Skip to main content

Do the rankings really reflect performance?

There's been a lot of talk recently about the ICC Test rankings and the seismic shift with Australia dropping to No. 4 and Sri Lanka moving up to No. 2. However a closer look at the relative performances of the top 5 teams since 2007 (the last two years) leads to lots of questions.

South Africa can be indisputably said to be No. 1. They have won nearly 64% (50% excluding Bangladesh) of their matches and importantly won matches away in almost every country. Their only weakness has been a slight inability to battle to draw matches where they fall behind. Sri Lanka at No.2 are certainly ranked higher than their performance deserves. 54% of matches won looks good but when you take out Bangladesh, it falls to less than 32% which is not great by any standards. Moreover only one of the non-Bangla victories have come away from home. To be fair, they have lacked opportunity and its high time they got more three match series as well as the chance to play the top teams regularly. At No. 3, India have a quite poor overall win ratio of less than 36% (32% excluding Bangladesh) but they have recorded away victories in Eng, Aus, SL, and NZ which helps as does the fact that they have a high draw ratio. Australia at No. 4 have won 48% of their Tests and won matches away in the WI, SA, and Eng and their current ranking is harsh in my opinion. England have (as can be expected) played the most matches and have a win ratio of 34% but apart from NZ have not managed to win away anywhere so their ranking is probably fair.

Overall I think SA are probably #1 and Australia #2 with Sri Lanka, India and England being fairly even as the third best teams in the world. With so little to choose between so many teams, it certainly makes for an exciting time to be a cricket fan.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

The Ashes part deux: series preview

While I admire the honest, outspoken style that Ian Chappell has in his commentary and writing I don't find myself agreeing with his views very often. This latest piece on ESPNcricinfo is an exception though. In what is a faintly ridiculous set of back to back Ashes series (to accommodate an ODI World Cup of all things), the build-up to the second round has been laughable almost. Anyone who hasn't followed the game for a few years might be forgiven if they thought that the Australian domination from the 1990s and early 2000s has continued and that they will win in a canter again. For a team that's lost seven of their last nine matches (and it should have been eight really), that's quite a good turnaround on paper (and digitally). The reality though is that unless they show a drastic improvement (especially in terms of scoring runs) and England have a bit of a shocker, its going to be well nigh impossible for Australia to win back the urn. Despite putting Buffoon Bo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?
Post a Comment
Read more