Test Rankings

[scmods]

With all the debate over the legitimacy or otherwise of the ICC raning system, I thought I'd do a little tinkering and look for an alternative.

The biggest criticims of the ICC system is that it makes no difference if you win a 5 test series 1-0, 3-2 or 5-0.

I've based my rankings on the ICC system. You get 1 point for winning a series, 0.5 for drawing it, 0 for losing the series.

In addition, you can get up to 1 point for the number of individual Tests won.

If you win 1 out of 3 Tests, you get 0.33. Win 2 out of 3, you get 0.67, clean sweep a series and get 1 point (this is on top of the 1 point you get for winning the series). In a 5 Test series each game is worth 0.2 for the winner. Drawn Tests score nothing for either team.

So, for example, in the recent Ashes series, Australia score 1.8 and England 0.2.

When Australia went to the West Indies and drew 2-2 in a 4 Test series, both teams score 1.0 points (0.5 for drawing the series, 0.5 for winning 2 out of 4 Tests).

When Australia and NZ drew 0-0 last year, both score 0.5 (for the drawn series, no points to either side for winning a Test).

As in the ICC system, the total points is divided by the number of series.

This is the result:
(Team)(Series)(Score)

Australia 13 1.494615385
South Africa 17 1.381764706
New Zealand 17 1.087647059
Sri Lanka 16 0.958125
England 16 0.8291875
India 15 0.785333333
West Indies 17 0.742941176
Pakistan 16 0.739375
Zimbabwe 16 0.375
Bangladesh 7 0


So what do you think?

A couple of negatives I've already seen:
1. Clean sweeping a 2 Test series 2-0 scores as well as clean sweeping a 6 Test series 6-0
2. Each individual Test in a 2 or 3 Test series is worth more than each individual Test in a 5 or 6 Test series.

Critics will no doubt notice that the only difference between this system and the ICC one is that Australia and South Africa have their positions reversed here. If you're going to suggest that the only reason I did this was to come up with a system to put Australia on top, do everyone a favour and don't bother.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by scmods
With all the debate over the legitimacy or otherwise of the ICC raning system, I thought I'd do a little tinkering and look for an alternative.

The biggest criticims of the ICC system is that it makes no difference if you win a 5 test series 1-0, 3-2 or 5-0.

I've based my rankings on the ICC system. You get 1 point for winning a series, 0.5 for drawing it, 0 for losing the series.

In addition, you can get up to 1 point for the number of individual Tests won.

If you win 1 out of 3 Tests, you get 0.33. Win 2 out of 3, you get 0.67, clean sweep a series and get 1 point (this is on top of the 1 point you get for winning the series). In a 5 Test series each game is worth 0.2 for the winner. Drawn Tests score nothing for either team.

So, for example, in the recent Ashes series, Australia score 1.8 and England 0.2.

When Australia went to the West Indies and drew 2-2 in a 4 Test series, both teams score 1.0 points (0.5 for drawing the series, 0.5 for winning 2 out of 4 Tests).

When Australia and NZ drew 0-0 last year, both score 0.5 (for the drawn series, no points to either side for winning a Test).

As in the ICC system, the total points is divided by the number of series.

This is the result:
(Team)(Series)(Score)

Australia 13 1.494615385
South Africa 17 1.381764706
New Zealand 17 1.087647059
Sri Lanka 16 0.958125
England 16 0.8291875
India 15 0.785333333
West Indies 17 0.742941176
Pakistan 16 0.739375
Zimbabwe 16 0.375
Bangladesh 7 0


So what do you think?

A couple of negatives I've already seen:
1. Clean sweeping a 2 Test series 2-0 scores as well as clean sweeping a 6 Test series 6-0
2. Each individual Test in a 2 or 3 Test series is worth more than each individual Test in a 5 or 6 Test series.

Critics will no doubt notice that the only difference between this system and the ICC one is that Australia and South Africa have their positions reversed here. If you're going to suggest that the only reason I did this was to come up with a system to put Australia on top, do everyone a favour and don't bother.

its not perfect but at least its a start, good on you for doing that research. i too noticed the flaws you mentioned, but under the current ICC table, individual tests are still worth more in 2 test series than they are in 6 test series.



solution??? 1 year test cricket world cup. could even have the world cup over a 2 year period i guess. but then tests outside the world cup could be seen as pointless and not contributing towards anything, but thats the way its always been and is still the case in ODI's

 

[Becker]

I guess I just don't understand why we need rankings at all.

 

[P76]

scmods, good idea and well worked out, one solution to the problem would be if the cricket world could agree on a standard length for a test series, say 3 tests. Then if countries like us and England must go longer, either the other 2 tests don't count (not a good idea I know), or we have six tests which count as two series for the sake of the championship.

Nicko's idea is a good one too, I for one would love the idea of a year of solid test match cricket.

 

[DaveW]

It still doesn't eliminate the problem of teams being on a hiding to nothing. In fact, it increases the problem. For example, Australia beat New Zealand 3-0 last time we toured there. If Australia tours there for another 3-Test series, a 3-0 is required just to *maintain* its points. Australia will lose points if they win the series 2-0, 2-1 etc.

 

[P76]

Originally posted by DaveW
It still doesn't eliminate the problem of teams being on a hiding to nothing. In fact, it increases the problem. For example, Australia beat New Zealand 3-0 last time we toured there. If Australia tours there for another 3-Test series, a 3-0 is required just to *maintain* its points. Australia will lose points if they win the series 2-0, 2-1 etc.

But surely that's OK, as if we won 3-0 there last time and can only manage 2-1 next time we haven't done as well and therefore should be marked down????? Or am I missing something here?

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by P76
But surely that's OK, as if we won 3-0 there last time and can only manage 2-1 next time we haven't done as well and therefore should be marked down????? Or am I missing something here?

thats right, surely if we could clean sweep them before, and cant do it two years down the track, either NZ have improved or we have got worse. either way we deserve to lose pts, and NZ gain some in that situation

 

[Lethal]

I like the idea but maybe another suggestion could be that instead of points for each test won you get them after the series for the amount of tests you win by. So if you win 2-1 you get a bonus for the one test.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Originally posted by Becker
I guess I just don't understand why we need rankings at all.

Only for prestige and as debate fodder. But any system is always going to be flawed unless every team plays every other team.
If Essendon was to play Carlton 5 times in a season but didn't play Port Adelaide at all, the AFL ladder would look very different.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

And if Essendon got to play Adelaide in Sydney, rather than in Adelaide, as we got Pakistan's "home" tour in Sri Lanka, then again the system is compromised ....

The way that South Africa is doing away with Pakistan at the moment, it's probably not a bad call that they're on top anyway. After all, Port Adelaide spent a fair bit of time on top of the ladder in 2002, but clearly Brisbane were the best team ... similar parallel.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by P76
But surely that's OK, as if we won 3-0 there last time and can only manage 2-1 next time we haven't done as well and therefore should be marked down????? Or am I missing something here?

A lot of people had difficulty with the idea of South Africa drawing either of the series with Australia last summer to take the test championship. The challenger drawing with the champion to take the title? No way.

 

[P76]

Originally posted by DaveW
A lot of people had difficulty with the idea of South Africa drawing either of the series with Australia last summer to take the test championship. The challenger drawing with the champion to take the title? No way.

But on my understanding of scomods system if the series was drawn each side would only get the victory points for the tests and not for the series, therefore for example if Aus was ahead on points before the series, this would not change after the series.

You know, the more I think about it, the more it is a good idea...

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by P76
But on my understanding of scomods system if the series was drawn each side would only get the victory points for the tests and not for the series, therefore for example if Aus was ahead on points before the series, this would not change after the series.

You know, the more I think about it, the more it is a good idea...

You're forgetting that the previous series points get lost.

 

[P76]

Ah yes, thanks Dave, of course I was forgetting that - too many beers last night watching the Jayasuriya benefit, sorry ODI.

I guess there is a fundamental question about what any championship setup proves, probably ultimately nothing, because each test series is in and of itself, but, if there is something like a championship (and let's face it, we'd have less to talk about if there wasn't one), I think scomds is on to something with points given for test victories as well as series victories, as it would give a truer reflection of the current state of play.

I think there has to be some way of dropping older series off the scorecard, but yes, drawing a series to take the championship does leave a slightly sour taste.

 

[P76]

I guess Dave that what your posts are showing is the disadvantage of just using the current draws and using the results to create a champion.

Nicko's idea of a one year test "world cup" would solve that problem, but no doubt have problems of its own (venues etc.)

 

[Briedis]

Re: Re: Test Rankings

Originally posted by nicko18
solution??? 1 year test cricket world cup. could even have the world cup over a 2 year period i guess. but then tests outside the world cup could be seen as pointless and not contributing towards anything, but thats the way its always been and is still the case in ODI's

That's a fair bit of cricket to fit into 12 months!!!! I think the players would be worn out doing that every year....

 

[Briedis]

I'll pose a question that will cop a lot of flak, but I think it's worth asking.....

Are Australia the best test team in the world?

Yes, we beat South Africa convincingly, but if the 12th place team in AFL beats the number 1 side - do we suddenly consider the 12th placed side number 1? No.

South Africa have won in India, Sri Lanka and the West Indies. Australia did not. South Africa have also bothered to play the lower nations like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe wereas we haven't. Easy wins yes, but it is important for the development of these countries that the top sides play them. If Australia had played these countries then we would have picked up the points and be in front.

On the topic being discussed, I think some reward for each test is essential and the ideas put up by scmods are pretty good. Worth trying out anyway.

 

[scmods]

Originally posted by me...

A couple of negatives I've already seen:
1. Clean sweeping a 2 Test series 2-0 scores as well as clean sweeping a 6 Test series 6-0
2. Each individual Test in a 2 or 3 Test series is worth more than each individual Test in a 5 or 6 Test series.

I've had a go at allowing for these factors.

This time I've allocated 1 point for winning the series as before, but each individual Test is worth 0.2 regardless of the length of the series. So winning a 5 Test series 5-0 scores 2 points, winning a 2 Test series 2-0 scores 1.4.

This then gives an advantage to sides that play longer series, so as well as dividing the score by the number of series played, I have also divided by the average number of Tests per series. (Mathematically, this just works out equivalent to dividing the score by the total number of Tests).

The results:

(Team) (# of series) (# of Tests) (Rating)
South Africa 17 52 0.378846154
Australia 13 46 0.360869565
New Zealand 17 44 0.313636364
Sri Lanka 16 44 0.309090909
India 15 42 0.228571429
Pakistan 16 40 0.215
England 16 60 0.196666667
West Indies 17 57 0.187719298
Zimbabwe 16 34 0.132352941
Bangladesh 7 14 0


This method throws the advantage towards Teams that play shorter series. Overall I think I prefer my first method.