POTW : Swashbuckler

[MenInG]

An excellent and well-thought-out proposal for a combined ranking system in cricket is this week's POTW!

Congratulations to [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION]


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Combined-ranking-system-in-cricket-yay-or-nay

So here's a proposal, sorry for the length of the post. Feel free to debate, bash, criticize, agree, disagree - whatever you wish.

In cricket we have separate ranking lists for tests, ODIs and T20s. To judge a team's (and player's if need be) overall ability won't it be a better idea to consider all results rather than restricting ourselves to ranking them formatwise? I believe that by doing this we can better assess the overall strength of the unit, hence resulting in an accurate ranking.

Note to traditionalists who may baulk at the idea of mixing their holy format with the lowly white ball formats: Like it or not test cricket is not the only format that matters as was the case a few decades back. Times are changing and ODIs, T20s draw bigger crowds and engage more eyeballs than the traditional format. Younger generation has a shorter attention span and we risk losing an entire generation of cricket followers if we remain snobbish and aloof wrt test cricket. Not just that the shorter formats are keeping test cricket alive by bringing in the money, except maybe England and Australia the shorter formats are covering up the losses incurred by test cricket. For test cricket to survive it needs ODIs/T20s more than the other way round. I am not proposing to devalue the 5 day format but to incorporate the other 2 formats and give them the respect that is due.

For quite some time teams aren't taking international T20s and bilateral ODIs that seriously, instead testing the bench strength or saving the star players for high profile test series, ICC tournaments and domestic T20 leagues (they won't openly admit). Post IPL/BBL/CPL/PSL boom crowds are gradually losing interest in bilaterals because there is no context. We all know which teams will qualify for WT20/WC (unlike FIFA WC) and hence there is no intrigue in bilaterals. Moreover seedings don't matter in major cricket events unlike say tennis where top ranked players get easier passage in the initial rounds of tournaments . Cricket has only around 10 serious teams and with the prevalent formats in WCs/WT20s the top seeded teams don't get any advantage whatsoever. Shorter format rankings/results aren't followed with keen interest and in the international arena it is all about winning multi-nation tournaments, as evidenced by the Asia Cup held recently.

I propose unifying the formats into one ranking system. We can always use weightage factors like 1 for tests, 0.3 for ODIs and 0.15 for T20s, of course the exact weightage can be worked out by experts/statisticians later. In recent times ECB had this concept of assigning weights for all 3 formats and declaring an overall winner, this is similar but it won't be isolated or applicable to just a series here or there. This should be a continuous live process operating 24x7x365 taking into account every single international match and coming up with the year end number 1 team (cut off can be 3rd week of December, boxing day match results get incorporated into the next cycle). Now we have context and to incentivize the teams, instead of the ICC test mace the year end top team can get a Championship Trophy and a humongously large prize money. 2nd and 3rd placed teams too can be rewarded handsomely. Similarly the top batsmen, bowlers, ARs, keepers, coaches etc too can get recognition at the year ending awards ceremony like it happens in other sports.

Some of the advantages of this unified ranking:

1. It is an accurate judge of a player's overall standing. Gone are the days when Gavaskar or Sobers could fool around in ODI cricket without any eyebrow raised. Modern cricket demands excellence and versatility in multiple formats. Players can't be excused if they aren't making an attempt to improve in other formats. Test specialists like Pujara, Yasir, Cook, Herath, Elgar etc can't get away with any excuse because all formats are popular in today's age and there are enough tools to improve their weaker suits. Someone who is good enough in all formats has shown more adaptability and hence deserves to be rated above a format specialist. All formats demand special skillsets and it isn't that easy to transfer the skills as some old timers here may argue, anyway let's leave that topic for another day.

2. It is fairer for teams. Now take the example of the Pakistani T20 team. They were dismal in 2016 (year of last WT20) and then went on a tear the next 2 years. What is there to show for their efforts? Next WT20 is in 2020 and if Pakistan have a decline that year, these 2-3 years of insane T20 domination will be forgotten by all. But with the new system their ruthless efficiency will be well rewarded in the form of a boost to their combined ranking. What they lack in tests/ODIs they can make up in their best format and challenge for the 3rd position which would entail a sizable financial package. Same with England in ODIs, afterall they have sacrificed their test success to become world beaters in this format and that deserves recognition even if they fail to win ICC WC or CT.

3. It helps all formats equally. Since tests will have maximum weightage, teams will strive to do their best there. Since ODIs/T20s have a more important role, teams will be forced to take bilaterals more seriously. You saw the teams Australia fielded in T20s this year, surely they would be forced to field better teams and strive to win rather than testing bench strength/long term planning. Better players means more interest, better crowds, better TV ratings. Fans will follow with more interest keeping in mind the big picture, there is scope for healthier sponsorship and better broadcast deals, more money means better for test cricket which is a loss making entity. If it is good for test cricket, it is good for the overall health of the sport because great cricketers are primarily produced in the long format. Also the concept of dead rubbers will be eliminated and every match will be a must win situation, more drama for everyone. What we lack right now is context and if we can bring in that element, it will be beneficial for all.

4. It is easier to understand for lay men or first time cricket watchers. Cricket is a very confusing sport for the non initiated because of multiple formats. Now the nature of the sport is such that we can't do away with some format, we can never become like tennis, football, hockey, basketball which are standardized in almost all aspects right from field/court/goal dimensions to rules, regulations, time etc. If I show a random Polish guy on the street snippets of all 3 formats played in 3 different countries and the variance in team/player's rankings he will be confused. Forget that, even a casual desi fan into IPL/PSL will fail to grasp the other formats. But if we get a unified system it might reduce the complexity. I know I am not being clear here but it seems to me that we need to dumb down aspects of cricket to appeal to the wider mass and a unified ranking system is an essential way to go towards that path. Now we can't standardize everything, a pitch in Mumbai and Perth can't and shouldn't converge in terms of behaviour but stuff like rankings can be an ideal place to start if we are serious about globalizing the game. If tennis starts introducing different rankings for clay, indoor, outdoor HC, grass, 3 setters, 5 setters, team events etc won't it be more confusing for a casual viewer who doesn't follow the sport throughout the year? I know this is an extreme example but my point remains.

5. It can stop the surge of T20 leagues. The cricket world order has changed drastically post the emergence of IPL. I am not being paranoid if I say that in 15 years time T20 leagues will occupy 6 months of the cricket calendar, that is the stark reality confronting us. The present arrangements can't withstand the force of this new beast. Already number of tests and ODIs are reducing (new FTP) and eventually people will get bored of international T20s. WCs are once in 4 years for a 6 week window, WT20s are again irregular and an even smaller window, marquee test series can't occupy a significant chunk of the calender. Eventually we may be left with WCs, WT20s, 3-4 test series plus whole lots of IPL, PSL, CPL, BPL, BBL etc. But if we can market cricket in a different way and have an annual Championship system taking into account all 3 formats maybe then the ensuing fan interest and economics can withstand the onslaught of T20 leagues for longer. This may be the only way to save the future of international matches.

 

[Mainul]

I don't have enough courage or mental strength to read this post. But I congratulate you for your POTW. Bravo.

 

[JattMaula]

This will make incoming test championship pointless.

And we will have to keep track of ranking of t20 and Odis for WC qualifications anyway.

 

[rhony]

Skill is skill. Tests or ODIs or T20s. This post is considering the T20 or ODI or test specialists worthless unless they perform in all three formats. Also T20 leagues don't contribute to any rankings.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Congrats [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] Knew it that this was a POTW stuff.

 

[giri26]

Well done. Good stuff.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

Congrats, great post.

However, I feel it raises more questions than answers.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Thank you [MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] and team for the honour, very kind of you.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I don't have enough courage or mental strength to read this post. But I congratulate you for your POTW. Bravo.

Congrats [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] Knew it that this was a POTW stuff.

Well done. Good stuff.

Congrats, great post.

However, I feel it raises more questions than answers.

Thanks guys for your nice words.

This will make incoming test championship pointless.

And we will have to keep track of ranking of t20 and Odis for WC qualifications anyway.

Skill is skill. Tests or ODIs or T20s. This post is considering the T20 or ODI or test specialists worthless unless they perform in all three formats. Also T20 leagues don't contribute to any rankings.

Thanks for the feedback guys. The original thread's link is in the OP. If you are interested we can discuss your opinions in that thread and take the discussion to its logical conclusion.

 

[Mute Witness]

Excellent effort. Worthy potw. Congratulations.

There is one issue which i can't reconcile with in a combined ranking system. In terms of team wins it could probably even out, but for players they are completely different games. In Tests you literally have to get all 20 wickets to win the match, while in T20s, teams literally throw wickets away in the last few overs in pursuit of extra few runs. The value of each wicket is far cheaper in T20s than Tests. This major discrepancy is why someone who has plenty of variations and bags loads of wickets in T20s may fail big in Test matches where the batsmen isn't obliged to attack him. If you don't have the quality to get the batsman out, you may have to wait two days before he gifts you his wicket.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Excellent effort. Worthy potw. Congratulations.

There is one issue which i can't reconcile with in a combined ranking system. In terms of team wins it could probably even out, but for players they are completely different games. In Tests you literally have to get all 20 wickets to win the match, while in T20s, teams literally throw wickets away in the last few overs in pursuit of extra few runs. The value of each wicket is far cheaper in T20s than Tests. This major discrepancy is why someone who has plenty of variations and bags loads of wickets in T20s may fail big in Test matches where the batsmen isn't obliged to attack him. If you don't have the quality to get the batsman out, you may have to wait two days before he gifts you his wicket.

Thanks for your kind words.

What you are saying can be accounted for by giving test performances the maximum weightage in the calculation of the combined rating system. The major objective of such a system will be to eliminate dead rubbers, provide context to each match and force players to widen their repertoire of skills. I agree with you that most T20 dismissals aren't earned like in test cricket. But there are a few elite test bowlers who are unable to make any impact in T20s (Philander, Hazlewood, Broad, Yasir, Herath, Jadeja, Lyon etc) because of their monotonous line/length and lack of variations cum street smartness. If they were to work even a bit on their shortcomings they can have more respectable figures in white ball cricket and because of higher weightage in their primary format that is test cricket, they will always be among the top of the rankings. In fact such a system is more harsh on T20 specialists who will invariably find it tougher to break it to the top, historically the transfer of skill sets from test ->ODI->T20 has been easier than the other way around.

 

[JaDed]

Congratulations,good post.

 

[as-95]

I don't have enough courage or mental strength to read this post. But I congratulate you for your POTW. Bravo.

Likewise . Congrats nevertheless [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION]

 

[cricketworm]

Great insights. However, player Ranking for test cricket are weighted the most followed by ODI and T20. Also what about the fact that some players just don't play other formats at all. What we really need to do is ICC to come up with reward system for top T20, ODI or Test players, like they have it for top test team, who gets 1 million bonus (if I am not mistaking). If they do this for player who are top players, their would be some context. I know they have a yearly award system, but not sure if they get big award being best in particular format.

I know this can't happen as ICC will the most money through their tournaments ie. world cups, so they care less about bilateral series.

 

[Mainul]

Likewise . Congrats nevertheless [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION]

It is such a long post that I was just scared to read it

 

[Swashbuckler]

Congratulations,good post.

Thank you.

Likewise . Congrats nevertheless [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION]

Thanks but enough with the hyperbole about the length of the post guys

Great insights. However, player Ranking for test cricket are weighted the most followed by ODI and T20. Also what about the fact that some players just don't play other formats at all. What we really need to do is ICC to come up with reward system for top T20, ODI or Test players, like they have it for top test team, who gets 1 million bonus (if I am not mistaking). If they do this for player who are top players, their would be some context. I know they have a yearly award system, but not sure if they get big award being best in particular format.

I know this can't happen as ICC will the most money through their tournaments ie. world cups, so they care less about bilateral series.

Players who don't play other formats will suffer in the rankings and rightly so. This isn't 1978, in today's cricket world all formats are important and there are enough avenues to improve in different formats. A player who has more versatility deserves extra points compared to a specialist, even here because of weightage factor test specialists get more leeway.

Just like tennis this system should force the players to become more versatile across formats. Look at the ATP now, gone are the days of grass/clay specialists or 3 setter specialists (Zverev is an exception here), players give their best whole year around and expand their skills, this is better not just for their game but also for the fans who see the best competition whole year around. This is the best era in terms of standard and modern players are much more adept to modify their game in varying conditions. Now tennis has many variables like different playing surfaces, indoor/outdoor, 3 setters/5 setters, team events vs individual events, different last set rules in different tourneys, different ball sizes/weights etc. But they still have incorporated all of this into a single ranking system.

Regarding your other point about reward system for top players, I agree we should have a year ending awards ceremony to honour the achievers. But first we need to raise the profile of the bilaterals. Otherwise in a few years time the domestic T20 leagues and ICC world events will generate all the revenue and administrators will do away with bilaterals. Already the last 2 years we are seeing the teams not taking bilaterals seriously which is alarming.

 

[Itachi]

I didn't agree with all the points but the effort is there. So I'll say it is much deserving. I hold contradictory views regarding some aspects but that doesn't mean I won't appreciate the opposing views too.

Good effort. Congratulations.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I didn't agree with all the points but the effort is there. So I'll say it is much deserving. I hold contradictory views regarding some aspects but that doesn't mean I won't appreciate the opposing views too.

Good effort. Congratulations.

Thank you.

 

[jadaja]

Sorry but there is no need for a combined ranking at all.Why are people looking to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Pakpak]

One of the best Indian posters here, though let's see how long that lasts lol. Well done for POTW.

 

[Swashbuckler]

One of the best Indian posters here, though let's see how long that lasts lol. Well done for POTW.

Thank you.