Top Dog?

[Vrock]

Australia received their cheque for something along the lines $500,000 and a nice shiny trophy for being at the top of the table for the LG ICC Test Rankings(and ODI). And congratulations to them, they have played some very good cricket over the last year.

Why did I highlight the year you ask.

Does a gap of one year tell us anything about the best test side in the world over the last one year?

Well, Australia started this year's rota with their previous points rolled over from the previous years, this is all well and good but does this not just tell us how far they are ahead of the other teams since the rankings started? Not the actual present best team based upon the last year and being awarded points for actually winning at this point in time.

This also works against the Top Dog with an extreme height of points. If they carry over their points from previous years but now have a squad which are not so dominant and begin to lose more tests, then they lose a lot more points than they will gain. Thus resulting in the gap being bridged and most likely overhauled by the other teams which are playing better. Does this seem fair to you?

What can be done about this?

Change the structure of the table itself. Once the rota starts over again (of which I will get to later on) all teams should have their points slate wiped clean. Everyone should start equally on zero and thus resulting in teams actually showing who is on the best form over the period of time. Not just their ability to keep their points gap stable.

On to the rota itself now.

This idea of one year? Where does it come from, carrying over the points from the previous years really makes this even worse. This is a quote from Malcolm Speed.

"The LG ICC Rankings have proved to be an excellent way of measuring the relative achievements of teams in both Test and ODI cricket and for the second year in a row Australia has come out on top,"

(link to article here)

Yes, when Australia had only completed 1/5 of the ICC calendar of facing teams. How can we base good judgement upon a side that has only completed part of the whole plan? A team will not have played every single other side they can in Tests (and ODI's). This does not give a fair judgement of teams in respect to each other.

Why not base our judgements once sides have actually played each other home and away? Yes, the trophy would only be given out after six years now but surely this would make it more worth while? And also, it would be an increasingly fair judgement of how teams compare over the last five years. Not since the rankings actually started.

I think the current rankings do not tell us anything about how a team are doing currently, at least with the changes I have suggested we would get a fairer idea of how a team is doing compared to others.

[Mongoose]

I'm not sure I follow your argument. You say the rankings don't tell us who the current best team is, based on results in the past year. Then you say it would be fairer to judge the best team over 5 years. Isn't that a contradiction?

I also don't agree that it's unfair that the top team loses more points as they are replaced by later results. They're simply replacing old results with new. And if they're worthy of keeping their position as no.1, they will replace those results with similarly good ones, hence they should not lose points. Australia lost so many points after the Ashes because a poor result, a 2-1 defeat, replaced a very good result, a 4-1 win.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I'm not sure I follow your argument. You say the rankings don't tell us who the current best team is, based on results in the past year. Then you say it would be fairer to judge the best team over 5 years. Isn't that a contradiction?

No, the rankings don't tell us how good a current team is over the past year because the points are carried over from previous years, this means that all we see is how well teams are doing since the points started.

Also, in a single year teams do not play every single team they can, home and away. So how is it possible to make a fair judgement when team X might only play the much lower ranked sides and not gain as many points as playing the other higher ranked sides?

Or to put it another way, if team Y are ranked quite low down in previous years and only play the top ranked sides then they are at a disadvantage because they won't have played the teams which they have a decent chance against.

It is just not a fair representation of current form IMO. I know that taking the rota via the six year calendar is quite long but it is the only way that we get a fairer representation of how well teams are doing.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Vrock

No, the rankings don't tell us how good a current team is over the past year because the points are carried over from previous years, this means that all we see is how well teams are doing since the points started.

Also, in a single year teams do not play every single team they can, home and away. So how is it possible to make a fair judgement when team X might only play the much lower ranked sides and not gain as many points as playing the other higher ranked sides?

I think your second comment here answers the question of why the rankings don't just give results over the past year. The rankings are fair, because they take into account the teams' results against all opposition, from the most recent period in which they've played against them.

Originally Posted by Vrock

Or to put it another way, if team Y are ranked quite low down in previous years and only play the top ranked sides then they are at a disadvantage because they won't have played the teams which they have a decent chance against.

But the rankings are weighted, so that Bangladesh getting a draw against Australia would give them lots more ranking points than England getting a draw with West Indies would.

Originally Posted by Vrock

It is just not a fair representation of current form IMO. I know that taking the rota via the six year calendar is quite long but it is the only way that we get a fairer representation of how well teams are doing.

Again, if you think it's fairest to look at teams over a longer term, why are you lamenting the fact that the rankings don't tell us who is best over the past year?

[Vrock]

It's trying to mix in two factors to one answer Mongoose.

On one hand, you want to know the best side currently, this means you don't want to have the rota starting again every six years, but over a much shorter period of time. BUT how is it a fair representation of a teams current form in the past year if they only play weak teams/strong teams. It doesn't tell you their form across the board so to speak.

Another idea would be to judge a teams points awarded to them for playing a series by looking at the ranking points scored in the last rota. So all points awarded would start afresh (all teams on 0) but your points awarded would be determined by how many points you got in the last rota.

[Mongoose]

Ah, I see where you're going with this. I thought it strange that a seemingly intelligent guy like yourself should get in a twizz about the rankings and simultaneously suggest that the rankings should look at a short period of time and a long period of time.

I'm still going to disagree with you in part. I don't think there can possibly be a ranking system that looks at as short a period of time as one year. I agree that the fairest methos seems to be to look at the longer term, in which everyone has played each other. I also think scrubbing the points and starting again can't work. Not only is the rolling system OK, with points updated as you go along, but finding a cut off point would be a logistical nightmare, with sides playing each other (home and away) at intervals of anything between 2 and 6 years. I just don't think it would be a workable system.

[Vrock]

And the current one is?

In all honestly it tells us diddly-squat about how teams are currently doing. It just seems to me that they are there purely for the sake of it. Just a way to give the teams their top rank bonus on a regular basis.

The only way to find a cut-off point would be to wipe the slate clean. All teams start on 0 and therefore for at least a short period of time the weaker teams can rank as well as the top teams.

How difficult would it be? If everyone had faced everyone else then there would be no unfair comparison because all teams had faced each other.

[Mongoose]

I think the current system gives an accurate guide to how good the teams are. Australia lost an away Ashes series, but other results indicate that they are still comfortably ahead of England. England struggled in Pakistan, but are still judged better than Pakistan because of better performances against South Africa, Australia etc. Bangladesh are rightly well off the rating of the better teams, even West Indies, who are rightly comfortably behind the other established nations.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I think the current system gives an accurate guide to how good the teams are. Australia lost an away Ashes series, but other results indicate that they are still comfortably ahead of England.

Which results? West Indies at home: England and Australia both won, South Africa at home: England and Australia both won, South Africa away: England and Australia both won.

BUT this doesn't matter because in the year that has just passed England never faced South Africa at home/away or West Indies at home.

So again there is no fair comparison IMO.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Vrock

Which results? West Indies at home: England and Australia both won, South Africa at home: England and Australia both won, South Africa away: England and Australia both won.

England drew 2-2 last time they hosted South Africa. Australia have also been more emphatic in their winning margins over SA. Plus, on the head-to-head, it Eng 2-1 Aus and Aus 4-1 Eng. I know they're not all results from last year, but I think it's the fairest system.