Rankings/Ratings-How accurate?

[garypleavin]

As in the question. How accurate do you think the ICC TEST/ODI CHAMPIONSHIP is and do you believe that there should be any changes in the order.

The same question to the Player Rankings. Do you believe any player should be higher on recent performances or lower on recent performances

 

[Francis]

I think they're awful to tell you the truth!

You cannot confine cricket down to statistics. Stats don't discriminate! You could be the best team in the world, and play poorly, and the beneficiaries are the opposition, who may not be very good as all. You could have scored a hundred, but played and missed in several desperate misses. Or your bowling might have benefitted by the conditions, yet the stats don't care.

I can remember contemplating (because I'm a geek) doing a list of 100 reasons why stats shouldn't be trusted. Two things stopped me: Firstly it would've been a pedantic exercise. Secondly, there aren't 100 reasons why stats shouldn't be trusted, there are literally thousands! Many many different scerarios where stats can be influenced by a range of factors. It was like trying to add up different things, and then realising they can be multiplied several times over, giving me a chance to see the scope with which stats can manipulated and effected.

The one and only true way to access the quality of cricket and cricketers is to watch as many matches as possible and guage the quality of the performances of its players by weighing up the positives against the negatives. You might think stats are reasonably accurate when considering how important a cricketer is, but the truth is they're not. There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics! One day England could beat Australia in the Ashes, the next you see a team lacking confidence and failing, and what does that say in terms of stats, "oh this new opposition is playing well." (That's just a hypothetical)

I could go on forever, rather I'll just take seven aspects that stats don't recognise:

Conditions
Team Form
Quality of Fielding
Near misses such as close edges
Quality of how the wickets was taken
Pressure the team is placed under
Incorrect umpiring decisions

You can have many different scenarios just based on these seven alone, each time something different happens that tells the person watching it how things really are. Yet stats see none of this!

 

[sideshowtim]

Despite all the flaws our friend Francis there points out, how many of you would argue with Australia being the best Test and ODI side in the world, and Ponting being the best batsman in the world today? You'll never find a rankings system that is perfectly accurate, and while this one is far from perfectly accurate, it is pretty roughly correct (in my opinion anyway). Sure there are exceptions, but in most cases the rankings are accurate and correct.

 

[garypleavin]

Actually to answer my own question. Instead of what it is now:

My own Test Championship-Based on quality of the teams

Australia
Pakistan
South Africa
England
India
Sri Lanka
New Zealand
West Indies
Bangladesh

My own ODI Championship

Australia
South Africa
India
Sri Lanka
New Zealand
Pakistan
England
West Indies
Bangladesh

 

[Richard]

Quite frankly, I hate player rankings of any sort, it's utterly silly IMO to try and pin things down to such a degree of exactness. What's worse, they attempt to officialise what's "best" and I hate that with a passion. All they are is a form-guide, and the title gives a poor impression of this.

Team rankings... I'm not a fan, TBH. ODIs rankings are a waste of time IMO, that's what the World Cup is for. Being top of the ODI rankings is little consolation if you go out in the opening round of the WC.

Tests... well, that's a bit different. Me, I liked the original Championship, designed (even designed is a poor description, the beauty of it was its simplicity, and anyone could have started such a thing if they wanted) by Matthew Engel in the mid-1990s and used in Wisden for ages. As he stated in Wisden 2004, what we have now is a rankings system not a Championship. And I don't even like the formula used there, which it seems to me is woefully inconsistent.

If I had my way, the only "Championship" there would be is a simple one for Test series - home-and-away two-for-a-win-one-for-a-draw table. And player form-guides if people really want them.

 

[Dr_Brad]

Bloody Inaccurate

 

[sideshowtim]

If I had my way, the only "Championship" there would be is a simple one for Test series - home-and-away two-for-a-win-one-for-a-draw table. And player form-guides if people really want them.

This is obviously a problem seeing as though teams are always playing a different amount of matches. India, Australia and England would be at an immediate advantage because they simply play so damn many matches. India could play 10 Tests, and win 4 and be ahead of Pakistan who play 4 and win 4 easily.

 

[garypleavin]

The whole point of this thread is as Richard put it. I'm sure for example India don't care that they are below England in The Rankings if they win the Test Series and for me as an England fan I take little consolation from being 2nd in the world when welose 5-0 in an Ashes Series and I'm sure Australia fans didn't when England won the Ashes.

 

[nightprowler10]

Despite all the flaws our friend Francis there points out, how many of you would argue with Australia being the best Test and ODI side in the world, and Ponting being the best batsman in the world today? You'll never find a rankings system that is perfectly accurate, and while this one is far from perfectly accurate, it is pretty roughly correct (in my opinion anyway). Sure there are exceptions, but in most cases the rankings are accurate and correct.

Agreed.

 

[Richard]

This is obviously a problem seeing as though teams are always playing a different amount of matches. India, Australia and England would be at an immediate advantage because they simply play so damn many matches. India could play 10 Tests, and win 4 and be ahead of Pakistan who play 4 and win 4 easily.

I'd just do it on series, screw how many games.

Obviously, I hate 2-Test-series full-stop, every series should be at least 3 games long IMO, but that's a slightly different issue.

 

[pup11]

I think ICC rankings suck, they hardly make any sense they say that they have some very complex calculation through which they decide player and team rankings.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO the rankings are very accurate. There will always be squabbles, but its hard to argue.

 

[Richard]

The player ratings are inaccurate in their very title.

 

[Lostman]

My only problem with the team rankings is that they dont take home/away into consideration. other than that i have no major complains about it.

 

[open365]

I think most people read the rankings the wrong way.

People should take them at face value, IE "if you put statistics from the last X matches for player Y in this formula you come out with Z ranking in comparison to other player" instead of thinking the rankings have to be the definitive guide to players and teams.

 

[pasag]

I think they're awful to tell you the truth!

You cannot confine cricket down to statistics. Stats don't discriminate! You could be the best team in the world, and play poorly, and the beneficiaries are the opposition, who may not be very good as all. You could have scored a hundred, but played and missed in several desperate misses. Or your bowling might have benefitted by the conditions, yet the stats don't care.

I can remember contemplating (because I'm a geek) doing a list of 100 reasons why stats shouldn't be trusted. Two things stopped me: Firstly it would've been a pedantic exercise. Secondly, there aren't 100 reasons why stats shouldn't be trusted, there are literally thousands! Many many different scerarios where stats can be influenced by a range of factors. It was like trying to add up different things, and then realising they can be multiplied several times over, giving me a chance to see the scope with which stats can manipulated and effected.

The one and only true way to access the quality of cricket and cricketers is to watch as many matches as possible and guage the quality of the performances of its players by weighing up the positives against the negatives. You might think stats are reasonably accurate when considering how important a cricketer is, but the truth is they're not. There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics! One day England could beat Australia in the Ashes, the next you see a team lacking confidence and failing, and what does that say in terms of stats, "oh this new opposition is playing well." (That's just a hypothetical)

I could go on forever, rather I'll just take seven aspects that stats don't recognise:

Conditions
Team Form
Quality of Fielding
Near misses such as close edges
Quality of how the wickets was taken
Pressure the team is placed under
Incorrect umpiring decisions

You can have many different scenarios just based on these seven alone, each time something different happens that tells the person watching it how things really are. Yet stats see none of this!

Afridi btw, fwiw.

 

[Richard]

Already been decided, TBH. This may or may not be the winner.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, Francis had a great post there showing how limited Stats can be....


But having said that, given the limitations of statistics, I think the ICC rankings is a reasonable enough "form-guide" (for the lack of a better word). As someone pointed out, apart from the fact that it doesn't consider "home and away" for the team rankings, I don't really see too many major flaws there.


The real flaw, IMHO, lies with those who believe that stats and stats alone decide how good or bad a certain player/team is.... No statistician ever said that stats alone completely show how good/bad a player is when putting up his stats. He just shows the numbers, it is up to us to draw the inferences and also consider the various other issues that could have affected how those numbers came out.... Unfortunately, a lot of ppl are just too happy to regard stats as Gospel.

 

[Pratters]

The ICC rankings are the old Coopers and Lybrand ratings and I have always loved the C & L ratings. It is interesting when you see players graphically to see who was doing how at various parts of their careers and also when you compare two people.

For instance, see Ambrose v Walsh here. It shows you instantly that Walsh was not at the same level as Ambrose for a large part of his career but raised his level later on, even if you do not know this.

As with all stats and stat based stuff, you should know how to use stuff. Then, it can be very interesting.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Rankings can never be perfect.....but ICC Rankings are the better tahn all others..for sure..but I dunno how da hell ICC gave Dhoni da No.1 spot in da rankings...