Surprising aspects of the current ICC Test rankings

[Junaids]

We all know that the ICC Test COUNTRY rankings are highly controversial because of how they weigh equally home and away success.

But the ICC PLAYER rankings have been a surprisingly useful and perceptive tool since they first emerged as the Deloitte Rankings at the suggestion of the legendary Ted Dexter in 1987. Not least because until you have played 10 Tests, your rating is scaled down.

In general, the rules of thumb are as follows:

If you ever score above 900, you are an All-Time Great.

If at any time you are scoring in the band 800-899, you are an exceptional World Class Player.

If you are in the band 700-799, you are a very fine International Player.

If you are scoring 600-699, you are a Makeweight at international level, lucky to be in your national team and just not performing.

In addition, you need to see a player's Highest Ever Rating as well as their current one to make definitive conclusions about their ability.

And currently, in late October 2018, they tell a number of interesting stories.

1. Virat Kohli and Steve Smith are the only current ATG's

Virat Kohli has a rating of 935
Steve Smith has a rating of 910.

2. Australia's batting has been decimated by the ball-tampering bans.

They are missing:

Steve Smith, ranked Number 2, rated 910.
Dave Warner, ranked Number 5, rated 803.
Usman Khawaja ranked Number 11, rated 699.

They are now reliant upon:

Peter Handscomb ranked 40 (rating 548).
Shaun Marsh ranked 42.
Aaron Finch ranked 52
Matt Renshaw ranked 62.
Mitchell Marsh ranked 67 (rating 446)

3. Australia's bowling is not as strong as you'd imagine

Pat Cummins is ranked Number 8 (784 points) and has never passed 800 points.

Josh Hazlewood ranked 12, rating 744 points (lifetime max 863).

Mitchell Starc is ranked 17, rating 693 points (lifetime max 805).

Nathan Lyon is ranked 16, rating 706 points (lifetime max 774 points).



4. India's bowling is even worse

Ravendra Jadeja is ranked 5, but won't even play in Australia.

R Ashwin is ranked Number 9, rated 777 (lifetime max 904).

Mohammad Shami is their leading pace bowler, ranked Number 22, rated 637 (lifetime max 703).

Umesh Yadav is ranked Number 25, rated 613 (lifetime max 613).

Ishant Sharma is ranked Number 26, rated 603 (lifetime max 671).

Jasprit Bumrah is ranked Number 38, rating 472 (lifetime max 487).

5. Neil Wagner really is a better Test bowler than Mitchell Starc


Neil Wagner ranked Number 11, rating 765 (lifetime max 785)

Mitchell Starc ranked Number 17, rating 693 (lifetime max 805).


6. Yasir Shah is not a Test bowler outside Asia

He is ranked Number 21, with a rating of 646 (lifetime max 878).

 

[AFM]

So are you calling Ashwin an ATG?

 

[Buffet]

ICC rating trend for a longer period is a better indicator of player stature. Getting to 900+ for few matches won't make anyone an ATG if the same player is below 750 for 90% of career.

Players maintaining high ratings consistently, I am not sure the cut off here, can be termed as an ATG. It gets tricky to compare across era using this, but it's a very good indicator of how well player is performing over his peers.

Clearly, ICC rating at any time is not so reliable, but ICC rating trend over long period is a pretty good indicator.

 

[Junaids]

So are you calling Ashwin an ATG?

In Asia, probably.

I guess what we see overall is that currently we have a desperately poor era of Test cricket.

There are six teams which are roughly equal to one another - India, England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan.

But all six teams are horribly flawed, and struggle to cope in alien conditions.

To me, the problem is simple.

Limited overs cricket has diverged further from Test cricket in the years 2000-2018 than it did in the years 1970-2000.

First we saw 60 overs reduced to 50 overs. Then we saw white balls instead of identical red balls. And then finally we have seen the ICC take the commercial decision to use grassless pitches, to ensure that its economically dominant country had a better chance of progression and success after the 2007 World Cup saw India and Pakistan eliminated early.

We used to have 1 way of playing cricket across two (Test and 50/60 over) formats.

Now we have a High Bat Speed (20 and 50 over) version and a Slow Bat Speed (Test) version. The skills are different, and players struggle to adapt to challenging conditions with which they are unfamiliar.

 

[Buffet]

Now we have a High Bat Speed (20 and 50 over) version and a Slow Bat Speed (Test) version. The skills are different, and players struggle to adapt to challenging conditions with which they are unfamiliar.

Also, you have a time limit in limited overs and can't simply play out time for very long.

Skill set is surely different and that's why in current era, no one is going down as an ATG unless they are good in both formats.

 

[Junaids]

ICC rating trend for a longer period is a better indicator of player stature. Getting to 900+ for few matches won't make anyone an ATG if the same player is below 750 for 90% of career.

Players maintaining high ratings consistently, I am not sure the cut off here, can be termed as an ATG. It gets tricky to compare across era using this, but it's a very good indicator of how well player is performing over his peers.

Clearly, ICC rating at any time is not so reliable, but ICC rating trend over long period is a pretty good indicator.

Yes, I agree, that's why I included the lifetime peaks of the players as well as their current rankings.

The English satirist Marcus Berkmann wrote a superb book in which he reviewed the ICC Player Rankings for the 1980s.

It's amazing how accurately they match actual events. To give you an example, Pakistan were superb when they had Imran Khan plus Abdul Qadir, plus 1 of Sarfraz Nawaz (up until 1984) or Wasim Akram (from 1985).

But when Imran Khan had his stress fractures of the shin in 1983 and 1984, which was the period in which Sarfraz Nawaz was exiting and Wasim Akram had yet to arrive, suddenly the Number 2 Test team couldn't bowl people out.

The similarity with the Steve Smith and Dave Warner bans is absolutely striking. There is just no reason to believe that Australia are going to score any runs at all, even when Sri Lanka visit in January, let alone when India tours next month.

If you lose the only world class bowlers or batsmen, you're going to get into big, big trouble.

 

[Junaids]

Also, you have a time limit in limited overs and can't simply play out time for very long.

Skill set is surely different and that's why in current era, no one is going down as an ATG unless they are good in both formats.

Think of Sarfraz Ahmed in Abu Dhabi last week.

He made the highest ever Test innings by a player who didn't LEAVE a single delivery outside off-stump. In the UAE you can get away with that almost like in an ODI, because there's no grass or bounce.

But in eight weeks he has to play Test matches at Johannesburg and Centurion. Where the ONLY way to play is to LEAVE 80% of the deliveries you face to pass outside or above off-stump.

The very technique which just served Sarfraz Ahmed well in a Test in the UAE is a surefire Recipe For Disaster in South Africa.

Which, of course, is why the rankings of the likes of Jadeja and Ashwin and Yasir Shah are so meaningless outside their home conditions.

 

[Buffet]

Yes, I agree, that's why I included the lifetime peaks of the players as well as their current rankings.

I got that, but that doesn't show rating trend over a long period. You could have players peak rating just few months ago and their current rating high due to earlier acquired rating points. or you can pick a player in really bad form right now.

Rating trend for long period takes care of those scenario. I do agree that players ratings are lot more reliable than team's rating despite both having flaws. At least it's non-biased and objective which takes account of opposition strength and relative contribution of players in each match. It does a pretty good job of normalizing when you take a longer time period.

 

[New Yorker]

6. Yasir Shah is not a Test bowler outside Asia[/B]

He is ranked Number 21, with a rating of 646 (lifetime max 878).

Doesn't follow from your categorization.

What does Asia have to do with Yasir's ranking?

Didn't he rise to no 1 in the ICC rankings on the back basically of performances in Asia.

And has he not declined also for lack of performance, in Asia?

Wouldn't 878, ie almost 900, be considered borderline ATG?

And isn't Dale Steyn ranked 23 now?

This suggests to me that Shah and Steyn have gotten worse, simply put.
Not that they were never any good, inside Asia or outside.

 

[Buffet]

Think of Sarfraz Ahmed in Abu Dhabi last week.

He made the highest ever Test innings by a player who didn't LEAVE a single delivery outside off-stump. In the UAE you can get away with that almost like in an ODI, because there's no grass or bounce.

But in eight weeks he has to play Test matches at Johannesburg and Centurion. Where the ONLY way to play is to LEAVE 80% of the deliveries you face to pass outside or above off-stump.

The very technique which just served Sarfraz Ahmed well in a Test in the UAE is a surefire Recipe For Disaster in South Africa.

Which, of course, is why the rankings of the likes of Jadeja and Ashwin and Yasir Shah are so meaningless outside their home conditions.

Long term rating of Sarfraz will reflect that. Yasir, Ahswin and Jadeja can still do well in Ind, UAE, BD, SL and WI. That's more than 50% of venues in test cricket. Also, anyone doing well in other venues will accumulate more points. I do agree that it's not perfect and has flaws, but I like that better than random opinions without any objectivity. If you take long term rating and take a look at record in different condition with it, it covers pretty much 99% and you won't be fooled by rating or stats without context.

Many batsmen have high stats, but when stats are taken with context( like how other did in same match, opposition etc) then they don't look so good. Rating takes care of it. Now you could have situation where certain players only play in home conditions and play really well, they will appear high in rating, but looking at stats will clearly point this out. Player will lose 1% of rating each match he is not playing outside, but I am not sure if it's enough.

 

[Buffet]

Doesn't follow from your categorization.

What does Asia have to do with Yasir's ranking?

Didn't he rise to no 1 in the ICC rankings on the back basically of performances in Asia.

And has he not declined also for lack of performance, in Asia?

Wouldn't 878, ie almost 900, be considered borderline ATG?

And isn't Dale Steyn ranked 23 now?

This suggests to me that Shah and Steyn have gotten worse, simply put.
Not that they were never any good, inside Asia or outside.

Long term rating of Steyn and Shah will look totally different. One will look like an ATG player rating trend and another will look like an average player with a good peak. Rating trend over a long time does indicate players stature.

That's what I was trying to explain earlier. I am just quoting your post and it's not related to the point you are replying. OP's criterion is not a great one to judge.

 

[Junaids]

Doesn't follow from your categorization.

What does Asia have to do with Yasir's ranking?

Didn't he rise to no 1 in the ICC rankings on the back basically of performances in Asia.

And has he not declined also for lack of performance, in Asia?

Wouldn't 878, ie almost 900, be considered borderline ATG?

And isn't Dale Steyn ranked 23 now?

This suggests to me that Shah and Steyn have gotten worse, simply put.
Not that they were never any good, inside Asia or outside.

Yes and no.

Yasir Shah’s Test Ranking of Number 21 reflects a bowler who is terrific in Asia and awful outside Asia.

87 wickets at 26.40 in the UAE.
24 wickets at 19.33 in Sri Lanka.
10 wickets at 34.00 in Bangladesh.

And against feeble opposition outside Asia:
25 wickets at 21.96 in the West Indies.

But then outside Asia:

8 wickets at 84.00 in Australia.
0 wickets in 1 Test in New Zealand.
19 wickets at 40.73 in England.

Yasir Shah is basically a liability outside Asia against decent opposition. They would do better to play Shadab Khan in South Africa, or a fifth quick bowler.

And his low ranking and rating reflect a player who is brilliant on dry grassless wickets and poor on grassy ones.

 

[New Yorker]

Long term rating of Steyn and Shah will look totally different. One will look like an ATG player rating trend and another will look like an average player with a good peak. Rating trend over a long time does indicate players stature.

That's what I was trying to explain earlier. I am just quoting your post and it's not related to the point you are replying. OP's criterion is not a great one to judge.

Fastest in 100 years to to 100 and 150 Test wickets and the ICC no 1 ranking with a top score of 878 can be read many ways, but it does not say "average." To put this in perspective, Wasim Akram's highest ICC score is 830, and he only got as high as No 2. Yasir Shah is not an ATG like Steyn, but he has done enough to show that he is certainly a cut above the median. Whether or not he is best in Asia is not the issue. He can be deeply flawed, one dimensional, call it what you want, but he has not been average.

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

Think of Sarfraz Ahmed in Abu Dhabi last week.

He made the highest ever Test innings by a player who didn't LEAVE a single delivery outside off-stump. In the UAE you can get away with that almost like in an ODI, because there's no grass or bounce.

But in eight weeks he has to play Test matches at Johannesburg and Centurion. Where the ONLY way to play is to LEAVE 80% of the deliveries you face to pass outside or above off-stump.

The very technique which just served Sarfraz Ahmed well in a Test in the UAE is a surefire Recipe For Disaster in South Africa.

Which, of course, is why the rankings of the likes of Jadeja and Ashwin and Yasir Shah are so meaningless outside their home conditions.

In order to overcome problems like this ICC is probably going to have to do something like Cricinfo's "Smart T20 Stats" thing where they took into account things like stages of the game where a bowler/batsman plays and things like Cricviz's smart stats which take into account the average for a batsman/bowler relative to the averages of previous batsmen and bowlers who played on that ground and things like pitch conditions.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Nothing's surprising except for your bias against India and Australia.

Pick ranking from 10-20 years ago and you could do a similar analysis for lots of players. Proves nothing. The system has almost remained the same as it was with minor tweaks to the model here and there.

Interestingly, you call the Pakistan 1983-84 team second best in the world of the time. Their record from 1980 onwards was won 4 series, all at home (2 vs Aus, one vs India and one vs SL) and lost 5 series (one at home to WI, one in India, two in Australia, one in England) and drawn series in India.

Basically they were losing more than they won, yet you have no issues in calling them the 2nd best side (statistically they were, but you do not seem to be believe in numbers alone)

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Yes and no.

Yasir Shah’s Test Ranking of Number 21 reflects a bowler who is terrific in Asia and awful outside Asia.

87 wickets at 26.40 in the UAE.
24 wickets at 19.33 in Sri Lanka.
10 wickets at 34.00 in Bangladesh.

And against feeble opposition outside Asia:
25 wickets at 21.96 in the West Indies.

But then outside Asia:

8 wickets at 84.00 in Australia.
0 wickets in 1 Test in New Zealand.
19 wickets at 40.73 in England.

Yasir Shah is basically a liability outside Asia against decent opposition. They would do better to play Shadab Khan in South Africa, or a fifth quick bowler.

And his low ranking and rating reflect a player who is brilliant on dry grassless wickets and poor on grassy ones.

conveniently ignores the following facts

19 wickets in England resulted in winning two test matches. Plus the dropped catches in the second test were stupid and useless.

And that the new zealand track was so green it was hard to really know where the pitch ended and the ground started.

and that in Aus the guy was used as a workhorse with leg side fields. With dropped catches here and there. And absolutely zero scoreboard pressure in two of the three games.

 

[Hasan123]

Yes and no.

Yasir Shah’s Test Ranking of Number 21 reflects a bowler who is terrific in Asia and awful outside Asia.

87 wickets at 26.40 in the UAE.
24 wickets at 19.33 in Sri Lanka.
10 wickets at 34.00 in Bangladesh.

And against feeble opposition outside Asia:
25 wickets at 21.96 in the West Indies.

But then outside Asia:

8 wickets at 84.00 in Australia.
0 wickets in 1 Test in New Zealand.
19 wickets at 40.73 in England.

Yasir Shah is basically a liability outside Asia against decent opposition. They would do better to play Shadab Khan in South Africa, or a fifth quick bowler.

And his low ranking and rating reflect a player who is brilliant on dry grassless wickets and poor on grassy ones.

Let me guess, on these green pitches in NZ Shadab would have scores 50 whilst batsmen like YK and Misbah could barely put bat on ball but Shadab should be selected because he might score 10 more runs than Yasir.

Give me a break.