Understanding the ICC Test Rankings

[ludhianvi]

Understanding the ICC Test Rankings What does it take for a team to reach the number one standings and the ups and downs in the ranking ladder? The rankings are not based on subjective opinions but on a simple formula. Here is an attempt at explaining what goes on behind the scenes in determining the ICC Test Rankings. As an example let's use the current rankings (i.e before Ind-Eng series) What is a rating

A rating is worked out by dividing the points scored by the match/series total, with the answer given to the nearest whole number. It can be compared with a batting average but with points instead of total runs scored and a match/series total instead of number of times dismissed. After every Test series, the two teams receive a certain number of points, based on a mathematical formula. Each team's new points total is then divided by its new match/series total to give an updated rating. With batting averages, if you are dismissed in your next innings for more than your average, your average will increase. Conversely, scoring less than your average will cause it to fall. Similarly, under the Reliance Test Championship method, the points earned from a Test win will always be more than the rating the team had at the start of the series. Equivalently, a team losing a Test match will always score fewer points than its rating. So a win will always boost a team's rating and a defeat will harm it. A draw between a higher and lower rated team will slightly benefit the rating of the lower rated team at the expense of the higher rated team. A draw between two similarly rated teams will leave both their ratings unchanged. A tied match is treated the same as a draw for rating purposes.

What the numbers mean

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. A rating of 100 could also correspond to a side that wins more often than it loses but who has generally played more matches against weak teams. Similarly, if the majority of its matches are against strong teams, then a rating of 100 could be achieved despite having more defeats than victories. It is quite often the case that there are a number of teams in the 90-110 range. These teams are of broadly similar standard. A rating above 120 suggests consistently strong performances. Above 130 is rarely achieved and suggests a high degree of dominance over all other teams. In every match the total rating points available equals the sum of the initial rating of the two teams, so ratings can be thought of as being redistributed rather than created. There is therefore no 'inflation' in this rating system, so a rating of 120 suggests the same degree of superiority over opponents now as in the past or future, and a team can meaningfully compare its rating movements over time.

How quickly do ratings change?

The amount by which a rating improves after winning a Test will depend on the rating of the opponent. A win over a much stronger team (i.e. one with a much higher rating) boosts the rating more than beating a much weaker opponent. Conversely, losing to a much stronger team will not cause the rating to drop too far, but losing to a weaker side would. It is possible for a team to win a series yet for its rating to fall. This will happen if a stronger team wins a series but by a smaller margin than the respective ratings suggest should be the case. For example, when Australia played England in a five-Test series in 2002-03, Australia needed to win by a margin of at least three Tests just to maintain its very high rating.

How is the series result incorporated?

At the end of any series comprising two or more Tests, a series bonus will be awarded. Like an individual Test match, a series can be won, drawn (tied) or lost. For rating purposes, the series result is equivalent to the result of one further Test. To explain, suppose a team has just won a Test series. The series bonus can be regarded, for rating purposes, as if one extra Test has been played and won by the team that has just won the series. If a series finishes level, the series bonus is equivalent to the two teams playing an extra drawn Test.

Period The rankings take into consideration the period from the last 3-4 years. The exact period covers the time from today to the beginning of the last August in addition to the three years prior to last August. Hence, the range fluctuates between 3 and 3.999999 years. When the fourth year is completed next August in 2012, the stats of the oldest year (year 1) in the period will be deleted i.e August 2008- August 2009. See Figure 1. Figure 1 : Ranking Period and Weightage Factor When a series starts before August and ends after August, then that series is included in the next year following August. How are the results weighted?

All matches included within the Reliance ICC Test Championship will always fall into one of two time periods: Period One covers the earliest two years of matches Period Two covers all subsequent series, i.e. the past one to two years Weightings are applied to these two groups of series so that the ratings more fully reflect recent form. The weightings are as follows: Period One matches have a weighting of 50 per cent. Period Two matches have a weighting of 100 per cent. In the current table, series completed since last August receive a weighting of 100 per cent. After next August , the weighting of series being played now will remain at 100 per cent, while the weighting of series played in the year up to last August will fall to 50 per cent. The 'match/series total' column in the Reliance ICC Test Championship table comprises a combination of individual Tests and series. This total along with the number of points earned in each period is multiplied by the weighting factor. For example, suppose a team played 20 Tests and six series in Period One, plus 15 Tests and five series in Period Two. The total matches played for rating purposes is 50 per cent of (20+6) plus 100 per cent of (15+5), which equals 33. (A small technical adjustment ensures that, for all teams, the total number of matches and rating points is always a whole number.)

The magic Formula (pseudo code)

To determine a team's rating after a particular series:

• Find the series result
  • Award 1 point to a team for each win
  • Award 1/2 point to a team for each draw
  • Award 1 bonus point to the team winning the series
  • Award 1/2 bonus point to each team if the series is drawn

  [*] Convert the series result to actual ratings points

  • If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is less than 40 points, then the ratings points for each team equals:
    • (The team's own series result) multiplied by (50 points MORE than the opponent's rating) PLUS
    • (The opponent's series result) multiplied by (50 points LESS than the opponent's rating)

    [*]If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is more than or equal to 40 points, then the ratings points for the stronger team equals:

    • (The team's own series result) multiplied by (10 points MORE than the team's own rating) PLUS
    • (The opponent's series result) multiplied by (90 points LESS than the team's own rating)
  • If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is more than or equal to 40 points, then the ratings points for the weaker team equals:
    • (The team's own series result) multiplied by (90 points MORE than the team's own rating) PLUS
    • (The opponent's series result) multiplied by (10 points LESS than the team's own rating)

  [*] Add the ratings points scored by the team to the total ratings points already scored (in previous matches, as reflected by the Table) [*] Update the number of matches played by the team through adding one more than the number of games in the series (a two Test match series will result in the match count getting incremented by three) [*] Divide the new rating points with the updated number of matches to get the final rating.

Formula (Source Code in JS)

function generateRating(matchID) {

// Team points for match results : Win= 1 point, draw =0.5
var TeamA-WinPts = (TeamA-Wins * 1) + ( (SeriesMatchesPlayed - (TeamA-Wins + TeamB-Wins ) ) * 0.5 ) ;
var TeamB-WinPts = (TeamB-Wins * 1) + ( (SeriesMatchesPlayed - (TeamA-Wins + TeamB-Wins ) ) * 0.5 ) ;

......
......

//award bonus if seres >1 match
if( parseInt(SeriesMatchesPlayed) > 1 ){
	if(TeamA-Wins > TeamB-Wins){
		TeamA-WinPts = TeamA-WinPts + 1;
	}else if ( TeamB-Wins > TeamA-Wins ) {
		TeamB-WinPts = TeamB-WinPts + 1;
	}else if ( TeamB-Wins == TeamA-Wins ) {
		TeamA-WinPts = TeamA-WinPts + 0.5;
		TeamB-WinPts = TeamB-WinPts + 0.5;
	}
}

matches[a] = tmpvalues['TeamA-OldMatches'] + Math.abs( TeamA-WinPts + TeamB-WinPts );
matches[b] = tmpvalues['TeamB-OldMatches'] + Math.abs( TeamA-WinPts + TeamB-WinPts );

// main formula
if (Math.abs(tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings'] - tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings']) < 40) {
	points[a] = tmpvalues['aoldpts'] + ( ( TeamA-WinPts * (50 +tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings']) )+ ( TeamB-WinPts * ( tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings'] - 50 ) ) ) ;
	points[b] = tmpvalues['boldpts'] + ( ( TeamB-WinPts * (50 +tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings']) ) + ( TeamA-WinPts * ( tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings'] -  50 ) ) ) ;
} else {
	if( parseInt(tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings']) >  parseInt(tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings'])  ){
		points[a] = tmpvalues['aoldpts'] + ( ( TeamA-WinPts * (10 + tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings']) )+ ( TeamB-WinPts * ( tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings'] - 90 ) ) ) ;
		points[b] = tmpvalues['boldpts'] + ( ( TeamB-WinPts * (90 + tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings']) )+ ( TeamA-WinPts * ( tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings'] - 10 ) ) ) ;
	}else{
		points[a] = tmpvalues['aoldpts'] + ( ( TeamA-WinPts * (90 + tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings']) )+ ( TeamB-WinPts * ( tmpvalues['TeamA-Old-Ratings'] - 10 ) ) ) ;
		points[b] = tmpvalues['boldpts'] + ( ( TeamB-WinPts * (10 + tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings']) )+ ( TeamA-WinPts * ( tmpvalues['TeamB-Old-Ratings'] - 90 ) ) ) ;
	}
}
 if (points[a] < 0) { points[a] = 0; }
 if (points[b] < 0) { points[b] = 0; }

// Round ratings
if( ( (points[a]/matches[a])+"").lastIndexOf(".") > 0 ){
	rating[a] = Math.round(( (points[a]/matches[a])+"").substring(0, ( ( (points[a]/matches[a])+"").lastIndexOf(".") + 2 ) ) );
}else{
		rating[a] = Math.round(points[a]/matches[a]);
}
if( ( (points[b]/matches[b])+"").lastIndexOf(".") > 0 ){
	rating[b] = Math.round(( (points[b]/matches[b])+"").substring(0, ( ( (points[b]/matches[b])+"").lastIndexOf(".") + 2 ) ) );
}else{
	rating[b] = Math.round(points[b]/matches[b]);
}

}

Sources: ICC website/wiki/source code Improvements/Comments Feel free to critique the ranking system if you may and any improvements. For example, there is a lot of talk about the importance of away wins, so why not include a small little bonus for an away wins?

[ludhianvi]

Looking at it from the Indian angle: This past August, the 2007-2008 year was removed from the rankings. For India it included the following series: The current rankings take into consideration the following Indian matches. Period 1 has a factor of 0.5 meaning it is half as important as period 2 results.

[Ultimate_Game]

As far as rest of the world is concerned, if India is ranked at the top there is a problem with the system, and if India is not at the top it's a pretty good system :haha:

[Maundy Gregory]

As far as rest of the world is concerned' date=' if India is ranked at the top there is a problem with the system, and if India is not at the top it's a pretty good system :haha:[/quote'] What you fail to realise is that the rankings are based on a formula taking into account the results over a period of time. Indians complaining that England can't be #1 until they win in India are simply ignorant; the #1 ranking has got nothing to do with having to win a series in India, it simply resides in having a set of positive results over a period of time that are superior to those of everyone else. There's no requirement for a team to win in a particular location to reach #1, else how would India have gotten there? Did they win in Aus? Did they win in SA?

[Ultimate_Game]

What you fail to realise is that the rankings are based on a formula taking into account the results over a period of time. Indians complaining that England can't be #1 until they win in India are simply ignorant; the #1 ranking has got nothing to do with having to win a series in India, it simply resides in having a set of positive results over a period of time that are superior to those of everyone else. There's no requirement for a team to win in a particular location to reach #1, else how would India have gotten there? Did they win in Aus? Did they win in SA?

Well I, and most of the Indian fans, are not the ones complaining about the system. As far as I am concerned whoever is ranked no. 1 deserves the ranking. I was simply calling out the duplicity and double standards of folks like Atherton, Holding and other so called experts who always begrudged India the no. 1 spot as if India somehow was handed the top spot on a platter and others had to work hard for it - read Atherton's latest article where he commented that "justice has been done as India is not the no. 1 ranked side".

[Maundy Gregory]

Well I' date=' and most of the Indian fans, are not the ones complaining about the system. As far as I am concerned whoever is ranked no. 1 deserves the ranking. I was simply calling out the duplicity and double standards of folks like Atherton, Holding and other so called experts who always begrudged India the no. 1 spot as if India somehow was handed the top spot on a platter and others had to work hard for it - read Atherton's latest article where he commented that "justice has been done as India is not the no. 1 ranked side".[/quote'] I was simply calling out the duplicity of the Indians fans on this forum who insist that England needs to beat India in India to be #1 (and are now also saying that the One day series is the one that matter and India are World Cup winners etc)

[Ultimate_Game]

I was simply calling out the duplicity of the Indians fans on this forum who insist that England needs to beat India in India to be #1 (and are now also saying that the One day series is the one that matter and India are World Cup winners etc)

Coz they are simply asking for the same yardstick to be applied to England what was applied to India. Apparently India was not "good enough to be no. 1" coz they didn't beat SA and Aus away. On similar lines England's position should also come under scrutiny unless they manage to beat India & SL in the sub-continent.

[Maundy Gregory]

Coz they are simply asking for the same yardstick to be applied to England what was applied to India. Apparently India was not "good enough to be no. 1" coz they didn't beat SA and Aus away. On similar lines England's position should also come under scrutiny unless they manage to beat India & SL in the sub-continent.

Seeing as you don't agree with the original premise (India don't have to win in Aus or SA), don't you think that it's appalling hypocrisy to try to apply it in this instance?

[CG]

Seeing as you don't agree with the original premise (India don't have to win in Aus or SA)' date=' don't you think that it's appalling hypocrisy to try to apply it in this instance?[/quote'] You are right mate,we should be above others,but england will lose the the no 1 ranking in abudhabi which will prove they are not deserving no 1 ,then we will see how english ex cricketers react by saying pitches are flat and its a ploy to dethrone england.

[Maundy Gregory]

You are right mate' date='we should be above others,but england will lose the the no 1 ranking in abudhabi which will prove they are not deserving no 1 ,then we will see how english ex cricketers react by saying pitches are flat and its a ploy to dethrone england.[/quote'] Why are they not desrving of the #1 spot? Didn't they earn it the same way as everyone else has?

[Trichromatic]

Rankings give equal weightage to home and away matches. :hmmm:

[Maundy Gregory]

Rankings give equal weightage to home and away matches. :hmmm:

And?

[Cricket Tragic]

Rankings give equal weightage to home and away matches. :hmmm:

Brings us back to the point about the need to maximise home advantage.

[Trichromatic]

Brings us back to the point about the need to maximise home advantage.

Yes, but I feel that away matches should get you more points than home matches.

[Sachinism]

What you fail to realise is that the rankings are based on a formula taking into account the results over a period of time. Indians complaining that England can't be #1 until they win in India are simply ignorant; the #1 ranking has got nothing to do with having to win a series in India, it simply resides in having a set of positive results over a period of time that are superior to those of everyone else. There's no requirement for a team to win in a particular location to reach #1, else how would India have gotten there? Did they win in Aus? Did they win in SA?

Most Indians say that because of all the crap said when India was number one. You guys questioned our ranking, why can't we question your (I say your as you like to pretend to be English, just like your pretending you're a woman) number 1 position?

[Cricket Tragic]

Yes' date=' but I feel that away matches should get you more points than home matches.[/quote'] Yeah, agree with that.

[Trichromatic]

Yeah' date=' agree with that.[/quote'] Comparison of howSTAT ranking with ICC ranking http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/TestRankingsVsICC.asp But it has it's own drawback which is reflected by the fact that Zimbabwe is at the top in their ranking. :hehe: http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/TestRankings.asp

[akshayxyz]

Yes' date=' but I feel that away matches should get you more points than home matches.[/quote'] That would encourage the host country to take more measures to deny the visitors a win.

[ludhianvi]

Comparison of howSTAT ranking with ICC ranking

The first is that while both systems consider results in the immediately preceding five years, the HowSTAT system weights points so that more recent results are worth more than older results. The second major difference, is that the ICC Championship only awards points for Series Wins while the HowSTAT system, also awards points for Match Wins. ..... ..... http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/TestRankingsVsICC.asp

Actually, Howstat has got it wrong while interpreting the ICC rankings. -ICC Rankings are 3-3.9999... years long and the more recent years are indeed worth more than the older results (2x) -The second point is also incorrect. ICC does award points for individual matches along with a bonus (1 match win) for the series winner. Another point worth mentioning is while a team may be winning series but the actual margin of victory also does matter. So there are no 'dead rubber' matches as far as the ranking calculations are concerned. So I reckon a 1-0 victory against NZ actually helped NZ more than it did India.

[Maundy Gregory]

Yes' date=' but I feel that away matches should get you more points than home matches.[/quote'] That's not really a problem. It's worth remembering that in the last 9 series England have played they have won 8 and drawn 1 (SA away) that by any standards is pretty good run over the last 2 years already, sure there has been a few games they have lost or really struggled in but the result is what counts. In that time they have on won 19 tests and lost just 4 tests, SA, Pakistan (in a dead test) and Aus Home & Away. So I'd suggest that under a revised sytem, giving more weight to away wins, England would still be top of the pile. Contrast that with India who, whilst they haven't lost away recently (until now) , they haven't won either, at least not in Aus, SL or SA. Giving additional weight to away matches is not going to elevate India; I'd say it will push them further down the table