Test Cricket Ladder

[Marstermind]

As at the end of yesterday's Test the official ICC Test Rankings are:

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

This ladder is based upon who beats who and where - it's purely results based. But let's face it, watching England play this summer they can't be No.2. Also Zimbabwe haven't played a Test in over 12months and aren't likely to for another 12, so they have to be last. So how would you rank them all? I'd go:

1. Australia (obviously...with a fair bit of daylight behind them)
2. India (batting line up of Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly is OK)
3. Sri Lanka (Away series are hard to win so to tie in England and NZ is a good effort)
4. Pakistan (Their ability still outshines their results)
5. England (Are better than what we've seen but disappointing to say the least)
6. South Africa (One the verge of knocking over India tonight so I'll revise this if they do)
7. New Zealand (Could give away Test cricket and just play 20/20 or ODIs)
8. West Indies (Bad...really bad)
9. Bangladesh (Shouldn't be playing at this level yet)
10. Zimbabwe (In crisis - shouldn't be back)

The 1st spot and botom 4 are pretty straight forward IMO. Spots 2-6 are a bit of a raffle.

 

[RoosterLad]

I think Daylight CC deserves to be 2nd.

 

[The_Reaper]

Pakistan are far better than India

 

[Marstermind]

Pakistan are far better than India

Not much in it but they lost to England 3-0 and haven't even challenged Australia in their last 9 matches. As I said, they should be better, but just don't perform. Next week they start a series in South Africa - that should be a good test for them.

 

[pWnd]

heres the detailed table

(matches, points, rating)
1 Australia..... 43, 5807, 135
2 England...... 47, 5344, 114
3 Pakistan..... 34, 3800, 112
4 India.......... 34, 3780, 111
5 Sri Lanka.... 36, 3686, 102
6 South Africa 34, 3182, 94
7 New Zealand 28, 2602, 93
8 West Indies. 33, 2378, 72
9 Zimbabwe... 15, 415, 28
10 Bangladesh 22, 48, 2

some key points about the table:
-It includes all series completed since August 2002 but for series completed prior to August 2004, this number is halved, so these earlier matches have a lower 'weighting'.

-The higher an opponent's rating, the more points are earned for beating them.

-A team that over the period being rated wins as often as it loses while playing an average mix of strong and weak opponents will have a rating of close to 100.

not much to choose between eng, india, pak which is fair enough

 

[Marstermind]

heres the detailed table

(matches, points, rating)
1 Australia..... 43, 5807, 135
2 England...... 47, 5344, 114
3 Pakistan..... 34, 3800, 112
4 India.......... 34, 3780, 111
5 Sri Lanka.... 36, 3686, 102
6 South Africa 34, 3182, 94
7 New Zealand 28, 2602, 93
8 West Indies. 33, 2378, 72
9 Zimbabwe... 15, 415, 28
10 Bangladesh 22, 48, 2

some key points about the table:
-It includes all series completed since August 2002 but for series completed prior to August 2004, this number is halved, so these earlier matches have a lower 'weighting'.

-The higher an opponent's rating, the more points are earned for beating them.

-A team that over the period being rated wins as often as it loses while playing an average mix of strong and weak opponents will have a rating of close to 100.

not much to choose between eng, india, pak which is fair enough

So how would you rate them yourself pWnd??

 

[eddiesmith]

I reckon the table is perfect, thats exactly how I would rate the sides

 

[pWnd]

So how would you rate them yourself pWnd??

depends if its based on current form or the past 5 years
i think the ladder is reasonable for the past 5 years

as for who i think the rankings should be CURRENTLY, i feel spots 2-5 you could raffle england, pakistan, india, and sri lanka. none of them really clearly stand out at the moment. i've added sri lanka to the pot because their form the last year or so has been reasonable away from home (as you correctly pointed out). after that then sth africa (don't feel they're quite up there with the top 5 but seem to be closing in) probably edge out nz, then windies a ways further back (nz and windies are much better in one dayers), then i'd fancy the bangas (gave aust a huge scare in one test over there) over zimbabwe (political mess)

so really its just a matter of picking rankings 2-5
if you go by players current fitness and availability (i.e. no simon jones for england, no razzaq for pak, etc) then i'd prob have
2 india
3 SL
4 eng
5 pak

but if you go by having their best team fit and available (but not necessarily in top form), then
2 eng
3 pak
4 india
5 SL

still it's a toss-up really

 

[bunsen burner]

I still think Englands are the 2nd best side. They were enever going to be much chop on our pitches. Next ashes series will be very tightly contested I think.

England have a good nucleus who have plenty of improvement. They need to find a coupe of better bowlers though. Harmison is a blouse, Hoggard is handy but a guy you want as a first change. Anderson has potential. Not convinced about the other guy.

 

[telsor]

The Poms picked up a lot of points for beating Aus in 2005, and they still count full value so thats why the table has them at 2. They have done OK again all except Aus though.

India still can't play away ( current series is their best in ages, and they look like going down 2-1 ).

Pakistan are....Pakistan. Talented but inconsistent.


All 3 could beat any of the others on a good day. ( or in India's case, at home ), so having them all about equal seems right to me.

 

[eddiesmith]

We kept our no2 ranking though by drawing with India over there when they jumped us and then thrashing Pakistan

 

[ShearMagic9]

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

Only change is bottom 2.

ICC have it pretty much spot on.

 

[Warwick]

1. Australia (obviously...with a fair bit of daylight behind them)
2. India (batting line up of Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly is OK)
3. Sri Lanka (Away series are hard to win so to tie in England and NZ is a good effort)
4. Pakistan (Their ability still outshines their results)
5. England (Are better than what we've seen but disappointing to say the least)
6. South Africa (One the verge of knocking over India tonight so I'll revise this if they do)
7. New Zealand (Could give away Test cricket and just play 20/20 or ODIs)
8. West Indies (Bad...really bad)
9. Bangladesh (Shouldn't be playing at this level yet)
10. Zimbabwe (In crisis - shouldn't be back)

The 1st spot and botom 4 are pretty straight forward IMO. Spots 2-6 are a bit of a raffle.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what you or anyone else thinks the order should be. The ICC rankings are determined by results so that is the proper ranking. For example, you say the Indian batting line up looks OK - so what? The rankings do not consider potential or the best sides on paper, they are worked out purely by results (i.e. who beats who and where, what the difference is between the sides etc).

 

[The_Reaper]

1. Australia

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

 

[ShearMagic9]

1. Australia

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

I dont wanna sound all defensive here but what are your reasonings for Pakistan above England?

We beat them 3-0 in our most recent series, although it shouldve been 2-1, regardless of that we still beat them.

They are hard to beat at home, but so is every team.

 

[The_Reaper]

I dont wanna sound all defensive here but what are your reasonings for Pakistan above England?

We beat them 3-0 in our most recent series, although it shouldve been 2-1, regardless of that we still beat them.

They are hard to beat at home, but so is every team.

pakistan were missing their top three pacemen. Wasnt Razzaq first change bowler in the series?

 

[Marstermind]

It doesn't matter in the slightest what you or anyone else thinks the order should be. The ICC rankings are determined by results so that is the proper ranking. For example, you say the Indian batting line up looks OK - so what? The rankings do not consider potential or the best sides on paper, they are worked out purely by results (i.e. who beats who and where, what the difference is between the sides etc).

OK seems like we have a new rule at BigFooty or BigCricket:

You can only post something if it matters.

Looks like things are gonna get pretty quiet around here

 

[Star]

I'd go:

1. Australia (obviously...with a fair bit of daylight behind them)
2. India (batting line up of Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly is OK)
3. Sri Lanka (Away series are hard to win so to tie in England and NZ is a good effort)
4. Pakistan (Their ability still outshines their results)
5. England (Are better than what we've seen but disappointing to say the least)
6. South Africa (One the verge of knocking over India tonight so I'll revise this if they do)
7. New Zealand (Could give away Test cricket and just play 20/20 or ODIs)
8. West Indies (Bad...really bad)
9. Bangladesh (Shouldn't be playing at this level yet)
10. Zimbabwe (In crisis - shouldn't be back)

The 1st spot and botom 4 are pretty straight forward IMO. Spots 2-6 are a bit of a raffle.

I think India are overrated at #2 going on results. Sure, as you have pointed out, they have a great batting line-up but I think you could use the comments along Pakistan for India too. They simply drop games/series they should win. A case in point is the just finished series in South Africa

 

[just maybe]

2. India (batting line up of Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly is OK)

Laxman and Dravid are the only bankable ones now.

Tendulkar is well past it, Jaffer is an FTB, Sehwag has gone belly up (literally and figuratively) and Ganguly is a scrapper without much actual talent.

 

[ShearMagic9]

pakistan were missing their top three pacemen. Wasnt Razzaq first change bowler in the series?

Thats a fair call but every team suffers with injuries, it just shows a lack of depth (England also have this problem).

IIRC Mohammad Sami played in the series.

 

[raikkonen]

I think Daylight CC deserves to be 2nd.

HAH! GOLD! I think that Daylight CC could also hold 3rd place, and then maybe 7th/8th as well.

 

[The_Reaper]

Thats a fair call but every team suffers with injuries, it just shows a lack of depth (England also have this problem).

IIRC Mohammad Sami played in the series.

Every side except for Australia have a lack of depth in the pace department

 

[eddiesmith]

Every side except for Australia have a lack of depth in the pace department

This the same Aussie side who blame injuries if one pace bowler is missing?

 

[just maybe]

This the same Aussie side who blame injuries if one pace bowler is missing?

5-0.

 

[ShearMagic9]

5-0.

Ooooooh big man.

I'm pretty sure Eddie was referring to the 2005 ashes series when the score was 2-1.... TO ENGLAND and a lot of Australians blamed the injury to Glenn McGrath as the reason for losing.

Would I be right Eddiesmith???