Jump to content

New Test Rankings: Updated Aug 30th, 2009

ShermanAve

By ShermanAve
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted

We should not fall prey to a practice of which we ourselves were a victim of, right through the 90s. Remember how we won everything under the sun at home then? (not that we have begun to lose at home now) and how the other teams consistently belittled our fortress like home record coz we couldn’t perform well abroad? And that’s exactly what we have been doing now, tagging Lanka as some sort of home-bullies incapable of winning anywhere else. Even though that accusation may have some elements of truth to it, its borne more out jealousy than anything else. After, the test matches played in Lanka are still regular cricket matches with regular cricket rules. Its not as though Sri Lanka have started with some sort of handicap for those matches. And the blunt truth is, they have shown themselves to be almost impenetrable at home (barring the odd exceptions). Lets give them for credit for it. And just like how we have slowly begun to translate our domination at home into decent performances abroad, its only a matter of time before Lanka does the same. With a country as small as theirs, given all its war-ravaged history, its remarkable to think they can manage to put the excellent performances that they have managed so far. Remember, they started playing international cricket only in the 80s and their growth to being a proper cricketing power is total, replete with world cup glory. Contrast that to a country like B’desh, that has a much bigger fan following for the game and yet have shown little to no improvement whatsoever, in the decade and half that they have been in the game.

Link to comment
Feed Newbie

Feed

Posted
Posted

ICC Test ranking is kind to Sri Lanka, unkind to Australia There are two things that puzzle me about the latest ICC Test rankings. First, that Australia are down to the fourth place, and, second, that Sri Lanka are placed second. More... ICC Test ranking is kind to Sri Lanka, unkind to Australia August 26, 2009 17:29 IST There are two things that puzzle me about the latest ICC Test rankings. First, that Australia are down to the fourth place, and, second, that Sri Lanka are placed second. Let's discuss the Sri Lanka ranking first. Now there's no doubt that they are playing great Test cricket at the moment. Mahela Jayawardene , in particular, is batting beautifully. But are they truly second best? We must first realize that they are ahead of India by only a miniscule fraction of a decimal point: I did my arithmetic and I note that Sri Lanka are 118.83 and India are 118.82 at the moment! So, for all practical purposes, Sri Lanka and India are currently joint-second. [And, in passing, just a thought: when ICC's David Kendix has all the numbers on the continuum to play with while devising a ranking scheme, why do we have to look at what's at the second decimal place to decide who's ahead? Surely no two teams can be so equal?] But to return to Sri Lanka's ranking, let's see who they have played in the recent past and where. Sri Lanka are right now playing New Zealand at home. They are leading the two-Test series 1-0 and are very unlikely to lose the second Test, especially now that they are batting first. Let's suppose that Sri Lanka are held to a draw in the second Test. The record books will show a 1-0 series victory, but the ICC Test ranking formula would effectively see this as a 2-0 win, because Sri Lanka would've received a bonus point for taking the series! Now ICC's idea of rewarding a team with an additional bonus point for winning the series is quite a good one, especially if it is a 5 or 4 Test series. It seems a shade generous for 3-Test series, and for 2-Test series it is an unacceptable bonanza. Before this New Zealand series, Sri Lanka defeated Pakistan 2-0 at home in a three-Test series. The ICC rankings obligingly made it 3-0. The Feb-Mar 2009 series in Pakistan was shared 0-0 after the Lahore incident, and, back in January 2009, Sri Lanka defeated Bangladesh 2-0 in a two-Test away series -- and this effectively became 3-0. So while Sri Lanka are winning practically everything -- and that's really the best that any team can do -- they are deriving a significant benefit because of three things: (a) Sri Lanka play Test series with relatively fewer matches, (b) they have lately played a lot of cricket at home and © they have only encountered weak away opposition recently. Let me explain the meaning of 'recently', because this is one of the merits of ICC's ranking scheme. The essential idea is that wins in the recent past must get a greater weight than wins in the not-so-recent past. There's no need to quibble about this; it seems to make good sense. But how recent must 'recent' be? ICC takes it to mean one year (they also have a curious fixation about the month of August, but we'll let that pass), but, at least for Test cricket, one year seems insufficient -- two years seems more reasonable, especially given the current reluctance to schedule too many Test matches. I therefore believe (a) ICC should not give such a generous one-match bonus for Test series wins involving just 2 or 3 matches, (b) ICC should distinguish between the home-away results (it's always easier to win at home), and, © ICC should not scale down the weight after just one year (two years is better). I must however acknowledge that the ICC ranking does a good job of taking into account the quality of the opposition. Just to see how things can go awry, consider the case of Australia in the last 12 months. (a) Australia played Test series with relatively more (3, 4 or 5) matches, so a bonus point didn't offer a big advantage (and they won only one series anyway!) (b) they played most of their cricket away, and against quality opposition (India, South Africa and England ; even their home series was against South Africa!) © while they have had 12 relatively poor months of Test cricket, the preceding 12 months were very good. It seems unfair to scale down the value of a great series win just because it happened 13 months ago, when a win 11 months ago gets full weight. Like elephants, rankings too must remember a little more. Srinivas Bhogle

Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted

Cricket is a strange sport in many ways, one of them being that it is a team sport dictated by individual performances, specially bowlers in tests. Whereas Brazil missing Ronaldo is a big loss, Australia missing Warne can completely shift the dynamics of the team. And neither is it as straightforward as a Federer ranking in tennis. The fact is that the Australian team had changed completely over the last 2 years or so and pegging the achievements of a Warne and McGrath outfit on to a Hauritz and Siddle one itself does not make sense. For what are rankings supposed to reflect - the current hierarchy of the outfits based on quantifiable and relevant past results. Taking into account test matches won by the performances of McGrath and Warne and trying to factor it in see where Australia stand in the world order currently defies logic for starters.

Link to comment
siddhu Newbie

siddhu

Posted
Posted
Cricket is a strange sport in many ways, one of them being that it is a team sport dictated by individual performances, specially bowlers in tests. Whereas Brazil missing Ronaldo is a big loss, Australia missing Warne can completely shift the dynamics of the team. And neither is it as straightforward as a Federer ranking in tennis. The fact is that the Australian team had changed completely over the last 2 years or so and pegging the achievements of a Warne and McGrath outfit on to a Hauritz and Siddle one itself does not make sense. For what are rankings supposed to reflect - the current hierarchy of the outfits based on quantifiable and relevant past results. Taking into account test matches won by the performances of McGrath and Warne and trying to factor it in see where Australia stand in the world order currently defies logic for starters.
Well to be honest.. Australia didn't just win because of McGrath and Warne. There were batsmen who could put on the runs... Their batting lineup was definitely one of the best (if not the best). With Gilchrist coming in at 7. So the ranking was a team reflection and they deserved it for sure. Now the team has completely changed, and so has the ranking which is fair I guess.
Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
Many indian fans here even think Ind/SA series is more exciting than Pak/Ind.:wall:
That is not relevant to the question that was posed to you. Besides, how could you possibly infer ‘India/SA series is more exciting than Ind/Pak’ series as ‘Ind/SL series is boring?’
Link to comment
Mr. Wicket Newbie

Mr. Wicket

Posted
Posted
Many indian fans here even think Ind/SA series is more exciting than Pak/Ind.:wall:
Because it is. India/Pak invariably see some crap bowling attacks or pathetically flat pitches like Faisalabad that lead to a bunch of drawn games and only the odd really interesting result. South Africa/India games are far more interesting to watch. But how does that correlate with your comment that "the SL/Ind series which Indian fans calls as boring"? Can you provide any proof or posts where Indian fans have cribbed that India/SL is a boring series? Or did your field of vision get blurred when your head got jammed all the way up your ass?
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...