Test ranking system is flawed?

[Haroon786]

The way the rankings are done for cricket is pretty standard, very similar to that for tennis, football etc.

You can make a case for giving more weight to away games, but I don't think it will make much of a difference. All teams do well at home. Sometimes a team does well abroad, but it doesn't really happen regularly enough to make a difference.

How are they similar to Tennis ?

Tennis is a tournament based sport where you get different amounts of points for the class of tournament you play with the Majors getting 2000 points and 250 tourneys getting 250 points. In Tennis beating a higher ranked player or losing to a lower ranked player ar enot accounted for in the rankings unlike Tests. Furthermore Test Cricket is a series based sport where even drawing a series can lose you points, where do draws factor in Tennis ? They don't exist.

That is without even considering the futility of comparing single player sport to a team sport - it's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Napa]

SIF I agree with you most of the time but not on this. if ranking system is adjusted by giving weighted points to home/away matches, lost matches at home should cost more -ve points, because usually winning team gains same points which losing team gets in -ve.

That is the correct way to calculate, the gain by one team equals the loss by the other. This is pretty standard in calculating rankings, for example chess ELO ratings.

Nice analysis btw.

 

[Napa]

How are they similar to Tennis ?

Tennis is a tournament based sport where you get different amounts of points for the class of tournament you play with the Majors getting 2000 points and 250 tourneys getting 250 points. In Tennis beating a higher ranked player or losing to a lower ranked player ar enot accounted for in the rankings unlike Tests. Furthermore Test Cricket is a series based sport where even drawing a series can lose you points, where do draws factor in Tennis ? They don't exist.

That is without even considering the futility of comparing single player sport to a team sport - it's like comparing apples and oranges.

I stand corrected, the ranking for tennis players seems rather different. I was trying to find examples of sports where multiple individual/teams compete against each other, tennis is not a good comparison with cricket apparently.

 

[Haroon786]

I stand corrected, the ranking for tennis players seems rather different. I was trying to find examples of sports where multiple individual/teams compete against each other, tennis is not a good comparison with cricket apparently.

No problem.

I only really follow Tennis and Cricket properly, so can't really comment in detail on other sports but perhaps Rugby might have a similar ranking system to Cricket.

 

[Spidy201]

SIF I agree with you most of the time but not on this. if ranking system is adjusted by giving weighted points to home/away matches, lost matches at home should cost more -ve points, because usually winning team gains same points which losing team gets in -ve. if ranking are calculated this way it will again give India at top, as India is so dominant at home that the rarely lose any thing.
here is an sample of adjusted ranking system
win away = +1.5
win home = +1
draw home = .25
draw away = .75
lost away = -1
lost home = -1.5

by using this method of weighted points let's see what India gets based on last 2 years performance I.e from 12 Oct 2014 onwards.(- minnows I.e WI ban and Zim)

India in Aus 0-2(2 draws) points = -0.5
(-2 for two lost matches and +1.5 for two draws away)
India in sri Lanka 2-1, points = 2
(3 for away two wins -1 for away defeat)
NZ in India 0-3, points = 3
SA in India 0-3(1 draw), points = +3.25

total points = 8.75 in 14 matches
net average = 8.75/14 = 0.625


when same thing done with England

Aus in Eng 2-3, points = O
(+3 for won matches -3 for lost two home matches)

Eng in SA 2-1 points = 2
(+3 for won away matches and -1 for defeat)

SL in Eng 0-2(1 draw) points = 2.25
(.25 for home draw and +2 for wins)

Pak in Eng 2-2, points = -1
(+2 for wins, -3 for defeats)

NZ in Eng 1-1, points = -0.5
(-1.5 for defeat and +1 for victory)

Eng in u.a.e 0-2(1 draw) points= -1.25
(-2 for away defeat, +.75 for draw)

total= 1.5 in 21 matches
net average = .071

for Pakistan

Aus in U.A.E 0-2, points: +2

Pak in SL 2-1, points: 2
(+3 for wins, -1 for defeat)

Pak vs Eng in UAE 2-0 (1 draw) points: 2.25
(.25 for draw, 2 for wins)

Pak in Eng 2-2 points : +1
(+3 for wins,-2 for defeat)

Pak vs NZ in UAE 1-1 (draw 1) points : -.25
(+1 for win, -1.5 for defeat and +.25 for draw)

total = 7 in 15 matches
net average = 0.466


so
India = 0.625
pak= 0.466
Eng = 0.071

this happens because India rarely lose at home whereas Eng and Pak might have few wins abroad and gain some more points, but they lose/draw too at home, which should cost as much.
many people will never be satisfied with ranking system, generally because there team is not at top.
if ICC introduce away/home weighted points, and by chance India goes to Sri Lanka and win some good points same people will raise their eyebrows and say weight points should only be used when away from continent not just away from home.

Just want to add, In this analysis I have not given more points for beating higher ranked team, this is just an example of weighted away/home ranking system

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

SIF I agree with you most of the time but not on this. if ranking system is adjusted by giving weighted points to home/away matches, lost matches at home should cost more -ve points, because usually winning team gains same points which losing team gets in -ve. if ranking are calculated this way it will again give India at top, as India is so dominant at home that the rarely lose any thing.
here is an sample of adjusted ranking system
win away = +1.5
win home = +1
draw home = .25
draw away = .75
lost away = -1
lost home = -1.5

by using this method of weighted points let's see what India gets based on last 2 years performance I.e from 12 Oct 2014 onwards.(- minnows I.e WI ban and Zim)

India in Aus 0-2(2 draws) points = -0.5
(-2 for two lost matches and +1.5 for two draws away)
India in sri Lanka 2-1, points = 2
(3 for away two wins -1 for away defeat)
NZ in India 0-3, points = 3
SA in India 0-3(1 draw), points = +3.25

total points = 8.75 in 14 matches
net average = 8.75/14 = 0.625


when same thing done with England

Aus in Eng 2-3, points = O
(+3 for won matches -3 for lost two home matches)

Eng in SA 2-1 points = 2
(+3 for won away matches and -1 for defeat)

SL in Eng 0-2(1 draw) points = 2.25
(.25 for home draw and +2 for wins)

Pak in Eng 2-2, points = -1
(+2 for wins, -3 for defeats)

NZ in Eng 1-1, points = -0.5
(-1.5 for defeat and +1 for victory)

Eng in u.a.e 0-2(1 draw) points= -1.25
(-2 for away defeat, +.75 for draw)

total= 1.5 in 21 matches
net average = .071

for Pakistan

Aus in U.A.E 0-2, points: +2

Pak in SL 2-1, points: 2
(+3 for wins, -1 for defeat)

Pak vs Eng in UAE 2-0 (1 draw) points: 2.25
(.25 for draw, 2 for wins)

Pak in Eng 2-2 points : +1
(+3 for wins,-2 for defeat)

Pak vs NZ in UAE 1-1 (draw 1) points : -.25
(+1 for win, -1.5 for defeat and +.25 for draw)

total = 7 in 15 matches
net average = 0.466


so
India = 0.625
pak= 0.466
Eng = 0.071

this happens because India rarely lose at home whereas Eng and Pak might have few wins abroad and gain some more points, but they lose/draw too at home, which should cost as much.
many people will never be satisfied with ranking system, generally because there team is not at top.
if ICC introduce away/home weighted points, and by chance India goes to Sri Lanka and win some good points same people will raise their eyebrows and say weight points should only be used when away from continent not just away from home.

Nice post...I will look into it deeper...

It need not be that way be like that home team loses as many points as the other team gains.

Lost away and lost home can be -1...instead of -1.5

Away teams can get more points for winning but home teams don't have to have the same point reduction as the away team. The away team gets HUGE GAINS but the home team doesn't have to suffer huge losses for losing a game. But they would suffer losses overall cos they missed out chances to gain easy points at home.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It is possible that no matter what we do India could come out on top cos we rarely lose at home as Spidy says. Haha......

I think then only approach should be coordinated tours of home and away with all the rest of the teams. That would keep things in balance.

Would keep it fair and honestly...I would like some home and away tours mixed in. Helps build a team better than only home tours followed by only away tours.

2017 end - 2018 we tour SA, Eng and Aus if I am not wrong.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The same applies to Pakistan too.

They rarely ever toured outside Asia before Eng.

The last series goes back to Zim 2014 and before that it was SA 2013.

Need more coordinated tours along with home-away points for it to make sense.

 

[Someguy]

The whole system is setup in favor of India as they control ICC. A team that can't even buy a match outside of home becomes no. 1 test team in the world? Comical. Anyone remember their tours to England and Australia? Indians have short term memory problems. Now they rigged their fixtures to stay home, make non-neutral tracks and mislead the world into thinking that they are any good. Pathetic. You have to win away from home on bouncy tracks and swinging conditions to be considered no. 1.

 

[Spidy201]

The whole system is setup in favor of India as they control ICC. A team that can't even buy a match outside of home becomes no. 1 test team in the world? Comical. Anyone remember their tours to England and Australia? Indians have short term memory problems. Now they rigged their fixtures to stay home, make non-neutral tracks and mislead the world into thinking that they are any good. Pathetic. You have to win away from home on bouncy tracks and swinging conditions to be considered no. 1.

wow!!! BCCI mislead whole world but somehow someguy escaped, now someguy is enlightening us, Thanks mate.
BTW Pakistan before becoming no. 1 in ranking after tour of England had played 20 matches back to back in Asia since Oct 2013. they didn't prove themselves in bouncy and/or seaming tracks, I guess PCB had mislead the world then.

 

[Smbhayi]

That's because we don't doctor our conditions,.

But you guys are using zippers

 

[Napa]

You have to win away from home on bouncy tracks and swinging conditions to be considered no. 1.

That is your opinion, and apparently ICC doesn't agree with you.

 

[Napa]

India manages to pummel England in the upcoming series on their awful, doctored pitches.

Last time Pakistan visited Australia, they were whitewashed. Next when Australia visited UAE they were whitewashed in return by Pakistan.

You think it is only Indian bowlers who have home advantage?

 

[Bilal7]

Last time Pakistan visited Australia, they were whitewashed. Next when Australia visited UAE they were whitewashed in return by Pakistan.

You think it is only Indian bowlers who have home advantage?

Bowlers? Yes. Australian batsmen have almost as big an advantage as Indian bowlers do.

Pakistan don't have control over the pitches in the UAE since that is not their home venue. They're just playing really well against the odds which is why they have received universal acclaim.

 

[Napa]

Pakistan don't have control over the pitches in the UAE since that is not their home venue. They're just playing really well against the odds which is why they have received universal acclaim.

Pakistan's record at UAE and Away against the top 3 teams who have played there (last series played)

from: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=7;type=team

--------- UAE ---- Away
Aus --- 2-0 (2) --- 0-3 (3)
Eng --- 2-0 (3) --- 2-2 (4)
SA --- 0-0 (2) --- 0-3 (3)
Total -- 4-0 (7) --- 2-8 (10)

The winning percentage for Tests in UAE is 57%, and away is 20%. The losing percentage in UAE is 0%, and away is 80%.

You want us to believe that home advantage has nothing to do with the difference between 57% and 20%, and between 0% and 80%.

Either you are being naive, or you think we are.

 

[Napa]

Pakistan's record at UAE and Away against the top 3 teams who have played there (last series played)

from: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=7;type=team

--------- UAE ---- Away
Aus --- 2-0 (2) --- 0-3 (3)
Eng --- 2-0 (3) --- 2-2 (4)
SA --- 0-0 (2) --- 0-3 (3)
Total -- 4-0 (7) --- 2-8 (10)

The winning percentage for Tests in UAE is 57%, and away is 20%. The losing percentage in UAE is 0%, and away is 80%.

You want us to believe that home advantage has nothing to do with the difference between 57% and 20%, and between 0% and 80%.

Either you are being naive, or you think we are.

Correction, the last time SA played in UAE, the series was drawn 1-1 (2013/14). I was looking at the 2010/11 by mistake.

The updated percentages are: 71% and 20% for wins, and 14% and 80% for losses.

 

[Bilal7]

Correction, the last time SA played in UAE, the series was drawn 1-1 (2013/14). I was looking at the 2010/11 by mistake.

The updated percentages are: 71% and 20% for wins, and 14% and 80% for losses.

You can only analyse so much from statistics. We last played in Australia nearly 7 years ago, with both teams completely different from how they are now.

Also, apart from three poor showings (two against South Africa and one against England) we were competitive in all the other matches that we have played in these countries in the last four years. Almost won the matches at Cape Town and Edgbaston.

So the disparity is nowhere near as big as you make it seem.

 

[Napa]

Also, apart from three poor showings (two against South Africa and one against England) we were competitive in all the other matches that we have played in these countries in the last four years. Almost won the matches at Cape Town and Edgbaston.

So the disparity is nowhere near as big as you make it seem.

The disparity is about the same as it is for the Indian team. We did come close to winning in Australia, but stats will say the series ended 2-0 (4).

Anyway, I think we both understand each others' viewpoints, and can agree to disagree. Good luck to your team going forward.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Course it is, any system that doesnt have a specified fixed number of games for at least the top half sides is completely broken to begin with.

Not true.

This was an idea peddled first by BD fans, and now ZIM and IRE fans. "We can't move up the rankings because we don't play as many games."

The rankings are actually an average of points/matches played...thus the opposite is actually true. The more you play, the harder it is to maintain a certain rating.

Zimbabwe got exposed in 2015 once they started playing a ton of ODIs and their ranking plummetted.

Put another way. Its easier to win a one off match than it is to win a 7 ODI series.

 

[Abdul]

Massively flawed. Hopefully ICC make some adjustments and do something about it.

 

[joly]

sif i agree with you most of the time but not on this. If ranking system is adjusted by giving weighted points to home/away matches, lost matches at home should cost more -ve points, because usually winning team gains same points which losing team gets in -ve. If ranking are calculated this way it will again give india at top, as india is so dominant at home that the rarely lose any thing.
Here is an sample of adjusted ranking system
win away = +1.5
win home = +1
draw home = .25
draw away = .75
lost away = -1
lost home = -1.5

by using this method of weighted points let's see what india gets based on last 2 years performance i.e from 12 oct 2014 onwards.(- minnows i.e wi ban and zim)

india in aus 0-2(2 draws) points = -0.5
(-2 for two lost matches and +1.5 for two draws away)
india in sri lanka 2-1, points = 2
(3 for away two wins -1 for away defeat)
nz in india 0-3, points = 3
sa in india 0-3(1 draw), points = +3.25

total points = 8.75 in 14 matches
net average = 8.75/14 = 0.625


when same thing done with england

aus in eng 2-3, points = o
(+3 for won matches -3 for lost two home matches)

eng in sa 2-1 points = 2
(+3 for won away matches and -1 for defeat)

sl in eng 0-2(1 draw) points = 2.25
(.25 for home draw and +2 for wins)

pak in eng 2-2, points = -1
(+2 for wins, -3 for defeats)

nz in eng 1-1, points = -0.5
(-1.5 for defeat and +1 for victory)

eng in u.a.e 0-2(1 draw) points= -1.25
(-2 for away defeat, +.75 for draw)

total= 1.5 in 21 matches
net average = .071

for pakistan

aus in u.a.e 0-2, points: +2

pak in sl 2-1, points: 2
(+3 for wins, -1 for defeat)

pak vs eng in uae 2-0 (1 draw) points: 2.25
(.25 for draw, 2 for wins)

pak in eng 2-2 points : +1
(+3 for wins,-2 for defeat)

pak vs nz in uae 1-1 (draw 1) points : -.25
(+1 for win, -1.5 for defeat and +.25 for draw)

total = 7 in 15 matches
net average = 0.466


so
india = 0.625
pak= 0.466
eng = 0.071

this happens because india rarely lose at home whereas eng and pak might have few wins abroad and gain some more points, but they lose/draw too at home, which should cost as much.
many people will never be satisfied with ranking system, generally because there team is not at top.
If icc introduce away/home weighted points, and by chance india goes to sri lanka and win some good points same people will raise their eyebrows and say weight points should only be used when away from continent not just away from home.

pow

 

[Anfield]

Two biggest flaws.

1)No extra points for away wins
2)Teams like Aus, Ind and England get to play tons on home matches which help them to accumulate more points, that's the reason they get back to top so quickly.

 

[Anfield]

SIF I agree with you most of the time but not on this. if ranking system is adjusted by giving weighted points to home/away matches, lost matches at home should cost more -ve points, because usually winning team gains same points which losing team gets in -ve. if ranking are calculated this way it will again give India at top, as India is so dominant at home that the rarely lose any thing.
here is an sample of adjusted ranking system
win away = +1.5
win home = +1
draw home = .25
draw away = .75
lost away = -1
lost home = -1.5

by using this method of weighted points let's see what India gets based on last 2 years performance I.e from 12 Oct 2014 onwards.(- minnows I.e WI ban and Zim)

India in Aus 0-2(2 draws) points = -0.5
(-2 for two lost matches and +1.5 for two draws away)
India in sri Lanka 2-1, points = 2
(3 for away two wins -1 for away defeat)
NZ in India 0-3, points = 3
SA in India 0-3(1 draw), points = +3.25

total points = 8.75 in 14 matches
net average = 8.75/14 = 0.625


when same thing done with England

Aus in Eng 2-3, points = O
(+3 for won matches -3 for lost two home matches)

Eng in SA 2-1 points = 2
(+3 for won away matches and -1 for defeat)

SL in Eng 0-2(1 draw) points = 2.25
(.25 for home draw and +2 for wins)

Pak in Eng 2-2, points = -1
(+2 for wins, -3 for defeats)

NZ in Eng 1-1, points = -0.5
(-1.5 for defeat and +1 for victory)

Eng in u.a.e 0-2(1 draw) points= -1.25
(-2 for away defeat, +.75 for draw)

total= 1.5 in 21 matches
net average = .071

for Pakistan

Aus in U.A.E 0-2, points: +2

Pak in SL 2-1, points: 2
(+3 for wins, -1 for defeat)

Pak vs Eng in UAE 2-0 (1 draw) points: 2.25
(.25 for draw, 2 for wins)

Pak in Eng 2-2 points : +1
(+3 for wins,-2 for defeat)

Pak vs NZ in UAE 1-1 (draw 1) points : -.25
(+1 for win, -1.5 for defeat and +.25 for draw)

total = 7 in 15 matches
net average = 0.466


so
India = 0.625
pak= 0.466
Eng = 0.071

this happens because India rarely lose at home whereas Eng and Pak might have few wins abroad and gain some more points, but they lose/draw too at home, which should cost as much.
many people will never be satisfied with ranking system, generally because there team is not at top.
if ICC introduce away/home weighted points, and by chance India goes to Sri Lanka and win some good points same people will raise their eyebrows and say weight points should only be used when away from continent not just away from home.

You didn't take into account losing or winning the series. Surely there should be some points for wining the series. If a team wins a 3 test match home series by 1-0 it would be losing points by your system.

 

[Anfield]

And you have only one away series which you lost. You lost in Aus, SA, NZ and England.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Two biggest flaws.

1)No extra points for away wins
2)Teams like Aus, Ind and England get to play tons on home matches which help them to accumulate more points, that's the reason they get back to top so quickly.

Aus, Eng and SL play more % of matches at home and Pakistan plays less % of matches away (more matches at neutral/home) which helps them.

For most of the Indian batsmen you would find more than 50% of matches away while for Aus, Eng, Pak and SL you would find less than 50% matches away

 

[Spidy201]

You didn't take into account losing or winning the series. Surely there should be some points for wining the series. If a team wins a 3 test match home series by 1-0 it would be losing points by your system.

wrong, if you win 3 match series by 1-0 you get 1.5 points(1 for win and 0.25*2=0.5 for two draws), and net average for that series will be 1.5/3 = 0.5
And its effects on your overall average depends upon what it was before that series, if average was better than 0.5 it will decrease, and if it was lower than 0.5 it will increase.
so, basically if you have better past record (better than 1-0 in 3 match series) you lose points, and if you have worse past record like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe and you win a series by 1-0 you gain points.
fair enough?

 

[Couch Cricketer]

I think the problem is less about home advantage as everyone has home advantage. But how the tests are divided India will play 13 test at home in a row. It would be better if each team plays similar number of away and home tests in the ranking period. As that would normalise the rankings automatically. The difference between home and away test should not be more than 1 or 2 over a 2 year period.

 

[GrandMaster]

The whole system is setup in favor of India as they control ICC. A team that can't even buy a match outside of home becomes no. 1 test team in the world? Comical. Anyone remember their tours to England and Australia? Indians have short term memory problems. Now they rigged their fixtures to stay home, make non-neutral tracks and mislead the world into thinking that they are any good. Pathetic. You have to win away from home on bouncy tracks and swinging conditions to be considered no. 1.

cry me a river.

 

[Sadevdesai]

May be so .... but it is still same for all !!!

 

[Napa]

I think the problem is less about home advantage as everyone has home advantage. <b>But how the tests are divided India will play 13 test at home in a row.</b> It would be better if each team plays similar number of away and home tests in the ranking period. As that would normalise the rankings automatically. The difference between home and away test should not be more than 1 or 2 over a 2 year period.

Simply because they have been playing abroad for a long time, now it is there turn to play at home.

 

[Napa]

*their

 

[Anfield]

Aus, Eng and SL play more % of matches at home and Pakistan plays less % of matches away (more matches at neutral/home) which helps them.

For most of the Indian batsmen you would find more than 50% of matches away while for Aus, Eng, Pak and SL you would find less than 50% matches away

I was talking about actual numbers not percentage.

 

[AlizeeFan]

I was talking about actual numbers not percentage.

In terms of numbers only in last 3 years:

Eng 21-15
Aus 15-17
Sri Lanka 15-14
South Africa 14-11
WI 14-13
Pakistan 13-11
New Zealand 11-19
India 9-21

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Simply because they have been playing abroad for a long time, now it is there turn to play at home.

Yeah that is wrong as well after these 13 tests I believe they will play 10-12 test abroad in a row. The series should be spread more evenly between home and away.

 

[Anfield]

In terms of numbers only in last 3 years:

Eng 21-15
Aus 15-17
Sri Lanka 15-14
South Africa 14-11
WI 14-13
Pakistan 13-11
New Zealand 11-19
India 9-21

Tell me at the end of this year after the home season. Also you can see how much less cricket Pakistan play compared to other nations. And these have been our best years in terms of marched we played. India who has been playing a lot of away matches has played only 4 less home matches than us.

 

[Buffet]

Two biggest flaws.

1)No extra points for away wins
2)Teams like Aus, Ind and England get to play tons on home matches which help them to accumulate more points, that's the reason they get back to top so quickly.

Points get divided by number of matches so it hardly helps to play 5 test match in series vs 2 tests in a series. Eng doesn't get back to top much. India and Aus pretty much smash everyone at home and that's why they accumulate lots of points, but it doesn't have much to do with the number of tests in series.

If teams play more home test series then yes, it will help. Number of matches doesn't have much impact.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Possibly because the rankings actually count every game that is played and not only the ones that catch your fancy.

The rankings are objective, and not different from rankings in other sports like tennis. However, rained out games should not be counted as draws. If it were not for rained out games, India would have been comfortably ahead of other teams.

A batting lineup of Rahul/Vijay, Gambhir, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Rohit Ashwin, Saha, Jadeja will make any bowling attack cry. Maybe the first time in history that every one of the first 8 batsmen has a reasonable chance of scoring a century. India is by far the #1 team.

Jadeja does not have a single 100 in test matches. I am sorry to burst your bubble but England, Pakistan, and Australia have better batting line-ups in tests.

 

[Chrish]

Jadeja does not have a single 100 in test matches. I am sorry to burst your bubble but England, Pakistan, and Australia have better batting line-ups in tests.

Depend what conditions you are referring to.. Indian batting is almost similar as England's. Fragile upper-middle order and very strong tail that bail the team out of trouble.

 

[Napa]

Jadeja does not have a single 100 in test matches. I am sorry to burst your bubble but England, Pakistan, and Australia have better batting line-ups in tests.

Yes, I know Jadeja doesn't have a single hundred, that is why I said 8 and not 9.

As for other countries having better lineups, the series played over the next six months should answer a lot of questions. Right now you could maybe point to any other country with 6 or more centurions in their lineup.

 

[Someguy]

Once again Indians with their memory problems. When they were kicked out of 2007 wc the quickly skampered to have series vs zimbawe and bengladezh to cover up the failure. Whenever Tendulker would have a rough patch vs good teams in away games, they would quickly schedule a series vs kenya or zimbawe to improve his avg. When they were embarassed in away games, the board decided to have 13 tests at home in a row. The whole system is rigged. I am also to believe that Ashwin is the best bowler in the world and also only his action happens to never be questioned by ICC. Indians think that everyone else doesnt realize what games they are playing.

 

[Someguy]

Once again Indians with their memory problems. When they were kicked out of 2007 wc the quickly skampered to have series vs zimbawe and bengladezh to cover up the failure. Whenever Tendulker would have a rough patch vs good teams in away games, they would quickly schedule a series vs kenya or zimbawe to improve his avg. When they were embarassed in away games, the board decided to have 13 tests at home in a row. The whole system is rigged. I am also to believe that Ashwin is the best bowler in the world and also only his action happens to never be questioned by ICC. Indians think that everyone else doesnt realize what games they are playing. Lol and did my Indian friend refer to Ashwin as a batsman? Lol suddenly everyone is an alrounder in India. I remember how they destroyed irfan pathans career by forcing him to become an alrounder when he was barely a descent bowler at best. Anyone who can hold a bat becomed an " alrounder" to Indians. Imran khans and abdul razzaqs are born not forced no matter how hard you try.

 

[PerfectionPersonified]

Any time there is a scheduled pakistan v india series and india refuse to play pakistan should be award a whitewash series win when it comes to ranking points. I dont see much value on Indias number 1 ranking when they refuse to play the one team who are most likely to beat them both home and away.

Spot on, Pakistan in current form will beat India on most venues , including in UAE, India and most importantly Pak has the potential to Whitewash India if Pak and India play in Eng.
No Wonder India refuses to play us

 

[PerfectionPersonified]

When was the last time India beat pakistan in Tests, Genuine question.

If India refuses to Play against Pak due to politics then they should be deducted -20 points imo and NEVER EVER deserve to claim #1 ranking

 

[Napa]

<b>When was the last time India beat pakistan in Tests, Genuine question.</b>

If India refuses to Play against Pak due to politics then they should be deducted -20 points imo and NEVER EVER deserve to claim #1 ranking

The last series they played which India won 1-0.

 

[Napa]

Yeah be sarcastic when u cant address my points directly to escape

To address points like "Whenever Tendulker would have a rough patch vs good teams in away games, they would quickly schedule a series vs kenya or zimbawe to improve his avg" requires me to dig through series records etc. It can be quite a bit of work, and when the original point is near absurd, it doesn't seem worth it.

 

[athar000]

This is so absurd , how can the home win can be given same point as away win ,when away win is almost becoming impossible . How can a team can be considered when almost half of the wickets are taken by part timers such as Ravindera jadega , when he can't play even as 12th man in England , Australia pitches. with greedy board ruling the roost , test cricket is almost certain to demise.

 

[Ellipsism]

This is so absurd , how can the home win can be given same point as away win ,when away win is almost becoming impossible . How can a team can be considered when almost half of the wickets are taken by part timers such as Ravindera jadega , when he can't play even as 12th man in England , Australia pitches. with greedy board ruling the roost , test cricket is almost certain to demise.

Jadeja isn't a part timer. The reason he was 12th man in England and Australia was due to a the fact that a second spinner isn't required in such conditions... Serious question, have you watched any test cricket lately?

 

[cricketfan99]

But who can they beat away from home?
How many matches have they won away in the last 4 years?

But who can they beat away from home?
How many matches have they won away in the last 4 years?

Last 4 years??

With all due respect, 1st of all these days every team does good at home only. Its not only INDIA. You don't become no. 1 by performing only abroad. Losing at home is more shameful. Look at australia's recent performance in srilanka. And now in South africa. They aren't able to win anything. And still we call australia one of the best and fearless team in world cricket. Because they have proven it time n again. We asians , we do 1 good performance overseas and we call ourselves best team in the world. ********.

No doubt pak performance was brilliant in England. Especially winning that last match on Independence day was just amazing. But you don't become the best team by just drawing a series in one tour. You need these kind of performances for a longer period of time on tours of australia , south africa , Newzealand etc. by wining or drawing the series. Thats what australia n SA has done in the past (recently england did well by beating india in india).

But coming back at your question, performances in Last 4 years abroad.

What Pak team has done in the last 4 years on abroad tours? see for urself

In 2013 they played in SA
Played 3 , Lost 3
In ZIm
Played 2, Lost-1, Won-1, (* Damn you lost to ZIm)

In 2014 Pak played in srilanka

Played 2, Lost -2 (*In 2 years from 2013 to 2014 you played 7 lost 6)

Now In 2015, In Bangladesh
Played 2, Drawn -1 , won-1

In srilanka - Played 3 , won -2, Lost -1 (*Finally some good performance abroad, still in asia)

So over all you played 11, Lost-7, won-4 , drawn -1
(out of 4 wins 1 was against zim, 1 against bangla)

Now how in hell you can even think that pak is best or number 1 just by beating england 2 matches in a tour. But still they were no.1 few days back. This is because of their wins at dubai, sharjah n abu dhabi by beating teams like zim, WI, Srilanka etc. (*They even lost matches at home - from SA in 2013, from SL in 2014 and from NZ in 2014) This is definitely a flawed ranking system. But Same for all.

Now India in the last 4 years. (Not that great performance too)

In 2013
Played 2 in SA, Lost 1, drawn-1

In 2014
Played 2 in NZ, lost-1, drawn-1

5 in eng, won-1, lost-3, drawn-1

3 in AUs, Lost-2, drawn-1

(In these 2 years Ind played 12, lost-7, won -1 , drawn -4. ** in the same period pak lost 6 matches out of 7 which included a loss in zim and in SL. While india lost 7 out of 12. Both india n Pak were poor but india played in 4 toughest tours one can get)

Now in 2015

1 in Aus , Drawn -1
1 in Bangla, drawn-1
3 in SL, won-2 , lost-1

In 2016

4 in WI, won -2 , drawn -2

Now in these two years we have won *Series* in Sri lanka and WI.
Further We have not lost a single match at home these 4 years (2013-2016). We have beaten Aus- 4-0, SA- 3-0, WI, 2-0, NZ 3-0.

By no means India's performance is lesser than Pak's. Infact it is better. And that is why we are number 1 right now. Yes Pak performance was commendable in eng . won-2, lost -2.

 

[cricketfan99]

.

 

[cricketfan99]

Spot on, Pakistan in current form will beat India on most venues , including in UAE, India and most importantly Pak has the potential to Whitewash India if Pak and India play in Eng.
No Wonder India refuses to play us

Bro why we should India n Pak play Test in england. Hilarious . Why not in WI , SA, Aus, Honolulu, Miami, hondurus, namibia . The last time we played we beat Pak. . And please read following comparison. It will open ur eyes.



With all due respect, 1st of all these days every team does good at home only. Its not only INDIA. You don't become no. 1 by performing only abroad. Losing at home is more shameful. Look at australia's recent performance in srilanka. And now in South africa. They aren't able to win anything. And still we call australia one of the best and fearless team in world cricket. Because they have proven it time n again. We asians , we do 1 good performance overseas and we call ourselves best team in the world. ********.

No doubt pak performance was brilliant in England. Especially winning that last match on Independence day was just amazing. But you don't become the best team by just drawing a series in one tour. You need these kind of performances for a longer period of time on tours of australia , south africa , Newzealand etc. by wining or drawing the series. Thats what australia n SA has done in the past (recently england did well by beating india in india).

But coming back at your question, performances in Last 4 years abroad.

What Pak team has done in the last 4 years on abroad tours? see for urself

In 2013 they played in SA
Played 3 , Lost 3
In ZIm
Played 2, Lost-1, Won-1, (* Damn you lost to ZIm)

In 2014 Pak played in srilanka

Played 2, Lost -2 (*In 2 years from 2013 to 2014 you played 7 lost 6)

Now In 2015, In Bangladesh
Played 2, Drawn -1 , won-1

In srilanka - Played 3 , won -2, Lost -1 (*Finally some good performance abroad, still in asia)

So over all you played 11, Lost-7, won-4 , drawn -1
(out of 4 wins 1 was against zim, 1 against bangla)

Now how in hell you can even think that pak is best or number 1 just by beating england 2 matches in a tour. But still they were no.1 few days back. This is because of their wins at dubai, sharjah n abu dhabi by beating teams like zim, WI, Srilanka etc. (*They even lost matches at home - from SA in 2013, from SL in 2014 and from NZ in 2014) This is definitely a flawed ranking system. But Same for all.

Now India in the last 4 years. (Not that great performance too)

In 2013
Played 2 in SA, Lost 1, drawn-1

In 2014
Played 2 in NZ, lost-1, drawn-1

5 in eng, won-1, lost-3, drawn-1

3 in AUs, Lost-2, drawn-1

(In these 2 years Ind played 12, lost-7, won -1 , drawn -4. ** in the same period pak lost 6 matches out of 7 which included a loss in zim and in SL. While india lost 7 out of 12. Both india n Pak were poor but india played in 4 toughest tours one can get)

Now in 2015

1 in Aus , Drawn -1
1 in Bangla, drawn-1
3 in SL, won-2 , lost-1

In 2016

4 in WI, won -2 , drawn -2

Now in these two years we have won *Series* in Sri lanka and WI.
Further We have not lost a single match at home these 4 years (2013-2016). We have beaten Aus- 4-0, SA- 3-0, WI, 2-0, NZ 3-0.

By no means India's performance is lesser than Pak's. Infact it is better. And that is why we are number 1 right now. Yes Pak performance was commendable in eng . won-2, lost -2.

 

[Someguy]

I am also the no.1 student in my class I am also the only student in my class. I refuse to compete vs any other students, especially away from my classroom. I am the best student in my class, I am also the only student in my class and my teacher (ICC) says I don't have to go a compete with any one's turf to make that claim.

 

[Someguy]

India is the biggest money maker team in the world, so it does not make good business sense that they are embarrassed / exposed or humiliated by other teams.
Solution 1: Introduce drop in pitches in Australia where Indian "greats" have been pathetic to save flat track bullies from being exposed.
Solution 2: Introduce two new balls in each side so that the threat of reverse swing is all but neutralized since India has never had and never will produce a reverse swing pacer, so why should it be allowed in cricket at all?
Solution 4: If India still happen to be disgraced in away games (Vs eng/Aus), then simply schedule the next 13 tests in a row on home tracks with cracks vs Ghuray who are traditionally bad vs spin.
Problem solved.

 

[RainMan_]

Are the ICC rankings becoming pointless?

The title says it all. I myself have been wondering it for quite some time and finally come to the conclusion that in last 4/5 years ranking, especially test ranking has turned into a piece of joke.

In recent times it has become a norm that no matter where u reside as a team in test ranking u will get thrashed the moment u will step outside. If u r a non Asian team u will lose in Asia and if u r an Asian team u will lose outside Asia regardless of the quality of the opposition.

This belief of mine has further been solidified with the recent performances of the current no 1 test team. I can remember the time when ranking actually meant something. I can remember the time when well deserved top class teams like SA, ENG or AUS were at the helm of rankings who won almost everywhere like a true no 1. What's ur opinion?

 

[Stalin]

The title says it all. I myself have been wondering it for quite some time and finally come to the conclusion that in last 4/5 years ranking, especially test ranking has turned into a piece of joke.

In recent times it has become a norm that no matter where u reside as a team in test ranking u will get thrashed the moment u will step outside. If u r a non Asian team u will lose in Asia and if u r an Asian team u will lose outside Asia regardless of the quality of the opposition.

This belief of mine has further been solidified with the recent performances of the current no 1 test team. I can remember the time when ranking actually meant something. I can remember the time when well deserved top class teams like SA, ENG or AUS were at the helm of rankings who won almost everywhere like a true no 1. What's ur opinion?

All right . So you clearly think that test ranking is flawed or pointless. And that means you believe the current No.1 ranked team does not deserve it. And that also means that there is another team which "deserves" the No.1 ranking instead of India.

So, my dear Whineman ..sorry Rainman , can you please do me a favour and reveal the current deservant test no.1 team and enlighten us , the poor souls here on PP
Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

 

[Stalin]

The title says it all. I myself have been wondering it for quite some time and finally come to the conclusion that in last 4/5 years ranking, especially test ranking has turned into a piece of joke.

In recent times it has become a norm that no matter where u reside as a team in test ranking u will get thrashed the moment u will step outside. If u r a non Asian team u will lose in Asia and if u r an Asian team u will lose outside Asia regardless of the quality of the opposition.

This belief of mine has further been solidified with the recent performances of the current no 1 test team. I can remember the time when ranking actually meant something. I can remember the time when well deserved top class teams like SA, ENG or AUS were at the helm of rankings who won almost everywhere like a true no 1. What's ur opinion?

I mean, what do you want. Nobody at No.1 spot??? And start the rankings from maybe 4 or 5 ?? And just leave the No.1 spot , or all the top 3 spots vacant?? Just because no team deserves it???
Be clear with what you want exactly buddy .

 

[cricketindiafan]

The title says it all. I myself have been wondering it for quite some time and finally come to the conclusion that in last 4/5 years ranking, especially test ranking has turned into a piece of joke.

In recent times it has become a norm that no matter where u reside as a team in test ranking u will get thrashed the moment u will step outside. If u r a non Asian team u will lose in Asia and if u r an Asian team u will lose outside Asia regardless of the quality of the opposition.

This belief of mine has further been solidified with the recent performances of the current no 1 test team. I can remember the time when ranking actually meant something. I can remember the time when well deserved top class teams like SA, ENG or AUS were at the helm of rankings who won almost everywhere like a true no 1. What's ur opinion?

Full sympathies man. Can completely understand your pain to see us at number 1 since Nov 2016.

Without being boastful and with complete respect , let me say that we have won as many tests in last two years as your powerhouse team has won in its test history

 

[Stalin]

Full sympathies man. Can completely understand your pain to see us at number 1 since Nov 2016.

Without being boastful and with complete respect , let me say that we have won as many tests in last two years as your powerhouse team has won in its test history

Wait ..... Is he ...???? Oh my gosh .
Now I see.

 

[KP From India]

Powerhouse should be declared no 1 irrespective of home and away performance.

 

[MenInG]

So with New Zealand's performance, the question of ICC's rankings comes into play again - are they truly reflective?

 

[Thulsa]

So with New Zealand's performance, the question of ICC's rankings comes into play again - are they truly reflective?

No it’s not flawed but I would posit that peoples understanding of it is, hence the question being asked many times.

 

[Titan24]

No it’s not flawed but I would posit that peoples understanding of it is, hence the question being asked many times.

Considering how much difference home and away makes in tests so there can be an argument for it to be reflective in points somehow as well. Aus gets the same amount of points winning at home as NZ would have gotten if they somehow won in Aus; definitely in that case NZ efforts would have warranted more credit while maybe Aus should get less points in the ranking table for winning at home.

Teams which play and have been playing more test cricket at home are obviously going to have a better shot at the top rankings than the teams who have recently been travelling more. So sometimes rankings reflect the home and away seasons rather than actual overall performances of the teams.

Yes rankings might still be arguable but it will have an important thing in cricket incorporated atleast. Home and away in cricket makes much more difference due to conditions than most other sports so I think rankings should incorporate it somehow.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Every team has sucked at some point. Those who sucked less are at the top of the tree.

 

[Thulsa]

Considering how much difference home and away makes in tests so there can be an argument for it to be reflective in points somehow as well. Aus gets the same amount of points winning at home as NZ would have gotten if they somehow won in Aus; definitely in that case NZ efforts would have warranted more credit while maybe Aus should get less points in the ranking table for winning at home.

Teams which play and have been playing more test cricket at home are obviously going to have a better shot at the top rankings than the teams who have recently been travelling more. So sometimes rankings reflect the home and away seasons rather than actual overall performances of the teams.

Yes rankings might still be arguable but it will have an important thing in cricket incorporated atleast. Home and away in cricket makes much more difference due to conditions than most other sports so I think rankings should incorporate it somehow.

I never said it was perfect, yes away wins are harder but how do you define away? Is NZ playing in Australia away - are conditions that alien? What about the sub continent - I would argue the SC is more away than Australasia. So how then Do you assign a weight? You see the issue - it now becomes a mathematical algoritham which in itself has its own deficiencies.

The ranking system is very simple - whomever wins more than loses relative to other teams climbs highest.

Any team at the top has won more than it has lost relative to others. And so deserves to be there - if the argument is then ‘but team X has won more games at home’ then the simple counter is why haven’t others?

 

[Titan24]

I never said it was perfect, yes away wins are harder but how do you define away? Is NZ playing in Australia away - are conditions that alien? What about the sub continent - I would argue the SC is more away than Australasia. So how then Do you assign a weight? You see the issue - it now becomes a mathematical algoritham which in itself has its own deficiencies.

The ranking system is very simple - whomever wins more than loses relative to other teams climbs highest.

Any team at the top has won more than it has lost relative to others. And so deserves to be there - if the argument is then ‘but team X has won more games at home’ then the simple counter is why haven’t others?

If the away and home system is to be brought in than it might have to be standardized a across the board i.e Aus might not feel as alien on SA soil and Pak might feel ok in Srl but both will still be considered away tours for both and this they will be given points accordingly.

Obviously it isnt straight forward but definitely something ICC should think about as conditions play much bigger role in cricket than most other sports and this the home and away advantage is bigger.

Nothing to take away from any team winning more at home. Suggestion is just to have recognition of difference between home and away wins.

 

[Darkrai]

Not currently, but it will likely become flawed when/if Pakistan get to the top.

 

[Sidilicious]

If the away and home system is to be brought in than it might have to be standardized a across the board i.e Aus might not feel as alien on SA soil and Pak might feel ok in Srl but both will still be considered away tours for both and this they will be given points accordingly.

Obviously it isnt straight forward but definitely something ICC should think about as conditions play much bigger role in cricket than most other sports and this the home and away advantage is bigger.

Nothing to take away from any team winning more at home. Suggestion is just to have recognition of difference between home and away wins.

Greater points for away games, would be good. However, ranking is a zero sum game. If you will award extra points for winning away, then you would also go need penalise for losing games. Effectively helping teams who maintain a good home record.

 

[Junaids]

So with New Zealand's performance, the question of ICC's rankings comes into play again - are they truly reflective?

It's the same problem as when Pakistan were briefly Number 1 three years ago - the rankings reflect recent past performances, and when a team has aged together and gone over the hill their ranking remains intact long after the team starts to falter.

We see the same thing with the personal rankings: Kane Williamson is currently Number 3, when his recent form places him around 20, and Azhar Ali is ranked 26 when his form since MisYou retired would not place him in the Top 50.

 

[Gilly]

The rankings are not flawed, the conclusions some draw from the rankings are flawed though.

 

[jnaveen1980]

If they add points to big wins, dock more points to innings defeats this table would look a lot different

 

[Titan24]

Greater points for away games, would be good. However, ranking is a zero sum game. If you will award extra points for winning away, then you would also go need penalise for losing games. Effectively helping teams who maintain a good home record.

You are correct but the my point wasnt exactly to change the rankings because I dont necessarily agree with the standings as that can never be perfect (Due to a lot of factors which change from series to series i.e changing teams, forms, combinations, injuries etc) however I believe home and away conditions play a big role in cricket so that is something which needs to be incorporated in the test rankings as I think India winning at home vs Aus vs winning in Aus, Pak whitewashing Eng in UAE vs drawing the series in En g etc. does need to be differentiated just as the ranking points incorporate different points for beating a higher ranked team than a lower ranked one.

 

[MP2011]

The rankings are not flawed, the conclusions some draw from the rankings are flawed though.

Well said.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

How can any ranking system show India at #1 for 3 years considering that India just lost 7 away tests last year. Its a farce. ICC has to do something about this. A team like Pakistan who outdid India in England is at #7 on the other hand lol. The rankings are inherently flawed and should give higher weight age for drawing in England against England than beating understrength Australia in Australia . Brother [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] can elaborate further if you need details.

 

[JibranAnsari]

How can any ranking system show India at #1 for 3 years considering that India just lost 7 away tests last year. Its a farce. ICC has to do something about this. A team like Pakistan who outdid India in England is at #7 on the other hand lol. The rankings are inherently flawed and should give higher weight age for drawing in England against England than beating understrength Australia in Australia . Brother [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] can elaborate further if you need details.

You can't give weightage to any result based on how undrestrenth the opposition is , the weightage should be given on home and away base. Icc has got it right that you get more points when you beat a higher ranked team or lose more points when you lose to a lower ranked team. Time to incorporate the home and away weightage in the equation as well somehow.

 

[MenInG]

The official ICC rankings may have Australia ranked as the No.5 Test team but Tim Paine's side should be recognised as the second-best team in the world.

That is the assessment of Test legend Ricky Ponting, who says Australia's impressive performances in the past year have put them behind only India as Test cricket's premier team.

Following the 2-0 whitewash of Sri Lanka last summer, Australia retained the Ashes for the first time in 18 years on English soil with a 2-2 result and have been unstoppable at home this season, sweeping Pakistan 2-0 and have dominated New Zealand to be in a strong position for a 3-0 victory.

As it stands India are the No.1 ranked Test side, followed by New Zealand, South Africa, England and Australia, but after watching Paine's side ruthlessly crush Pakistan and the Black Caps this summer, Ponting says a reshuffle is in order.

"I think Australia, on what they've done over a long period of time, although they're officially ranked fifth they're the second-best team in the world," Ponting told cricket.com.au.

"India are still the best team in the world currently, Australia are second, England are struggling.

"England are higher than they should be. They're fourth on the list, they can go down.

"New Zealand can go down a spot on the back on this series because they've just been comprehensively outplayed.

"It's not like they've really even competed to be honest. Perth was very bad (loss by 296 runs), Melbourne was even worse (loss by 247 runs) and Australia bat first here and get 454.

"If you're to compare those two teams, there's no comparison between Australia and New Zealand."

According to Ponting's rankings, India remains at No.1, ahead of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, with the bottom seven sides unchanged.

New Zealand began their campaign coming off an impressive 1-0 series win over England having won six of their past seven Test series without tasting defeat.

But Ponting was wary of the Black Caps status, not so much their deserved team ranking but of the individual rankings of their batters which have proven to be inflated.

Opener and stand-in skipper for the third Test Tom Latham and ill middle-order batter Henry Nicholls were inside the top 10 batters at the start of the tour.

But after a lean series with the bat, Latham (average 25.5 this series) and Nicholls (15.25) have dropped out of the top 10, with regular captain Kane Williamson in danger of losing his position at No.3 to the in-form Marnus Labuschagne, who has rocketed up to fourth before his double-century.

Australia, on the other hand, have Steve Smith (2nd), Labuschagne (4th) and David Warner (equal 7th) in the top 10 batters, and have three bowlers – Pat Cummins, Mitch Starc and Josh Hazlewood – in the top 10 Test bowlers.

It is one of the reasons why Ponting believes Australia are a team on the rise and New Zealand an outfit that has slipped this summer.

"You couldn't begrudge New Zealand's ranking coming here," said Ponting.

"They hadn't lost a series in seven series, so that's a good achievement.

"I was worried about some of their individual player rankings.

"Tom Latham and Henry Nicholls being rated in the top 10 batsmen in the world, they're not, it's as simple as that.

"Latham's overall average is 42 and Nicholls' is 40 and they find themselves in the top 10 in the world – that doesn't make much sense to me.

"That's not good enough to be known as a top 10 batsman in the world.

"I think what Australia have done over the past 12 months they're trending to pretty soon be pushing for the best team in the world again."

Domain Test Series v New Zealand

Australia squad: David Warner, Joe Burns, Marnus Labuschagne, Steve Smith, Matthew Wade, Travis Head, Tim Paine (c, wk), Pat Cummins, Mitch Starc, Nathan Lyon, James Pattinson, Michael Neser, Mitchell Swepson

New Zealand: Todd Astle, Tom Blundell, Trent Boult, Colin de Grandhomme, Matt Henry, Kyle Jamieson, Tom Latham, Henry Nicholls, Glenn Phillips, Jeet Raval, Mitchell Santner, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, BJ Watling, Neil Wagner, Kane Williamson (c)

First Test: Australia won by 296 runs

Second Test: Australia won by 247 runs

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/ric...-ranking-no2-new-zealand-scg-india/2020-01-04

 

[barah_admi]

The test ranking are now pointless with the current WTC in play.

However, the WTC needs certain regulations (it must be equal number of home and away series for all teams) and test series should not be decided on a bilateral basis (India have already played WI and Bangladesh). It should be on ranking basis. The top 6 teams should all play each other in each cycle, regardless of political insecurities....ahem.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The test ranking are now pointless with the current WTC in play.

However, the WTC needs certain regulations (it must be equal number of home and away series for all teams) and test series should not be decided on a bilateral basis (India have already played WI and Bangladesh). It should be on ranking basis. The top 6 teams should all play each other in each cycle, regardless of political insecurities....ahem.

No problem for India considering that Pakistan are not in top 6 anyway.

 

[barah_admi]

No problem for India considering that Pakistan are not in top 6 anyway.

Why do you think everything has to do with Pakistan?

As I said, the top 6 teams should be playing against each other, regardless of who is in that top 6.

I am not sure why any world number 1 test side would schedule 2 of its first three test series, in a championship, against the world 8 and 9 ranked sides. Whereas a side like England have had series against the 3rd and 5th best ranked side...and since you brought it up, Pakistan against the 5th and 6th ranked sides, both sides ranked above it. it has managed to win one of those series.

In fact, by the time the WTC is over, England would have, at the very least played the 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th ranked sides.

Back to my point, top teams should be playing against top teams which is why the ICC should take charge of scheduling.

 

[Mamoon]

Why do you think everything has to do with Pakistan?

As I said, the top 6 teams should be playing against each other, regardless of who is in that top 6.

I am not sure why any world number 1 test side would schedule 2 of its first three test series, in a championship, against the world 8 and 9 ranked sides. Whereas a side like England have had series against the 3rd and 5th best ranked side...and since you brought it up, Pakistan against the 5th and 6th ranked sides, both sides ranked above it. it has managed to win one of those series.

In fact, by the time the WTC is over, England would have, at the very least played the 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th ranked sides.

Back to my point, top teams should be playing against top teams which is why the ICC should take charge of scheduling.

The great thing about the WTC system is that it rewards consistency. Over a two year period, the points table will closely reflect the actual rankings and teams like India, Australia, England and South Africa/New Zealand will be in the top 4.

Flash in the pan, fluke teams like Pakistan will not be able to active their cornered tigers mode with a few lucky wins and qualify for the WTC Final.

 

[jagatk]

The test ranking are now pointless with the current WTC in play.

However, the WTC needs certain regulations (it must be equal number of home and away series for all teams) and test series should not be decided on a bilateral basis (India have already played WI and Bangladesh). It should be on ranking basis. The top 6 teams should all play each other in each cycle, regardless of political insecurities....ahem.

There will be equal no of home and away series for all teams by the end of the cycle. Everyone plays 3 away and 3 home series.

 

[jagatk]

Also there are 9 teams in fray not 6, so the top 6 thing doesn't work. Every team plays 3 home and 3 away, which they will have to be reversed at some point, which wouldn't make sense if you go by rankings as they change. India played BD and WI sure and those are easy points, but the teams we didn't play are Pak and SL and you will find most neutrals would agree that india gets full points vs those 2 teams too. So it isn't some hack or cheat india or anyone else is using.