Ratings and rankings - how important are they?

[Craig]

Vote in the poll.

We forever see threads on how people rank players and the player ratings in telling us how good a player or team is. Do they mean a lot for you or not at all, basing on what you watch on TV and leave stats out the window or is it a bit of both?

Earlier in the year South Africa were ranked the no. 1 ODI side, but for mine to know if they were considered "better" then Australia, if they had played them in an ODI series in either Australia or South Africa, would they have won or not (obv. this hypothetical) and well they would of gone under pressure against Australia, and if not then in my opinion they couldn't be considered no. 1, same when 5 or 6 years ago they were ranked the no. 1 Test team and got their arses handed to them by Australia both home and away the season beforehand. I guess the same goes for the players as well.

The idea of this thread came from the quote in Sanz's sig (the one made by Swervy).

 

[Craig]

Also no 5th option either as I want to know what you think instead of hiding behind some random 5th choice.

 

[andruid]

I doubt they are anything more than an indication who's playing the best cricket at that point in time.

 

[GIMH]

Interesting, but not the whole story. I was pleased when England were ranked #2 in the world, but beating the Aussies meant more than any ranking it may have achieved, as they were the best side of the world rankings or not.

Same goes for ODIs, would rather win the WC and be ranked #8 than not win it and be #1 but they usually give you a good idea of who the stronger sides are

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I don't find them of any interest at all. When I'm being told by the commentators or journalists that if England win, they will leapfrog x in the Test Championship, I'm really not fussed. In truth the Test Championship in particular has always been messed up because of the South Africa fiasco and the continual problem of there being no obvious 'second best' side in the world since Australia's domination began. The gaps were so small between sides and in many cases series that happened two, three years ago were no longer really relevant.

I take a little interest in the player rankings, more just as a statistical aside than any definitive verdict though.

 

[silentstriker]

I find them pretty important. They are not perfect but without a league system where you have a winner at the end, it's the best thing we have. Just because the ranking system is imperfect doesn't mean its unimportant.

And I certainly care whether the team I support goes up and down the Test rankings.

 

[chasingthedon]

I like rating/ranking systems if they're objective - more often than not some subjective element is introduced, e.g. to try and emphasis the importance of one aspect over another, where the grading of value becomes arbitrary, which makes the system then no more valid than anyone else's opinion.

 

[GIMH]

I don't like the way the current Test rankings give you less points for a 2-0 series win than a 3-0. A win is a win at the end of the day, also all series should be equal, points shouldn't change depending on who you play. Maybe more weighting for away than home as it is harder to win away in Cricket, in theory, than sports like Football and Rugby, but no, ideally, something like 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and only your last H&A V each team counts.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't like the way the current Test rankings give you less points for a 2-0 series win than a 3-0. A win is a win at the end of the day, also all series should be equal, points shouldn't change depending on who you play.

I disagree completely. It would be ridiculous to give the same points for a 5-0 Ashes drubbing that Australia gave, compared to the 2-1 win England had. One was closely fought between two teams that were close, while the other was annihilation for most of the matches. They weren't equal, and should not be treated as such.

Secondly, beating Bangladesh and beating Australia are not equal in feat. Strength of opponent is one of the most important things you should use in getting points IMO.

Neil's ranking does both, but (IMO) does it better than the official rankings.

 

[GIMH]

Well I don't think we would ever agree on this, but the purpose of a championship is all things to be equal; the fact that we stayed second for a long, long time on the back of beating Australia (obviously we did have a good run beforehand) shows you how flawed the system is, as we won just one out of five series yet stayed second.

You just be ranked high through being consistently good and beating most teams, not beating just one.

 

[silentstriker]

Well I don't think we would ever agree on this, but the purpose of a championship is all things to be equal; the fact that we stayed second for a long, long time on the back of beating Australia (obviously we did have a good run beforehand) shows you how flawed the system is, as we won just one out of five series yet stayed second.

But most other teams were doing worse - that was the issue. Sri Lanka drew in England, but couldn't win in the West Indies. That's not a sign of a team who should be second. India won in England, but lost in South Africa, barely won in West Indies, lost in Sri Lanka and got their butts kicked in New Zealand. Should they be second? South Africa lost 5-0 in six matches to Australia, lost at home to England, lost badly to Sri Lanka away, but did OK to well almost anywhere else, and thus were close to being second, and eventually moved into second with a win in England. I think that's a fair enough system.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Manan, can I catch you on MSN?

 

[Debris]

Not that important to me personally but it is one way to keep the viewing public interested.

Lot of people out there that just can't cope without it.

 

[anoop4real]

Nah!!! Not important........ enjoy in watching the game

 

[Richard]

I've never cared for exact player rankings in the slightest, completely pointless IMO and often taken by some people to mean something they don't (they don't and never will rank who is "best").

I$C$C team rankings never interest me much either. A proper championship - which we had up to 2003 and haven't since then - is another matter and something I'd love if still existed. I don't like the current system, think it's complete nonsense, and while the CW rankings are interesting they're just that - rankings. Not a championship.

 

[Richard]

In truth the Test Championship in particular has always been messed up because of the South Africa fiasco

Just to touch on this - what "fiasco" precisely? That SA were briefly on top? You might not remember the 1995/96 season, but after a couple of games the Premiership was topped by Coventry City. In a championship's embryonic stages, the best team doesn't always top it. As long as you wait a little while though, these things will iron themselves out.

I$C$C did not. They turned a nice championship that could have been excellent in time into a near-useless ranking system that virtually no-one takes the blindest bit of notice of.