India Might Go Second Even With 0-2

[Cricketics]

England on no. 5 now.. with the kind of ordinary cricket they have played.. thats a perfect rank for them.. they were never a no. 2 side..

[Dhondy]

Chandan, the ICC ranking system works like a batting average. New points scored are added to existing points, divided by the new denominator, and you get the new "batting average" (the calculation of the actual points scored is complex, and I won't bore you with that here- let me know if you want details). The way it's structured, it does give credence to the status of the opposing team in determining the number of points you score, just as the Elo rating system for Chess does, so that's its strength. Another strength is that it gives weightage to more recent results. Every year, the most remote year in your record is dropped. The most recent year carries the highest weightage. Unfortunately, like any batting average, it has its weaknesses. Knowing how batting averages work, you can work those out. I've already pointed out that home and away points are weighted equally. This leads to a ridiculous situation where Sri Lanka's home points are scored in the same manner as Australia's away ones, a situation akin to Jayawardane's average going up to the same degree for an 150 scored at home, as would Gilchrist's for a similar innings in SA. Secondly, because of the discretion offered to individual boards, some teams end up playing each other far more often than they would other sides. Thus, poor England's points took a knock when they ended up getting hammered 5-0 by the Aussies, while SL only had to take a 2-0 hit, benefitting instead from playing 8 matches over a period of 2 years with BD, more than any other top side. Rankings can never be fair in such a variegated system. Thirdly, remember what effect a 100 or a zero does to batting averages of veterans and newcomers? When a seasoned batsman such as Tendulkar scores a 100, his batting average only goes up by a fraction, unlike say, an Alistair Cook, whose average jumps by a few points. However, when Tendulkar scores a duck, his average dips only marginally, while Cook's average takes a nosedive. Similarly, under the ICC rankings system, sides which have played more Test matches, such as England, gain less points for a victorious series than those who have played less Tests, such as New Zealand. However, by the same token, when England lose, they lose proportionately less points than New Zealand would. Thus, under this system, if you are on a hot streak, you are penalised if you have played more Tests. If you on a bad run however, having played more Tests cushions you somewhat against defeat, because you lose less points. The best scenario, if you really wanted to maximize your points, would therefore be for you to play less Tests, pick and chose who you play and where, so that, as in SL's case, a couple of defeats against Australia are more than balanced out by a glut of wins over BD home and away, or over SA at home (postponing the away series as long as possible). Sorry: Forgot to mention that ratings pertain to the last three years. Every August, the most remote year is dropped. Of the three years taken into reckoning, matches (and points) scored in the two "older" years are halved (weighted as 50%), while the most recent year is weighted as 100%.

[Chandan]

Thanks a lot Dhondy, for the explanation. It indeed is a very complicated system, yet it is not without loop-hopes. I liked their previous system better where they used to replace one series played by a country at a particular country when they tour there the next time. For example India's 03-04 result in Australia will be replaced by the series result we have this time. That way it took into account the performance against every country. Now since we've not visited NZ since 02, that result wouldn't have been replaced in India's ranking. What do you say, was the previous method better or is this one better? PS: Have we played 5 tests more than Australia in last 3 years?

[Dhondy]

India will now be second after this series, irrespective of the results of the Adelaide Test. Here's how that result will influence their points. Draw- 110.7 Win- 113.3 Loss- 109.4 Second placed SL are on 109.1, and will be overtaken, whatever happens.

[Dhondy]

India go clear second with 110.7 points, rounded off to 111. Well done. This series was hard fought, and would have been a draw or better in favour of India, but for Symonds' umpiring bonanza at Sydney.

[Guest HariSampath]

since we would have been 2nd even with 0-2 loss, whats the reward for winning at Perth ?? Since we cant be # 1 obviously, can they at least demote Pakistan ?:D

[Bumper]

Recent history suggests, No. 2 has been the most cursed spot in the rankings. SL, Eng, SA, Ind have all attained the no. 2 spot sometime in the recent past & then went thru a free fall. I hope it doesnt happen to us.

[DomainK]

Recent history suggests' date=' No. 2 has been the most cursed spot in the rankings. SL, Eng, SA, Ind have all attained the no. 2 spot sometime in the recent past & then went thru a free fall. I hope it doesnt happen to us.[/quote'] Well, someone was needed to break that trend.:two_thumbs_up:

[The Outsider]

No matter what the rankings say (at the moment they agree with my assessment), India have been the number 2 side in the world over the past few years without any doubt.