

When you're judging who is the 'best' team isn't that going only by results?

When I say once or twice I mean one or two series, not one or two games.

No, judging by results only is such a flawed method, the same flaws that appear when someone judges a players ability by stats alone.

I could not possibly care less about raw statistics. They mean bum**** all to me other than looking at them to get a platform on something. I give my eye and personal experiences far greater importance. That's not to say I disregard results, but a result, or a win or a loss, is only an outcome of the processes put in place to achieve it.

I could tell you England were the best team in the world well before this series happening now, even if India come out and win the last two games.