Explain to me this

[hourn]

According to the ITCT standings we are on 1.54 points with South Africa 1.50 - Now thats all well and good because it goes according to series results, but i believe there must also be an emphasis on series scores as well.

Australia have played 46 tests from the 13 series that count towards our score and have won 32, lost 6 and drawn 8. A winning percantage of nearly 70% which is amazing among test cricket.

South Africa have played 52 tests from their 16 series that count towards their score and have won 25, lost 13 and drawn 14.

Despite this, we are only marginally ahead. And to add to this, if they defeat Bangladesh in their upcoming series against them rolleyes: ) then they will move to 1.53 - even closer to us.


Right If thats not redicilous enough, then hows this. If we lose the Ashes series, we drop back to 1.38 points, or if we draw it we drop to 1.46 points. Either way we are behind.

Now say we draw it 2-2. That will mean we would still have 46 tests from 13 series that count towards our ITCT score. We would have won 31, lost 7 and drawn 8, with a winning percantage of 67%, significantly higher than South Africa's 50%. But yet we would still behind them?? how on earth does that work

The web page for the ITCT can be found here http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/ICCTC/

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by hourn
According to the ITCT standings we are on 1.54 points with South Africa 1.50 - Now thats all well and good because it goes according to series results, but i believe there must also be an emphasis on series scores as well.

You basically answered your own question in this opening bit, it all comes down to the result of the series - win, loss or draw - how much you win or lose a series by is irrelevant.

In each series a side plays, they get 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss.

One reason why Australia isn't further ahead of SA is that they haven't played enough series. They haven't played Zimbabwe in a relevant series home or away as well as Sri Lanka at home. If they had played these series, they would almost certainly win them and their average would be considerably higher.

There's also the factor that South Africa have performed better then Australia have in certain countries and against certain sides.

• SA won the last time they played in the West Indies, Australia only drew
• South Africa drew the last time they played in Sri Lanka, Australia lost
• South Africa won the last time they played in India, Australia lost

It's hard to believe considering South Africa's performances against Australia last summer, but their away record is more impressive then Australia's is. The only reason Australia is still ahead of them is because of Australia gaining maximum points, SA none, from their head-to-head record.

As for the system itself, I like it and it's something that cricket needed. While there have been valid arguments put forward for more complicated systems that would take into account factors like Australia's consistent ability to whitewash sides, the great strength the current system has is its simplicity.

 

[hourn]

nah, i understand how it works and how it can happen.


I just wanna know how it can possibly be fair when Australia are clearly the best team in the world, but we can very easily find ourselves ousted from first spot.

 

[dr nick]

if we lose to the poms, we dont deserve to be the best side in the world.

 

[EagleBlue]

Ignore the test championship table. It has the credibilty of the batting/bowling ratings. (I.E - NONE) I agree with the previous poster though. If we lose to the poms this summer we dont deserve to be No1.

 

[TDLLO]

Australia has still to play Bangladesh as well, which is a certain series win - in fact 2 as we need to play them home and away. It is Australia's own fault that the points are so close. The ICC wanted to wait a full 5 years until everyone had played each other before awarding the trophy. But the ACB insisted on the trophy being awarded two years ago because at the time we were on top (and have remained so, since).

In a year or two when all countries have played each other both home and away, it will make more sense.

The positions need to be judged on series wins so we don't end up with the ridiculous situation of a country being able to claim top position even if they lose a series 2-1 or 3-2 or similar.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by hourn
nah, i understand how it works and how it can happen.


I just wanna know how it can possibly be fair when Australia are clearly the best team in the world, but we can very easily find ourselves ousted from first spot.

The current system will always be held back until every Test nation plays each other home and away. With the political situation as it is in many cricket countries, this is unlikely to happen in the next few years.

Secondly, the system's fundamental weakness is that it's obsessed with simplicity and making it as easy to understand as possible. I think a good idea would be to get a bonus half point for every Test series you win in a whitewash (make it .75 for 5 test whitewashes), but that is unlikely under the current ideology.

Also, the ladder shows that Australia, for all the praise heaped on them as being one of the greatest sides ever, are slightly overrated. The facts are that their overseas Test record is inferior to South Africa's at this present time.

 

[EagleBlue]

The facts are that their overseas Test record is inferior to South Africa's at this present time.

HMMM. Australia have lost only to India (twice) and Sri Lanka. Drawn West Indies. Beaten South Africa (twice) Pakistan (twice) England (twice) and New Zealand

South Africa (that I know of) have lost in Australia (twice) In England and drew in Sri Lanka.

PLUS We havent had the benefit of "inflating" our results against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe like SAF has

 

[DaveW]

Re: Re: Explain to me this

Originally posted by wagstaff


There's also the factor that South Africa have performed better then Australia have in certain countries and against certain sides.

• SA won the last time they played in the West Indies, Australia only drew
• South Africa drew the last time they played in Sri Lanka, Australia lost
• South Africa won the last time they played in India, Australia lost

Very true. Add to that South Africa beat New Zealand in their home series. Whereas Australia only drew last summer. (I know two of the three tests were rain marred - probably another flaw in the system)

I don't think the breakdown of the series can be taken into account (even if 5-0 is a much stronger result than 3-2 or 1-0). Simply because there is no consistency in the length of test series - they vary from 2 to 5 matches (I think 6 Test series are a thing of the past) with one-off tests not counting towards the championship.

Australia are paying the price for ignoring countries like Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in the recent past, now being rectified with the Darwin/Cairns solution.

 

[dr nick]

i hope my annual pilgramage to the SCG isnt wasted with the likes of bangladesh or zimbabwe playing there, hence why these grounds in darwin and the like are such a splendid idea

only kidding, but it would provide an excellent opportunity for more of australia to see test cricket, and these series would be played during the winter (dry) months. no chance of a washout there.

 

[jim boy]

I don't like the ITCT for four reasons.

1/. We have to play two series against teams who really aren't within coo-ee of us. I can't see how that benefits us or them.

2/. It makes for one-sided boring cricket when we play the minnows. It's not got to see things like batsmen 'retiring out' just to give some of their teammates a go, as what happened when Sri Lanka played Bagladesh.

3/. It increases the gap between Test nations and other nations by perpetuating the 'club' of test nations. I would like to see non-traditional teams such as Kenya or the Netherlands be given Test status, they shouldn't play us, but they should play against teams of a similar standard. Does any other sport have this sort of distinction?

4/. It's played out over too long a period of time, it can be five years between drinks, imagine who'll be in the Aussie team in five years time?

While I do like the idea of a test championship, I believe it should be based upon you playing against teams who are of a similar standing, say any of the three teams above or below you. You move up and down the ladder accordingly. This would make for more frequent changes in the ladder and for many more tight and even matches. Not just effective dead rubbers.

 

[dr nick]

i like the idea of a test cricket world cup, played over an entire year (once every 4 years)

it would involve each country playing 16 matches in that year v every test country, one home match and one away match. there could be 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. net run rate or quotients could be used to rank teams on equal points.

the top 4 teams could play off in a semi final, 1 v 4 ans 2 v 3. the final is played at a venue nominated before the tournament.

all a pie in the sky i know, but ive always wanted to see a world test championship, i think the current one is the closest we'll get to a world cup of test cricket.

 

[hourn]

Nicko,

sounds allright in theory but it would be too much cricket.


I would rather have a competition over 2 months.

2 groups of 5 teams - Team 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 on the ITCT table (even though i dont agree with it ) in group 1 and the other teams in group 2.

Each team plays each other team in their division once over 5 weeks with a bye. One division would be in one country, one would be in another.

There would be a 1 week break.

Then top team in each divisioin would then play the second team in each division at the top teams home ground of choice.

Then the final would be played the week after at Lord's. (Maybe rotate the final ground, but i think it would be good to be done at the home of cricket).

The competition would be over 8 weeks and would take the place of a regular test series which may take place. The winning team would play 6 tests, which i dont think is too much workload considering that there are no one dayers in between and its not much longer than some test series and over a similar amount of time.

 

[hourn]

on second thoughts, it may just be better to play the whole competition in one country similar to a One Day World Cup.

And if people think 6 games over 8 weeks is to much cricket, perhaps put another bye in the middle of the round robin games to make it over 9 weeks.

 

[dr nick]

but hourn, they currently play anywhere from 10 to 13 or 14 tests in a year as it is, especially the sub continental teams. i dont think a one off year of 16 tests would be that much of an increase. it would also reduce the number of tests played in the other 3 years. we wouldnt have to schedule test series' against zimbabwe and banglasesh so often.

 

[hourn]

Originally posted by nicko18
but hourn, they currently play anywhere from 10 to 13 or 14 tests in a year as it is, especially the sub continental teams. i dont think a one off year of 16 tests would be that much of an increase. it would also reduce the number of tests played in the other 3 years. we wouldnt have to schedule test series' against zimbabwe and banglasesh so often.

yes thats true also, but i think the players would much rather a compact series.

That way it wouldn't be in the way other series which usually take place and still provide a result which would be a pretty good indication of the best team around.

I know its an ideal situation to play each team home and away once over a 12 month period, but theres a lot of logistics involved there, whereas compared to a 2 month competition - which is much easier to run.

But i like your Idea and i'm sure its been thought of before, but it would be hard to execute.

 

[hourn]

Just had a look on the CricInfo site at how many tests each team played last year and 16 would actually be a fiar increase on just about every team.

in 2002:
India 13
West Indies 11
England 10
Pakistan 9
Sri Lanka 8
Australia 7
South Africa 6
New Zealand 6
Bangladesh 6
Zimbabwe 4

would put a lot of strain on each team.

Think about it as well, its 3 tests about every 2 months. Doing that consitently would take alot of players.

 

[hourn]

my bad, theres still 3 months left in this year i forgot about.

from 2001:
Australia 14
South Africa 13
Sri Lanka 13
India 13
England 13
Zimbabwe 11
West Indies 11
New Zealand 8
Bangladesh 8
Pakistan 6

so yea i guess it wouldn't be too much of an increase for most teams - especially seen as though it would probably decrease the amount of one dayers.


but there are still very hard logistics to work around.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by hourn
my bad, theres still 3 months left in this year i forgot about.

from 2001:
Australia 16
South Africa 13
Sri Lanka 13
India 13
England 13
Zimbabwe 13
West Indies 11
New Zealand 10
Bangladesh 8
Pakistan 8

so yea i guess it wouldn't be too much of an increase for most teams - especially seen as though it would probably decrease the amount of one dayers.

if you add to that australia missed out on a 2 test series in Zimbabwe, and pakistan and NZ missed 2 tests. i have adjusted the numbers to what would have been scheluled for this year

 

[Slax]

Unfortunately as bad as you think the ranking system is, it is the only one that can really provide an analysis. Ranking different countries who may not have played each other is always going to be difficult and it's the best anyone has put forward yet.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Slax
Unfortunately as bad as you think the ranking system is, it is the only one that can really provide an analysis. Ranking different countries who may not have played each other is always going to be difficult and it's the best anyone has put forward yet.

disagree... its the best the ICC has put forward yet.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by hourn
Just had a look on the CricInfo site at how many tests each team played last year and 16 would actually be a fiar increase on just about every team.

in 2002:
India 13
West Indies 11
England 10
Pakistan 9
Sri Lanka 8
Australia 7
South Africa 6
New Zealand 6
Bangladesh 6
Zimbabwe 4

would put a lot of strain on each team.

Think about it as well, its 3 tests about every 2 months. Doing that consitently would take alot of players.

India leading the way in Test matches played? Wonders never cease.