• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Test team ratings since 1877

Days of Grace

International Captain
I have spent the last few months working on a system that ranks teams based on results at home/away and quality of opposition. I have come up with the following current ranking for teams:

India 626
South Africa 594
Australia 581
New Zealand 522
England 509
Pakistan 501
Sri Lanka 498
West Indies 427
Bangladesh 403
Zimbabwe 350

A rating above 500 represents an above-average team. A rating below 400 represents a minnow. Bangladesh have climbed above the minnow threshold with their victory today over Sri Lanka. :)

The ratings look similar to the official ICC version. The difference is that I use 500 as an average score instead of 100. My system also takes into account performances at home vs. away. I wanted to add in margin of victory but I found it to be problematic.

A test win is worth 750 points. A draw gets 500 points and a loss 250 points. A series score is the average match results. So, in a three test series, if a team wins 2-1, then their series score would be 583 ((750+750+250)/3). This series score is then adjusted based on the rating of the opposition and whether the team was playing at home or away.

The series score is then added to their rating before the series. How much a team's rating will chance based on their series result is dependent on how many matches were played in the series. A 5 match series will change a team's rating a lot more than a single match series.

If we use the current India-Australia series as an example, if India win the series 2-1, then their series score is 563. This is upgraded to 612 because they are playing a strong Australian team with a rating of 581.

India's current rating is 626. Their series score of 612 is added and weighted against their current rating and produces a new rating of 624, a very minor adjustment.

Australia meanwhile if they lose the series 1-2 will have a series score of 437. Taking into account their opposition and the fact that they are playing away from home, their series score is adjusted to 530.

Their new rating will be 573.

Therefore, both teams' ratings will not change by that much at all. At other points in history, teams have lost a series 0-5 and their rating dropped dramatically. England in 2006/07 went from 599-544 after being whitewashed in the Ashes.

Here are the top 10 highest ratings achieved by test teams

Australia 2007 714
West Indies 1986 667
Australia 1952 642
South Africa 2013 641
England 2011 639
Australia 1959 630
India 2016 626
India 2010 620
Australia 2016 612
Australia 1976 609

I have attached a spreadsheet that shows the historical ratings of all test teams.

A final note, teams start with a rating of 400. South Africa after being reinstated as a test team in 1992 began with a rating of 400, which did not reflect their strength. However, they soon had a rating of over 500.

I hope you find the historical ratings interesting and worth discussing/debating. :)

I will use these ratings to rate individual test performances and then to rate the top 100 test batsmen and bowlers. I hope to also share those results in the months to come.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Victor Ian

International Coach
...
If we use the current India-Australia series as an example, if India win the series 2-1, then their series score is 563. This is upgraded to 612 because they are playing a strong Australian team with a rating of 581.

India's current rating is 626. Their series score of 634 is added and weighted against their current rating and produces a new rating of 624, a very minor adjustment.

...
Is that a typo? Otherwise I'm not following. Can you explain that a bit more?

The top 10 highest ratings seems a bit modern biased. Is that because of a larger divide between good and bad sides this decade?
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Is that a typo? Otherwise I'm not following. Can you explain that a bit more?

The top 10 highest ratings seems a bit modern biased. Is that because of a larger divide between good and bad sides this decade?
Yes, that's a typo. I will correct it.

Teams play a lot more series these days so if a team is in good form or has outstanding players, then there are a lot of opportunities available to them in the modern era to improve their rating.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Assigning 400 to SA after re-admission maybe a bit unfair. It should be 500 (average) IMO.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
It makes sfa difference to their rankings after a certain amount of time. What is your basis for declaring they were average when they rejoined? (hindsight is not allowed)

Everyone starts as a 'minnow' (400 points). That they were better than this is shown by their rapid improvement in rankings.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Yes, I played around with that aspect of the ratings for a long time. In the end, starting everyone at 400 is fair. You cannot start Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at 500, for example. 500 represents a good test team. New Zealand have had three or four teams that have been rated above 500.
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
A ratio of 4:1 for current rating to series performance. This is then adjusted based on the number of matches in the series.
Seems fair, have you checked how the ratings change if you change the ratio?
[Sorry for all the questions I'm just interested :P ]
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Seems fair, have you checked how the ratings change if you change the ratio?
[Sorry for all the questions I'm just interested :P ]
No worries. I'm glad someone is taking an interest!

I tried a 3:1 ratio but it make the ratings a little too volatile. I like the 4:1 ratio because if a team rated 500 wins a 5 match series 5-0 against an opponent equally rated 500, then their rating will increase 50 points ((500*4)+(750))/5. If it's a win in a single match series, then the rating would increase by 10 points. So it has a nice look to it.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
There is no time period, which makes it different from the ICC ratings. Teams just keep getting their ratings adjusted depending on performance from series to series.
World Rugby rankings work like this I think, though they're always a zero-sum points exchange which I think is not the case here?
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
What is your basis for declaring they were average when they rejoined? (hindsight is not allowed)

Everyone starts as a 'minnow' (400 points).
because 'rejoin' is different from 'start' - it has nothing to do with hindsight

It makes sfa difference to their rankings after a certain amount of time....That they were better than this is shown by their rapid improvement in rankings.
That's not a good approach for ranking.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Yes, I played around with that aspect of the ratings for a long time. In the end, starting everyone at 400 is fair. You cannot start Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at 500, for example. 500 represents a good test team. New Zealand have had three or four teams that have been rated above 500.
From OP, I assumed 500 is average.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I would put this Indian team above the 2010 one if we can win the next match. The rating already has them above.
 

viriya

International Captain
Nice work. The list is very similar to cricrate since my update to handle home/away and reduce jumpiness:
cricrate | Current Ratings - Test Team

(Mine isn't updated with Ind v Aus and ban vs SL yet)

I'm in the process of scraping series status data - wondering if I should adjust for deciders/dead rubbers..
 
Last edited:

Top