Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Test team ratings since 1877

  1. #16
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Ian View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Ian View Post
    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 by weldone; 20-03-2017 at 06:00 AM.
    "Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
    - C.L.R. James

  2. #17
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Days of Grace View Post
    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.

  3. #18
    vcs
    vcs is online now
    International Coach vcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    14,505
    I would put this Indian team above the 2010 one if we can win the next match. The rating already has them above.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Chix love a man with a checkered posting history.

  4. #19
    International Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    5,021
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    From OP, I assumed 500 is average.
    You can interpret 500 as "average" or "good." In both instances, it is not right that a team enters test cricket mid table. They have to prove themselves.


  5. #20
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,016
    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 by viriya; 20-03-2017 at 07:08 AM.
    cricrate - follow twitter and facebook for updates

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member chasingthedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    3,190
    I first looked into the ICC rankings in 2008, working out their own ratings back to 1877 which was posted on Howstat's website (since taken down). Actually it was that feature which got my writing for CW.

    In 2010 I looked at improving their ratings, modifying them to account for a) success away from home and b) degree of dominance, which I based on RPW:-

    Improving the ICC Test Team Rating System | Cricket Web

  7. #22
    International Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    5,021
    Quote Originally Posted by chasingthedon View Post
    I first looked into the ICC rankings in 2008, working out their own ratings back to 1877 which was posted on Howstat's website (since taken down). Actually it was that feature which got my writing for CW.

    In 2010 I looked at improving their ratings, modifying them to account for a) success away from home and b) degree of dominance, which I based on RPW:-

    Improving the ICC Test Team Rating System | Cricket Web
    Yes, I have read your article and you did an excellent job there.

    I always thought the ICC system had another flaw in it where they base their ratings on a period of time. South Africa, as good as they were in the 1960s, only played two series, not enough to justify a number 1 ranking. If only they played the West Indies around 1966, what a series that would have been!

    In my system, your series score is added onto your ranking, which then either increases or decreases. There is no period limit. Series scores are adjusted by opposition and home/away. Adding in RPW difference was a little problematic, do I left it out. After all, winning by an innings but losing by one wicket in the next match will give you a 1-1 scoreline, which is what people will remember.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. DoG's Test Team Ratings - Throughout History
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 19-09-2013, 08:44 PM
  2. # 6 for 1877-1940 Test XI
    By oz_fan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 28-05-2007, 02:03 PM
  3. # 5 for the 1877-1940 Test XI
    By oz_fan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 23-05-2007, 12:27 AM
  4. # 4 for the 1877-1940 Test XI
    By oz_fan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 16-05-2007, 10:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •