CW Test Rankings - Updated Jan 2012

[Jarquis]

I did something similar to this for my own amusement not long ago and never posted it. I think I told Marcuss about it and that's as far as it got.

Yeah, they'll be in my chat logs somewhere. Didn't you do ODI ones as well?

 

[VFE]

That is most definitely NOT the way to impress them - we need to approach sensibly, not flood them, as they will just ignore it, and possibly have a go at Cricketweb (the entity) for spamming.

Clearly whatever you did do didnt work.....

Try the spamming and stop being a ***** worrying about being had a go at

 

[morgieb]

I'm trying to get this back up, by the way .

Aah, okay. I'll just do it temporarily until the new ones come out.

 

[morgieb]

Home Rankings

Australia 918 (+56) (+1)
Sri Lanka 904 (+29) (-1)
India 840 (+9)
England 806 (+43)
South Africa 695 (-67)
New Zealand 478 (-50) (+1)
Pakistan 476 (-66) (-1)
West Indies 358 (-42)
Bangladesh 0

Away
Australia 1156 (-378)
South Africa 1145 (-3)
India 1034 (+50)
England 767 (+82)
Sri Lanka 611 (+50) (+1)
Pakistan 573 (+23) (+1)
West Indies 442 (-32) (+1)
New Zealand 180 (-454) (-3)
Bangladesh 174 (+40)

Big change is New Zealand, as their results against West Indies and India are worth less, and a mistake with maths for England v New Zealand.

Overall...

Australia 1037 (-160)
India 937 (+20) (+1)
South Africa 920 (-35) (-1)
England 787 (+65)
Sri Lanka 757 (+39)
Pakistan 524 (-22) (+1)
West Indies 400 (-37) (+1)
New Zealand 329 (-252) (-2)
Bangladesh 87 (+20)

Australia (as most of their best wins are worth less) and New Zealand (ditto) lose a lot of points, and England (as the Ashes and Basil D'Oliveria Trophy success are worth more) gain a few points.

Reckon this one, which weighs form as well as results, is better than version 1.0.

 

[honestbharani]

Home Rankings

Australia 918 (+56) (+1)
Sri Lanka 904 (+29) (-1)
India 840 (+9)
England 806 (+43)
South Africa 695 (-67)
New Zealand 478 (-50) (+1)
Pakistan 476 (-66) (-1)
West Indies 358 (-42)
Bangladesh 0

Away
Australia 1156 (-378)
South Africa 1145 (-3)
India 1034 (+50)
England 767 (+82)
Sri Lanka 611 (+50) (+1)
Pakistan 573 (+23) (+1)
West Indies 442 (-32) (+1)
New Zealand 180 (-454) (-3)
Bangladesh 174 (+40)

Big change is New Zealand, as their results against West Indies and India are worth less, and a mistake with maths for England v New Zealand.

Overall...

Australia 1037 (-160)
India 937 (+20) (+1)
South Africa 920 (-35) (-1)
England 787 (+65)
Sri Lanka 757 (+39)
Pakistan 524 (-22) (+1)
West Indies 400 (-37) (+1)
New Zealand 329 (-252) (-2)
Bangladesh 87 (+20)

Australia (as most of their best wins are worth less) and New Zealand (ditto) lose a lot of points, and England (as the Ashes and Basil D'Oliveria Trophy success are worth more) gain a few points.

Reckon this one, which weighs form as well as results, is better than version 1.0.

lol... I don't see how a ranking system that states Australia 100 points ahead of the competition is worth anything.. Juz out of curiosity, what is the formula you used mate?

 

[morgieb]

It's similar to the Pickup style format, but it also takes form into account, too.

As of the "Australia are 100 points ahead of the pack so it means crap", pretty sure that's how it's like in the proper CW rankings, too.

 

[honestbharani]

It's similar to the Pickup style format, but it also takes form into account, too.

As of the "Australia are 100 points ahead of the pack so it means crap", pretty sure that's how it's like in the proper CW rankings, too.

lol.. I didn't say crap. I juz think it is well off the reality... The ICC rankings seem better in the sense it reflects the close gap between the top 3.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, they would. Remember CW rankings are more a long term thing, they do not deal with changes in recent form. You need to prove yourself over a period of 3-4 years to have an effect. Right now, Australia are undefeated at home except from SA. And they've only been beaten by England and India away. Because comparatively, India have a losing away record against Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. That's a comprehensive long term record that is markedly different - India being worse both home and away than Australia has been. So CW rankings, I'm sure, will still have a substantial lead for Australia.

On form, Australia may not be number one, but CW rankings don't track that as much as they track results over a period of years. In fact, intuitively, I'd bet Australia still have a 200+ point lead over India once I get CW rankings up again. In fact, SA will likely be #2 as well, with India being #3.

 

[honestbharani]

oh.. that is interesting.

 

[morgieb]

Not sure how accurate these are, but using the Pickup Method for rankings, I come up with these.....

	        Home	Away	Total
Australia	1132.8	1246	1189
India	        1378	920	1149
South Africa	1061	1161	1111
England     	1226	970	1098
Pakistan	1084	778	931
Sri Lanka	1132.6	686	909
West Indies	625	691	658
New Zealand	502	469	486
Zimbabwe	390	334	362
Bangladesh	93	196	144

Surprising.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha, SA worse at home than even Pakistan, who haven't played at 'home' for yonks now. Sounds about right.

 

[Howe_zat]

I really don't know how you came up with that but it's safe to say there's too much credit given to past results.

 

[morgieb]

Haha, SA worse at home than even Pakistan, who haven't played at 'home' for yonks now. Sounds about right.

IIRC Pakistan were really good at home circa 2005-2006, and I've counted their neutral series in this case.

South Africa also drop too many matches at home to be considered.

 

[morgieb]

I really don't know how you came up with that but it's safe to say there's too much credit given to past results.

Right, I promised you this a bit ago, it's the workings behind the rankings

Long Post Alert!

First up, we take each of the most recent series played between the pairs of country and split one point between them with regard to the final series result.

Whitewash: 1.00 & 0.00
Drawn Series: 0.50 each

Other results split with test wins (draws count as half) and then co-efficiented to 1.00

2-1 in four tests: 2.5 & 1.5: 0.625 & 0.375
1-3 in six tests: 2 & 4: 0.33 & 0.66
1-0 in three tests: 2 & 1: 0.66 & 0.33

These are then multiplied by two, totalled up and averaged over the number of series played to give raw values for teams' home and away abilities.

As an example, England total 1.11 at home and 0.90 away.

The other teams then have their raw values multiplied by the raw values of the teams that they have beaten, using the relevant "Home" or "Away" value, and doubled again (to be honest I can't remember exactly why this was doubled... but the numbers turn out better).

For example, whitewashing Australia in Australia (not that it would ever happen) would be worth 1.00 * 1.77 * 2.00 = 3.53 (rounded)

The current highest value gained from one Series is Australia's 3-0 over South Africa last winter... 1.00 * 1.15 * 2.00 = 2.29 (rounded).

No one gains any points from winning at home to Bangladesh currently, they've never done anything other than lost (heavily) away from home, so as far as the rankings are concerned then it's really nothing it should care about.

We then average these to give a home score (after having multiplied it by 1000 to give some nicer-looking numbers) and do the same for away and overall scores.

Easy really...

There's a bit of a flaw in the gross under-valuing of the Bangladeshi games dragging averages down, but this will cancel itself out with time (and these rankings are based on giving credence to victories over quality opponents when it matters) rather than (as an analogy) thrashing defenceless children and this seems infinitely preferable to rating all games equally.

This explains why this system rates Sri Lanka so poorly - their series wins tend to be:

1. At Home
2. Narrow
3. Against Weaker Opposition

Questions?

That's the formula I used. Yeah there's no form based in it - I just used the past home and away results that the sides have recorded - probably will add one once I can work it out!

 

[G.I.Joe]

IIRC Pakistan were really good at home circa 2005-2006, and I've counted their neutral series in this case.

South Africa also drop too many matches at home to be considered.

I wasn't being sarcastic, morgie. SA's poor home record of late is general knowledge around these parts, isn't it?

 

[Howe_zat]

Counting SA down for home results is fair - when was the last time they actually beat someone at home? New Zealand in 2007-08 is the last I can remember.

(Edit: Banglas in 08-09. They also beat the Windies in 07-08.)

Including results from 2006 or earlier is very, very shaky. How many current players were around then, and if they were, who were considered the most important ones, that would decide matches? How many teams had the same plans, captains, coaches or team balance?

 

[morgieb]

Counting SA down for home results is fair - when was the last time they actually beat someone at home? New Zealand in 2007-08 is the last I can remember.

Including results from 2006 or earlier is very, very shaky. How many current players were around then, and if they were, who were considered the most important ones, that would decide matches? How many teams had the same plans, captains, coaches or team balance?

Bangladesh in 2008/09. They're still very highly rated as they're great away from home though.

And yeah, I agree. It's not my formula though - if it was form would play some part.

 

[Furball]

Your rankings are stupid.

 

[morgieb]

OK, I've decided to amend my system by adding form and taking out results before the 2005-06 summer.

So...

	        Home	Away	Total			
Australia	1117	1081	1099	110	(-90)	
India	        1452	693	1072	107	(-77)	
England	        1345	740	1043	104	(-55)	(+1)
South Africa	981	1024	1003	100	(-108)	(-1)
Sri Lanka	1059	572	816	82	(-93)	(+1)
Pakistan	900	722	811	81	(-120)	(-1)
West Indies	648	525	586	59	(-105)	
New Zealand	411	760	585	59	(+99)	
Bangladesh	114	211	163	16	(+19)	(+1)
Zimbabwe	202	0	101	10	(-261)	(-1)

 

[Athlai]

Terrible.