• 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 World Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Here we go:


"The Test rankings, as they stand now, don't give extra weightage to victories away from home, and run over a time of three years, including "all Test series completed since August more than three years ago". The rating points earned or conceded are calculated based on the difference between where the teams stood before the start of the series."

So unless they have been modified very recently, that is utter bull**** imo. That makes the ranking system essentially worthless.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
vcs said:
nah, if you had any knowledge of cricket history you would realize that in eng 1989 was the start of a new aus team coming into their prime. Hence all their losses prior to that must be discounted as they had not reached their prime and allan border was wearing itchy underpants. So it was aus who actually dominated the ashes in the '80s. However, in the '90s, you could see an eng resurgence with amazing, world-beating talents like chris emburey, martin bicknell, peter such who were simply unlucky to lose to those aus journeymen and piechuckers led by warne, mcgrath, ponting, waugh and so on. This was clearly demonstrated finally in eng's glorious 2005 victory. In 2006, eng was hit by major injuries and robbed of an obvious win but they still came back with a respectable 5-0 loss. However, in 2009, aus were unlucky to lose in eng with a clearly superior team consisting of the brilliant johnson, hughes and hauritz but for weather interrupting the first test.
Click to expand...
smh.
 
Shri

Shri

Mr. Glass
DeusEx said:
Yeh thanks for the help, really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Oops, sorry meant to add a couple of reliable sites. Forgot.:p

cricketarchiive is a good site btw. Then the official ICC ranking site too.

Haha, didn't want to be an asshole for once but sounded like that anyway.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Shri said:
Oops, sorry meant to add a couple of reliable sites. Forgot.:p

cricketarchiive is a good site btw. Then the official ICC ranking site too.

Haha, didn't want to be an asshole for once but sounded like that anyway.
Click to expand...
Heh you sure did ;). Wikipedia is actually on the money the vast majority of the time, and that article in particular looks absolutely legit. Add that to the quote from cricinfo, and thats good enough for me.

So anyway it seems the ICC rankings DON'T place a value on whether a series is home/away, which, in itself, could quite easily account for the messed up rankings.

Just from observation, I still think India should be no. 1 though, but only just over Aus and SA.
 
Shri

Shri

Mr. Glass
DeusEx said:
Heh you sure did ;). Wikipedia is actually on the money the vast majority of the time, and that article in particular looks absolutely legit. Add that to the quote from cricinfo, and thats good enough for me.

So anyway it seems the ICC rankings DON'T place a value on whether a series is home/away, which, in itself, could quite easily account for the messed up rankings.

Just from observation, I still think India should be no. 1 though, but only just over Aus and SA.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree with you on the home/away points thingy. Spot on.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
smalishah84 said:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:




An excellent analysis of cricket history. And I would agree with a lot of things that you have to say but I think there is some difference in the way things are being perceived here in the sense that you define the number 1 team to be the absolute dominant team of that era. Like the Windies 70s-80s and Aussies 97-07. However, to be the best team there does not necessarily have to be day light between one team and the rest.

It can be like what happens in a class room. All subjects considered the top student gets 90/100. The second place student gets 88/100 and so on..........

So while India may not be the kind of student like West Indies (or Australia) who got 95 and the second place student was only able to score 55 but they may still score 75 while the others are at 73 and 72 etc.
Click to expand...
That analysis for attaining number 1 in cricket is not correct.

In its more like this. This very rigid exam, you have to score 90 out of 100 to be the # 1 (prove you can win home & away fairly consistently). Any students falling short of that, will have to write over the exam until they reach that 90 mark (failing to win in a specific country)


Even if one looks at those past great teams. Using the premise that you have to win home & away againts everyone to be the # 1. Only WI 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07 had real daylight betweem themselves & the rest & won everywhere home & away (although WI of that period tecnhincally didnt win in NZ. But everyone except they were robbed in NZ 1980 to poor umpiring, while they drew in NZ 86/87, but overall this means nothing)

Look at ENG 1951-1958 for example. They where the best yea, but it wasn't daylight betweem themseleves & their competition. They won two very close Ashes series. While drawing in WI 53/54 2-2 (which was like playing India of the 90s of the time facing two quality spinners in Valentine/Ramadin on flat turning wickets & having to bowl againts a legendary middle-order in Weeks/Walcott/Worrell). Drawing in SA 56/57 againts a strong SA bowling side of Adcock/Heine/Tayfield. So they weren't faultless but did enough to be considered the clear best team by everyone who played againts them.

# 1 in cricket is special accolade that has to be earnt based on performances over a long period of time after you have proven you can/have the ability to win home & away fairly consistently. It is not to be thrown around losely to any team like IND currently who have not done the above, but just have been playing consistent test cricket.


Since AUS lost their # 1 ranking at the end of the 2006/07 Ashes (although the flawed ranking system didn't take it from them until they lost @ home to SA 08/09). Since 2007 both India & South Africa have won 9 of the 13/14 series they have played in:

Cricket Records | Records | India | Test matches | Series results | Cricinfo.com

Cricket Records | Records | South Africa | Test matches | Series results | Cricinfo.com

So what we have is India & SA being the two more consistent teams in test cricket since AUS decline. But none of them should be called number # 1 because they have failed to show they can win everywhere. SA slipped up in India twice (2008 & 2010) & lost to AUS @ home), which is why the lost their # 1 ranking. While IND have yet to win away to full-stenght SA, ENG, AUS sides.

Until some team proves superiority. We will have & will continue to have as it has been the case in post war test history at the end of any of the previous great teams # 1. A jostling match until a # 1 occurs. AFAIC it would be good for test cricket if no such # 1 occurs again for a while, since that would mean overall test cricket will be very competitive.
 
Last edited:
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Avada Kedavra said:
Aus never beat a full strength Indian side in India.They were also lucky that rain saved them in Chennai.Clearly Aus were never the best side in the world :ph34r:
Click to expand...
Yea Indian weren't @ full strenght. You were missing Gavaskar, Kapil Dev & Vijay Hazare, Subhash Gupte, Farook Engineer for eg.

Avada Kedavra said:
Please not that even if India win the series in SA it will not count because Donald and Pollock will not be part of the squad.
Click to expand...
Indeed because since the retirement of Donald & Pollock SA have struggled to replace them. Given that Steyn/Morkel have been absolutely horrific test bowlers & easily their worst new-ball pair since the 1930s.


Avada Kedavra said:
South Africa's win in Aus doesn't count because Mcgrath and Warne didn't play.
Click to expand...
Ye McGrath & Warne should have postponed their retirements in anticipation for this series.

But to actually take this point serious. SA win in AUS AFAIC had alot do with poor AUS bowling selections ATT. Of course SA took advantage of that, but when AUS picked the proper bowling attack in the return series in SA (A 4-man pace attack) they won the series. Which pretty much proves why their is no # 1 in test team ATM.



Avada Kedavra said:
England's draw in SA doesn't count because they didn't allow SA to bowl them out.Steyn was also not bowling well,which is obv England's fault.
Click to expand...
A funny point. Clealry however ENG drawin in SA last winter wasn't a fair reflection of that series for reasons i already stated:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2346303-post184.html

quote said:
Not necessarily a whine about injuries. Just acknowledging as i always say that unless you are legendary team with great bench strenght like Windies 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07. Teams in general cannot be expected to lose key players to injuries who are basically the heart beat of the side & be expected to maintain that high level of performance. SA didn't have the depth to cover for losing Steyn & Kallis the bowler - thats basically why ENG managed to draw that series.

If we look back @ that series:

- In Centurion. ENG deserved that draw. SA selectors made the mistake of persisting with Ntini when he should have been dropped before that series, so they didn't help themselves with that selection. But with Steyn out & Kallis not being able to bowl, their back-ups weren't good enough to do that job.

- In Durban. ENG outplayed SA. But although Steyn came back, he was not bowling at his best. SA didn't help themselves by again making a poor selection is retaining Ntini instead of picking DeWet.

- In Capetown. ENG where lucky to draw that game. SA where on top for most of that game. Since they got their best side on the park now, esepcially in the bowling attack. Losing De Wet to injury on the final day was the difference in that game. Just like how AUS losing Bollinger @ the end of the Mohali test was difference in that test.

- In Jo'Burg. With no injuries hitting the attack & everything going smoothly for SA. SA totally smoked ENG.

So 2-1 to SA, would certainly have been a better reflection of that series.
Click to expand...

Avada Kedavra said:
The number "1" ceased to exist in december 2009 for some unknown reason.Cricket teams now vying to be the best in the world have to be better than the WI side of the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
January 2007 to be exact. But not ceased to exist, since one will come up again, rather teams are vying to be become # 1 again for reasons backed by historical facts.

Cricket teams vying to be number # 1 will eventually do what the WI of the 76-91 did, which is win/prove you can will home & away consistently. They dont however have to be good as the that great WI team, since that is greatest dominant team of all-time. AUS 95-2006/07, ENG 51-58, WI 63-68/69 & the potential lost SA team of the mid/early 70s where a level below them. Most likely the next number of that calibre will be a level below them as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top