How Would You Rank The Teams?

[marc71178]

Looks like the ICC tables are pretty fair then according to most in this thread. Even if the method is boring and convoluted.

I don't think it's that confusing to be honest.

Deep down it just means that if you beat the higher ranked nations you get more credit than for beating the lower nations.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think the ICC ratings are completely fair, but I think it is the fairest going around at the moment.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah, you're an idiot. That's ridiculous, seriously that's just ridiculous. Two things: You've forgotten who your mates are, some of your comments about this thread? And the other thing is you're just an idiot talking about silly names... uh... everyones lists; you were one of the most boring posters to watch and from what I've seen so far in your posts, they're crap. You're forgetting who your mates are mate; about six hours ago I posted on one of your threads.

**** funny

 

[GIMH]

Carlsberg Export Test Championship

1.Australia
2.England
3.Pakistan
4.South Africa
5.New Zealand
6.India
7.Sri Lanka
8.West Indies
9.Zimbabwe
10.Bangladesh

Did my own points system on Excel think it works out okay except for India being a bit low down

 

[silentstriker]

Carlsberg Export Test Championship

1.Australia
2.England
3.Pakistan
4.South Africa
5.New Zealand
6.India
7.Sri Lanka
8.West Indies
9.Zimbabwe
10.Bangladesh

Did my own points system on Excel think it works out okay except for India being a bit low down

What is your point system? South Africa is putting up even less fight than India when playing Australia in Tests, and they also only tied England...and their last 25 tests they are 8-8-9, while India are 12-6-7. This is a big difference, so I am not sure how your point system is calculated.

Though I would agree that India are not better than Pakistan and England (obviously). However, I can't see them any lower than #4, considering how the SA series is going atm.

 

[GIMH]

It's quite complex, it's basicaly based around last series results home and away, more points for away, recent etc, India fell down on their away record

 

[silentstriker]

It's quite complex, it's basicaly based around last series results home and away, more points for away, recent etc, India fell down on their away record

Why more points for away? That just needlessly penalizes the subcontinent teams? There is a reason why everyone struggles in the subcontinent and subcontinent struggle everywhere else. You play 50% of your games at home, shouldn't it count 50% toward the total?

Also, any Test ranking that has New Zealand above India is a bit lacking, IMO.


In the last 25 tests:


India: 12-6-7
SA: 8-8-9
NZ: 8-9-8

From there, tell me which should be 4, 5, and 6? I realize you use something other than simply Test results, however, shouldn't rankings reflect, at least a little bit, the win-loss records of teams? Yours isn't close. Also, India play less tests than England or Australia and I hope that doesn't hurt them in the rankings....

 

[Jono]

1-1 vs Australia reserves is different from 0-3 vs the full Australia side yes...

That reserves batting line-up is much better than the current one Australia have put out recently.

Anyway, here's my tests and ODIs.

Tests:
Australia
England
Pakistan
India
South Africa (They're losing at home & away! And they win less test matches than India)
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
West Indies

ODIs:
Australia
South Africa
India
Pakistan
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
England (Laughable that Scaly thinks they're the 2nd best ODI team in the world)
West Indies

 

[Scaly piscine]

Number of series won, drawn and lost and who against are way more important than 'last 25 Tests'.

 

[silentstriker]

Number of series won, drawn and lost and who against are way more important than 'last 25 Tests'.

Absolutely. I am simply trying to understand his ranking system. However, there should be at least some correlation.

 

[silentstriker]

If you don't want to look at records, let's look at series then:

INDIA SINCE 2004:


Australia:

In Australia: Draw
In India: Lose

Pakistan:

In Pakistan: Won
In India: Draw
In Pakistan: Lose

South Africa:

In India: Won

Sri Lanka:

In India: Won


England:

In India: Draw

So basically, they lost 2 series (against Pak and Aus), won 3 series (against SL, SA, PAK) and drew 3 series.

Series record against non-minnows: 3-2-3


Let's compare to South Africa:

West Indies:

In South Africa: WON
In WI: WON

New Zealand:

In New Zealand: Draw

Sri Lanka:

In Sri Lanka: Lost

India:

In India: Lost

England:

In RSA: Lost

Australia:

In Australia: Lost
In SA:Lost


SA: 2-5-1


By what sane ranking system are they better? Their only series wins have come against weaker opposition.

So India come out ahead of SA in both record, and series.

 

[Jono]

See the thing is, India are underperforming, no doubt. And they have had a lot of series at home which skews their record since 2004 a little. However, SA have been pretty damn poor, and their biggest achievement as of late is being competitive in an away series in Australia (which they lost 2-0, flatters the Aussies but hey, that's the scoreline). On top of that, they lost a test to Sri Lanka (which gave SL the series) when Sri Lanka didn't have Murali, which is borderline disgraceful for a team apparently so highly ranked. They too had to fight for a draw against an undermanned WI team (which is a little different to an undermanned England team!) without Lara, Bravo etc.

People going "Well SA wouldn't beat India in India, and India wouldn't beat SA in SA" are forgetting that rankings also includes records against other teams.

 

[silentstriker]

(which they lost 2-0, flatters the Aussies but hey, that's the scoreline).

Not to mention that the current series is also 2-0, and this one does not flatter the aussies.

 

[marc71178]

The RD World Test ratings:

1 SA
2 SA reserves
3 SA women

The rest are all irrelevant

 

[Unattainableguy]

Tests:

1.Australia
2.Pakistan
3.England
4.New Zealand
5.South Africa
6.India( Unless India sort out their bowling problems, I'll rank them very low. (By bowling problems, I mean If they go with 5 bowlers to compensate for not having good bowlers, there's a good chance they will lose the game. If they go in a match with 4 bowlers, they will not win the match........)
7.Sri Lanka
8.West Indies

ODIs:

1.Australia
2.Pakistan
3.South Africa
4.New Zealand
5.India/England( Whoever wins the current India vs England series, I'll rank them ahead of the other team)
6.Sri Lanka
7.West Indies

 

[silentstriker]

Tests:

1.Australia
2.Pakistan
3.England
4.New Zealand
5.South Africa
6.India( Unless India sort out their bowling problems, I'll rank them very low. (By bowling problems, I mean If they go with 5 bowlers to compensate for not having good bowlers, there's a good chance they will lose the game. If they go in a match with 4 bowlers, they will not win the match........)
7.Sri Lanka
8.West Indies

ODIs:

1.Australia
2.Pakistan
3.South Africa
4.New Zealand
5.India/England( Whoever wins the current India vs England series, I'll rank them ahead of the other team)
6.Sri Lanka
7.West Indies

As opposed to England's batting problems? Or New Zealand's cricket problems?

Whatever, I am officially giving up on this thread. I suppose I can't convince anyone with stats, so I won't try.

PS: NZ ahead of SA and India in tests? Thats a first.

 

[steds]

As opposed to England's batting problems?

What problems? Trescothick and Vaughan being crocked?

 

[Scaly piscine]

If you don't want to look at records, let's look at series then:

INDIA SINCE 2004:


Australia:

In Australia: Draw
In India: Lose

Pakistan:

In Pakistan: Won
In India: Draw
In Pakistan: Lose

South Africa:

In India: Won

Sri Lanka:

In India: Won


England:

In India: Draw

So basically, they lost 2 series (against Pak and Aus), won 3 series (against SL, SA, PAK) and drew 3 series.

Series record against non-minnows: 3-2-3


Let's compare to South Africa:

West Indies:

In South Africa: WON
In WI: WON

New Zealand:

In New Zealand: Draw

Sri Lanka:

In Sri Lanka: Lost

India:

In India: Lost

England:

In RSA: Lost

Australia:

In Australia: Lost
In SA:Lost


SA: 2-5-1


By what sane ranking system are they better? Their only series wins have come against weaker opposition.

So India come out ahead of SA in both record, and series.

The trouble with this is the fact that SA have only played 3 home series and 2 of those were against the top two teams in the world (with England at full strength) - so they've only had one home series they could likely win. India have played 3 home series they could likely win, plus they played a massively under strength England, as well as a series in Australia when Australia were massively under strength.

 

[silentstriker]

The trouble with this is the fact that SA have only played 3 home series and 2 of those were against the top two teams in the world (with England at full strength) - so they've only had one home series they could likely win. India have played 3 home series they could likely win, plus they played a massively under strength England, as well as a series in Australia when Australia were massively under strength.

Even assuming losses on both of them, the Indian record would be:

3-3-1

Still better than SA. But then, if you say Australia and England were understrength and thus a tie wasn't good...then surely the WI wins don't count either, because they are barely better than the minnows (and WI are worse than understrength England or Australia)? So, then it would be 0-5-1 for SA.

So now you are saying a 3-3-1 team is worse than an 0-5-1.

You can think whaterver you want about India, and granted their overseas record is dismal at best....but what the hell is this obsession with South Africa? They are simply not very good. There's a reason why there is a twelve point differential between South Africa and India in the official rankings.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yeah, you're an idiot. That's ridiculous, seriously that's just ridiculous. Two things: You've forgotten who your mates are, some of your comments about this thread? And the other thing is you're just an idiot talking about silly names... uh... everyones lists; you were one of the most boring posters to watch and from what I've seen so far in your posts, they're crap. You're forgetting who your mates are mate; about six hours ago I posted on one of your threads.

I really left myself open there didn't I?