Clash of 1 vs 2
R Bharat Rao
If RSA beat India 1-0, the two teams tie with 123 points, though most
would agree that RSA is #1, by virtue of head to head. If RSA beat
India 2-0, then they lead by 124-121, a clear #1. All other results,
include a 0-0 tie see India staying #1, with gap being 5 points or
greater.
Good stuff, but a more rational Test ranking calculator would be a
good thing.
Bharat
Andrew Dunford
"R Bharat Rao" <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9b31a63-8326-48b5...@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I think the ranking calculator method itself is perfectly rational. The
only thing that undermines it, big time, is a haphazard fixture list which
is not designed with any sort of championship in mind. Perhaps that's what
you meant?
Andrew
John Dennis
How many points will Australia have if they manage to win 1-0 or 2-0
in New Zealand in March?
John
R Bharat Rao
> "RBharatRao" <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e9b31a63-8326-48b5...@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, I missed your post. Yes, the schedule is a big part of it, but
I actually think the current rating scheme is poor -- it doesn't
reward winning a series anywhere as much as it should. I have been
toying with the idea of trying to develop something that would be
better and discussing it on RSC for input, but haven't had the time to
devote to it. (Also wanted to do something to develop a rational
career rating system for batsmen..:-)
Would be fun sabbatical projects, especially with eager students to
help with the heavy lifting (data gathering :-)
Bharat
R Bharat Rao
A 2-0 win will see Australia rise from 118 points to 119 points max.
So Aus can't be #1. Basically, Aus don't get a boost by replacing a
won series (their last result against NZ) with another. They need to
replace one of their lost series (Ashes, India) with a won series to
get a big jump in ratings.
Bharat
Howzzat
Problem is that the ranking system is based on the assumption that
everyone would adhere to the FTP and play each other home and away on
a consistent basis. The system however fails when boards like BCCI
keep f****ing with the programme to suit their own financial
objectives.
Bharat Rao
I'm not that is entirely fair. Unless you are referring to the BCCI
not playing enough Tests, I think it reasonable to schedule some tours
more frequently than others (e.g., the Ashes, or Ind-Aus, or Ind-Pak)
Bharat
Howzzat
But still, those tours (e.g., the Ashes) happen twice every four years
(one home + one away), which is in line with what the FTP suggests. If
all other tours followed the same rotation, the ranking methodology
would produce correct results (by accounting for home/away bias, which
seems be your point anyway). But to the extent that the teams/boards
do not follow the rotation, I agree that the rankings systems is not
representative of reality and should be modified. In fact, if each
test carried enough weight (and opportunity to earn points), it might
just motivate countries like India to play more tests (or not, knowing
BCCI's priorities).
Nirvanam
I am not very sure if the BCCI is doing something that totally
undermines the 5-year (or 4) home-away concept. Let's see
v/s Aus - 2007-08 Away, and 2008-09 Home
v/s Ban - 2009-10 Away, and no Home
v/s Eng - 2007 Away and 2008-09 Home
v/s NZ - 2008-09 Away and 2009-10 Home
v/s Pakistan 2005-06 Away and 2007-08 Home
v/s RSA 2006-07 Away and 2007-08 Home + 2009-10 Home and 2010-11 Away
v/s SL 2008 Away and 2009-10 Home
v/s WI 2006 Away and 2011 Away
See, India has played every other team home and away except Ban and WI
at home. But they have compensated for that by playing SA Home and
Away once more...which I think is a fair deal given that both these
teams are 1 and 2
Nirvanam
That's a good thought...the ranking system. Come up with an initial
thought and I'll be glad to join in. In fact I thought the points
system developed by Ceat back in 1996 was a pretty decent one. There
were 6 pts for a home win and 9 for an abroad win, plus equal number
of bonus points for winning the series. But it did not take care of
the relative strength of the sides.
I think the ICC system is good on that perspective...because it forces
a top team to beat the bottom ones emphatically, else they lose
points. For ex - had India won 1-0 against Ban they would have
actually lost some points (they won both their games last time
right?). I think it is this particular item that will bring down
Australia's rating points a lot very quickly because when Aus won they
almost always won 3-0 except against India. So even if they beat the
other teams now, if it is like a 1-0 or 2-1 win then they lose points
which is a little unfair to them. I think the system is designed,
intentionally or by accident, to reward consistency of winning
margins...it can take you up easily but if you don't maintain that
consistency it can bring you down just as quickly
Howzzat
True, but several of those series are token 2-test series. Just look
at the total number of tests India plays and compare that to Aus, Eng
and RSA. Hence my point about the possibility of each test carrying
some sort of points/rewards - that will ensure that countries don't
play minimally acceptable number of tests. The more you play, the more
chances you get to move up the test rankings.
John Dennis
Thanks. I guess my (unwritten) question was whether a 2-0 win in NZ
might be enough to get them back to #2, ahead of RSA, if India win
their series.
John
Nirvanam
Your point about points based on number of Tests played is already
taken care of in the ICC rankings. For ex - the Bangladesh series has
a max of 3 points...2 for the Tests and 1 bonus for series. Similarly
Ind-Aus usually has 5 points - 4 for Tests and 1 for series.
Let's look at the numbers again..
v/s Aus - 2007-08 Away, and 2008-09 Home - 8
v/s Ban - 2009-10 Away, and no Home - 4
v/s Eng - 2007 Away and 2008-09 Home - 5
v/s NZ - 2008-09 Away and 2009-10 Home - 6
v/s Pakistan 2005-06 Away and 2007-08 Home - 6
v/s RSA 2006-07 Away and 2007-08 Home + 2009-10 Home and 2010-11 Away
- 11
v/s SL 2008 Away and 2009-10 Home - 6
v/s WI 2006 Away and 2011 Away - 8
Total = 54 - 3 new ones against NZ later in the year = 51
Aus - Pak 3, WI-h 3, Eng-a 5, RSA-a 3, RSA-h 3, NZ-h 2, Ind-a 4, WI-a
2, Ind-h 4, SL-h 2, Ban-a 2, Eng-h 5 = 38
Eng - RSA-a 4, Aus-h 5, WI-h 2, WI-a 5, Ind-a 2, RSA-h 4, NZ-h 3, NZ-a
3, SL-a 3, Ind-h 3, Pak-h 4, SL-h 3, Pak-a 3 = 45 + 2 against Ban
later = 47
RSA - Eng-h 4, Aus-a 3, Aus-h 3, Ban-h 2, Eng-a 4, Ind-a 3, WI-h 3, NZ-
h 2, Pak-a 2, Pak-h 3, Ind-h 3, SL-a 2 = 34 + 6 new ones against Ind =
40
I think I must've missed out something here because these numbers are
actually showing that India is ahead of the rest in playing Tests.
Mate, you are falling for the media propaganda against everything
Indian or related to BCCI. The objective data is telling a different
story.
People say BCCI does not support its Asian neighbors...truth is no one
has played Pakistan (before 2008) and SL every year since 2004
People say BCCI plays only token series...truth is BCCI has played
token series so far against Ban i.e. 2 series and Eng and now time
against SA. Compare that to Aus playing as many as 4 tokens including
WI, NZ, SL, and Ban.
Compare with England playing 2 token series against WI and Ind, They
haven't even played Bangladesh in the last 6 years
Compare with RSA playing 4 tokens against Ban, Pak, SL, NZ, and now
one more against Ind = 5
People say BCCI does not care for Test cricket and makes India play
only ODIs and T20s...fact is India is the most inexperienced team in
T20s among the major teams as we stand today. Truth is India has
played more Tests than any other country.
Once you actually look at facts you can totally negate these baseless
allegations on BCCI. It is clear that there are some elements in the
media who are jealous of BCCI and hence feed the propaganda
Howzzat
> only ODIs and T20s...fact is India is the most inexperienced team in
> T20s among the major teams as we stand today. Truth is India has
> played more Tests than any other country.
>
> Once you actually look at facts you can totally negate these baseless
> allegations on BCCI. It is clear that there are some elements in the
> media who are jealous of BCCI and hence feed the propaganda
Nirvanam - the point is that since the BCCI discovered the IPL/T20
cash cow, they are compromising test cricket. And will continue to do
so, based on the planned expansion of IPL. That period, when no India
tests can be scheduled, plus the window for Champions league means
that something else has to give (there are so many days in an year
after all), and the obvious casualty is test cricket because it is the
least profitable from advertising revenue per hour standpoint. You are
presenting data from the past, when IPL did not exist. In 2009, India
played 6 tests, Aus 13, Eng 14, SL 11, WI 12, NZ 8 and even Pak played
9. This is not a coincidence. BCCI originally cancelled the 3 test
series vs SA, and only brought back 2 tests due to public/players
whining about lack of tests after India got to #1 in test rankings.
BCCIs greed and the lack of respect for test cricket is unarguable - I
am surprised your consider the criticism of BCCI baseless.
R Bharat Rao
> Thanks. I guess my (unwritten) question was whether a 2-0 win in NZ
> might be enough to get them back to #2, ahead of RSA, if India win
> their series.
Hi John,
Check out http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/match_zone/test_predictor.php
It allows you to enter in various scenarios. Very nice little tool.
The interface could do with some improvement (you have to enter in
every series before the one you are interested in; and further any
changes you may want to try in scenarios require you to reset and
start from scratch), but the tool (eventually:-) provides exactly the
kind of "what-if?" analysis you are looking for. The ability for the
public to try out various scenarios / result combinations is an
excellent addition, and the ICC should be applauded for providing some
improved transparency into their Test rankings (such as they are:-).
So, if Aus defeats NZ 2-0 they rise to 119 points. If RSA loses 0-1
to India, they fall to 118 points. So, yes it is possible for Aus to
regain #2 in the near future, but they would need India to help by
beating RSA.
As for #1, India stay #1 with a 0-0 tie or any series win. 1-0 RSA
series win leads to India & RSA tied, but most (including me) would
acknowledge RSA as #1 if they did that. 2-0 victory gives RSA #1
outright. I sincerely hope we get some result pitches, rather than a
"Oh No, Dravid is gone; we had better play safe" attitude that might
produce sleeping beauties on which Boycott's Mum could score a
hundred.
Bharat
Nirvanam
> cash cow, they are compromising test cricket. And will continue to do
> so, based on the planned expansion of IPL.
Yes BCCI is earning a great lot from the IPL but any other conclusion
has no basis. For example there is absolutely zero evidence that BCCI
has actually de-prioritized Test cricket. That is the propaganda I am
referring to...I mean seriously dude, what really makes you think that
BCCI is not doing enough for India to play Test cricket? They
religiously host Aus and tour Aus every 4 years...they religiously
were hosting and visiting Pak till 26 Nov 2008, they religiously went
to SL to play Tests, they religiously hosted SA and went to SA. They
religiously offered to have 3 Tests v/s England but the English wanted
to be back home for christmas. What have they done wrong? They made
money out of IPL...is that a crime? All I am saying is just step back
and view things from a slightly diff perspective, and you won't get
carried away by the media propaganda
That period, when no India
> tests can be scheduled, plus the window for Champions league means
> that something else has to give (there are so many days in an year
> after all), and the obvious casualty is test cricket because it is the
> least profitable from advertising revenue per hour standpoint.
That is a prediction based on a false constraint, dude. Shall we see
if this prediction holds true after 2 years?
You are
> presenting data from the past, when IPL did not exist. In 2009, India
> played 6 tests, Aus 13, Eng 14, SL 11, WI 12, NZ 8 and even Pak played
> 9.
Let's see the numbers since IPL 2008. Ind played SL, Aus, Eng, NZ, SL,
and Ban to date = 17
Eng played SA, Ind, WI, WI, Aus, SA = 21
Aus played NZ, SA, SA, Eng, WI, Pak = 19
SA played Eng, Pak, Aus, Aus, Eng = 16
Where is the huge difference? If you extend it to cover until next IPL
that is this year's IPL then Ind and SA would have 2 more. Where is
the huge difference?
This is not a coincidence. BCCI originally cancelled the 3 test
> series vs SA, and only brought back 2 tests due to public/players
> whining about lack of tests after India got to #1 in test rankings.
I agree with that...but I'll give it to them because they did
something about the public outcry when in the past they never did
anything about it.
> BCCIs greed and the lack of respect for test cricket is unarguable -
Greed, yes. But I am in no position to pass value judgments like that
because I am not sure what I'd do had I been in the position of Pawar.
But lack of respect, I do not agree...I am no big fan of the BCCI in
fact I couldn't hate them any more...it is reached a level of
saturation. But this propaganda about BCCI not having respect for Test
cricket is all cock shit...the media thinks Lalit Modi is BCCI. Let us
understand this Lalit Modi is only a part of BCCI...he does not run
BCCI and pretty recently he was put in his place by the real big-wigs
of the BCCI, most of whom are traditional Test lovers...Srinivasan,
Manohar, for ex.
> I am surprised your consider the criticism of BCCI baseless.
I am the first one to criticize BCCI but I am not one for unjust
criticism just for the heck of it. They are greedy and all (there I'll
not say anything) but they are not as bad as the media portrays them.
The media absolutely loves Modi's arrogance coz he makes their news
sell. So the media's propaganda is, "BCCI = Lalit Modi". If you say
Lalit Modi does not respect Test cricket, I may not disagree with it
but that's where the distinction lies, Modi is not equal to BCCI. Very
cleverly without making too much noise BCCI have taught Modi a lesson
not to fuck around too much, These top guys are experienced people who
know how to handle stuff...Srinivasan, Manohar, Pawar...they are big
names with loads of experience in dealing with aaj aaya-kal gaya
Modi's of the world. They utilized his potential and have given him a
free hand so that the board itself can grow in a private ventue. But
when it comes to India as a national team they have ensured to not let
Modi fuck up stuff.
I mean they are just as good or as bad as any other business or board
for that matter.
Andrew Dunford
"Howzzat" <shgu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c296ccb4-cea1-45f9...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I don't agree with Nirvanam very often but you can't take the data from a
single calendar year to claim any sort of pattern. Teams have occasional
scheduling blips - for example New Zealand played two Test matches in 2007.
It's also not reasonable to claim that the earlier cancellation of the India
v South Africa Test series undermines the FTP, because India has already
hosted South Arica recently and this tour was additional to the FTP. The
only concrete way in which the BCCI has behaved poorly in recent times with
respect to the FTP is its failure to ever host Bangladesh.
Other strong boards are just as bad. Australia has always done anything it
can to avoid hosting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and its shunting of Sri Lanka
to Darwin and Cairns in the winter of 2004 was disgraceful treatment of a
team with a fine Test record at the time.
The fact is that India has played a decent amount of Test cricket through
the 2000s, vastly more than in the 1990s when the BCCI all but abandoned the
format. They have a dearth of fixtures right now, but it's not unusual for
teams to have a long gap between fixtures in the middle of the year e.g
Australia went ten months between Tests in 2007. Plus it should also be
noted that part of the reason for India's gap this year is the cancellation
of a Test tour to Zimbabwe, for obvious reasons. The FTP shows plenty of
Test fixtures for India in the next two or three years, thus it seems too
early to judge them harshly.
Of course if many of those series are cancelled to accommodate the IPL,
Champions League then I will have to eat my words (still tastier than
chewing a cricket ball), but again we must also remember that the ICC has a
part to play here - the 2010 IPL starts earlier than previous years because
the ICC has scheduled another World T20 only ten months after the last one,
which is unnecessary.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"R Bharat Rao" <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:acf0189d-cc16-41f0...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Whoa. You are thinking of an old Test Championship formula in which only
the most recent series against each other nation home and away was counted.
That method was discontinued several years ago. The current method uses all
Test matches played within the qualifying period, which at present is from
August 2006 to now.
The real reason Australia will gain little from beating New Zealand is that
the latter team has a very low score (81) at the moment. The formula
rewards teams much more strongly for beating teams with a decent rating
score, which is why the India v South Africa series is the one to follow.
Andrew
John Dennis
> On Jan 31, 3:14 am, John Dennis <denj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I guess my (unwritten) question was whether a 2-0 win in NZ
> > might be enough to get them back to #2, ahead of RSA, if India win
> > their series.
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> It allows you to enter in various scenarios. Very nice little tool.
> The interface could do with some improvement (you have to enter in
> every series before the one you are interested in; and further any
> changes you may want to try in scenarios require you to reset and
> start from scratch), but the tool (eventually:-) provides exactly the
> kind of "what-if?" analysis you are looking for. The ability for the
> public to try out various scenarios / result combinations is an
> excellent addition, and the ICC should be applauded for providing some
> improved transparency into their Test rankings (such as they are:-).
>
> So, if Aus defeats NZ 2-0 they rise to 119 points. If RSA loses 0-1
> to India, they fall to 118 points. So, yes it is possible for Aus to
> regain #2 in the near future, but they would need India to help by
> beating RSA.
>
> As for #1, India stay #1 with a 0-0 tie or any series win. 1-0 RSA
> series win leads to India & RSA tied, but most (including me) would
> acknowledge RSA as #1 if they did that. 2-0 victory gives RSA #1
> outright. I sincerely hope we get some result pitches, rather than a
> "Oh No, Dravid is gone; we had better play safe" attitude that might
> produce sleeping beauties on which Boycott's Mum could score a
> hundred.
>
> Bharat
Thanks for the link, and for doing the sums for me as well. I find it
hard to believe that there is even the slighttest, remotest chance
that Aus could get back to #2. They're simply not that good at the
moment, but that's the way it's stacking up...
I'm looking forward to the Inda-RSA series - and agree that result
pitches would be very nice, rather than the boring stuff dished out
for the SL series.
John
Nirvanam
Come to think of it, the Ind-SL series actually had 2 out of 3 ending
up in a definite result...I dunno why we have this presumption that
anything played in the sub-continent is boring...if u meant 'one-
sided' by boring, then probably it was one-sided to a certain extent.
I mean SL were never able to challenge India consistently enough to
cause great flutters
John Dennis
Very true. The first test was a high-scoring draw, with only 21
wickets falling, and then India scored heavily in the next two, but I
had forgotten that Sri Lanka were rolled twice in the latter two
tests.
Memory's great isn't it! I can remember things that happened in 1969
clearly, but not just a month or two ago...
John