DoG's Test Team Ratings - Throughout History

[Days of Grace]

I have been waiting for the right time to present these, and after noticing a thread on similar lines the other day, I thought I'd share my ratings of test teams from 1877 to the present day.

I basically assign points to each team over a five year period before and after a specific year, with the results from the year in question receiving more weight, with the weightage gradually diminishing from there. Points are awarded depending on strength of opposition, individual match and series results, and whether the match or series was played in home or away conditions.

For example, here are the ratings from 1997/98 (a year starts in September and ends in August)

Australia 93.95
South Africa 88.58
Pakistan 77.75
Sri Lanka 70.93
India 69.91
England 66.57
New Zealand 61.68
West Indies 59.72
Zimbabwe 40.07

Australia had a fairly comfortable lead at the top and the West Indies had already dropped down the table rapidly after being on top in 1992/93 (Contrary to what is tradionally written, I already had Australia on top before they travelled to the West Indies in early 1995).


Compare that to the current ratings (note that the five year period extends back to 2008/09as we cannot obviously see the results in the future).

South Africa 97.94
England 91.98
Australia 86.61
Pakistan 76.26
India 73.89
Sri Lanka 55.27
West Indies 50.62
New Zealand 45.88
Zimbabwe 17.81
Bangladesh 17.05

So, there we have it. Exactly the same as the official ICC rankings, but with Zimbabwe ahead of Bangladesh. Interesting, Sri Lanka have their lowest points rating since 1994/95. On the other hand, West Indies have their highest points rating since 2000/01.

But I can give you the rankings of the test teams from any year/season in the history of the game, so if you are interesting in any year in particular, or decade, even, please post your query in this thread and I will reply.

For now, I will post the top teams by the ratings they achieved:

Australia (2001/02): 111.60
West Indies (1962/63): 104.54
West Indies (1988/89): 103.49 (the West Indies team of the 1980s obviously had a longer period of high ratings then their predecessors did, even if the 1960s vintage achieved the higher peak rating due to playing and beating arguably stronger opposition)
Australia (1972/73): 100.22
Australia (1958/59): 99.74
England (1954/55): 99.42
Australia (1921/22): 98.92
South Africa (2011/12): 98.82
South Africa (1969/70): 98.76
England (1932/33): 98.02
England (2010/11): 96.57
Australia (1933/34): 95.75
England (1911/12): 95.52

Pakistan (1986/87): 90.00

India (2008/09): 89.97 (India has never achieved the no.1 ranking on my system, although they came very close in 2008/08 with South Africa on 90.30 and Australia 90.25)

Sri Lanka (1999/2000): 74.86

New Zealand (1985/86): 73.52

 

[NUFAN]

Awesome work DoG.

 

[morgieb]

Looks good, great work.

 

[Howe_zat]

Good effort DoG

I'd like to see the 1986-87 and 1969-70 rankings, please.

 

[smash84]

top effort.

What has NZ's top rating been?

 

[watson]

top effort.

What has NZ's top rating been?

Apparently, 73.52 in 1985/86 when Martin Crowe would have been scoring a ton of runs, and Richard Hadlee was near his peak.

Incidently, I wonder how that Kiwi side compares to the 1980 team that beat the West Indies?

 

[morgieb]

What would've been the biggest upset in a series based on the rankings?

 

[Days of Grace]

Good effort DoG

I'd like to see the 1986-87 and 1969-70 rankings, please.

Here you go:

1969/70:
South Africa 98.76
England 90.92
Australia 76.49
New Zealand 71.03
India 67.48
West Indies 52.29
Pakistan 51.58

1986/87
West Indies 93.19
Pakistan 90.00
India 66.26
New Zealand 65.36
Australia 62.76
England 58.73
Sri Lanka 40.00


I should add that a team's batting and bowling averages over the five year period also factor into their overall ratings.

The 1979/80 New Zealand side had a rating of 58.45. They were only at the beginning of a very good period.


@ Morgieb: Very good question. I haven't really thought about that. But, New Zealand beating the West Indies in 1979/80, England beating South Africa in 1998, and Sri Lanka winning away in Pakistan in 1995 would have to be up there.

I might make a simplified version of the ratings and post an attachment on this thread at a later date. Until then, I'll be glad to respond to your queries.

And Benchy can GAGF.

 

[Days of Grace]

Attaching it now, in fact. Enjoy.

 

[Coronis]

Question, how do the 21/22 Aussies have such a high rating?

 

[Howe_zat]

Question, how do the 21/22 Aussies have such a high rating?

Back then the only Test series worth talking about much was the Ashes, and England had won it convincingly in 1910/11, followed by beating both Australia and SA at home in 1912. By 1920/21 it was played after 7 years of no cricket thanks to the first world war, and England had been unbeaten for 12 years, so by DoG's system the series had everything riding on it. The Australians thrashed England 5-0.

 

[BeeGee]

Top work DOG.

The golden age of NZ cricket 1983 - 1987. I remember it well.
Also the low point of Australian cricket.

A lot of great memories of those years. Like hanging out in the school AV room every lunch time, watching cricket with the handful of teaches who were also obsessed with cricket. Or trying to come up with an excuse so I didn't have to go to swimming practice after school while a game was on. Or watching cricket and getting pissed out of my skull at my Hockey coach's place, who had moved his bath tub in front of the TV so he didn't miss any of the game while taking a bath.

 

[Days of Grace]

Back then the only Test series worth talking about much was the Ashes, and England had won it convincingly in 1910/11, followed by beating both Australia and SA at home in 1912. By 1920/21 it was played after 7 years of no cricket thanks to the first world war, and England had been unbeaten for 12 years, so by DoG's system the series had everything riding on it. The Australians thrashed England 5-0.

Close, by not quite. The five year period includes the season in question and the closest four seasons to it.

For example, the 2000/01 season catchment period would be:
1998/1999
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03

However, for the 1920/21 season, there was no cricket for the previous 7 years, so there is no option but to have this catchment period:
1920/21
1921/22
1922/23
1923/24
1924/25

It works the other way as well: for this current season, the catchment period is:
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13

It's all about getting a good sample period.


Anyway, that Australian team over a five year period played 17 matches, won 13, drew 4, and lost 1.

Including a 5-0 whitewash over England (tbh, a weak side at the time), 3-0 later in the season in England, 1-0 in South Africa, and 4-1 back home to England in 1924/25.

 

[benchmark00]

Unbelievable.

 

[The Sean]

Really interesting stuff DoG, fascinating to read.

I'm surprised by how (relatively) low the Australian team of immediately after WWII scores, given their extraordinary dominance from 1946-52 which I wrote about just the other day. The Australian team of 1958/59, for example, scores considerably higher and yet I don't think there'd be a single cricketing observer who considers the Australian team of the late '50s to be superior to that of the late '40s.

 

[The Sean]

Really interesting stuff DoG, fascinating to read.

I'm surprised by how (relatively) low the Australian team of immediately after WWII scores, given their extraordinary dominance from 1946-52 which I wrote about just the other day. The Australian team of 1958/59, for example, scores considerably higher and yet I don't think there'd be a single cricketing observer who considers the Australian team of the late '50s to be superior to that of the late '40s.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, it is a bit surprising. Man-for-man, the Invincibles were a better team, but unfortunately for them they beat a fairly weak England team, a minnow India, and a near-minnow in South Africa in the 1940s.

The Australian team of the late 1950s beat a very highly rated England team.

 

[Daemon]

Rating for India '08-WC vs WC-present?

 

[Days of Grace]

I have no idea what you're asking. The ratings are season-by-season, thus India is a lesser team now than they were back in 2008, if that is what you're asking.

 

[Daemon]

My bad, didn't read through the thread properly.