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

England in the 90s revisited and oh, for backup bowlers!

So its come to this finally. As the cliche goes, the wheel comes full circle. Australian selection policies these days resemble that of England from the 1990s :-) Took a quick look at the last two years and over 37 Test matches since 1 Jan 2008, Australia have used 36 different players. That's an average of roughly one additional/new player every 1.48 matches! Talk about instability. When compared to India (a new player every 1.94 matches), South Africa (2.14), England (2.24) it shows how things have changed in the last two years with regards to the power balance in Test cricket. What the overall stat also does not show directly is that most of these new players have been bowlers. With the exception of replacing Hayden and Symonds the batting line-up has been quite stable but the bowling has been the exact opposite. Indian spinners like Amit Mishra, Piyush Chawla, Ashwin, and Murali Kartik must be ruing the fact that they don't have an Australian passport! The latter in parti...
2 comments
Read more

World T20 preview: surprises in store again?

In its short history of seven years (and four editions), the World T20 has thrown up many surprises. Four different winners (each of them unfancied at the start of the tournament), with even England winning silverware. Australia have made just one final and have yet to win (but then it took them till the fifth edition to win the Champions Trophy too). Possibly the most surprising fact about the World T20 is that we're into the fifth edition but India are yet to host one. Given that their victory in the inaugural tournament led to the IPL and the face of the modern game changing, I would have expected a 1987 like scenario with the BCCI doing its utmost to host the championships but that has not been the case. Maybe the IPL brand needs protection in their opinion? The latest version in Bangladesh will throw up plenty more to add to the list of the surprises I'm sure. Its been a pleasant change already to have a proper qualifying tournament between the lower ranked teams  as opp...
Post a Comment
Read more