Form Rankings for Teams

[Magrat Garlick]

This is an attempt by myself after an idea that's toyed in my head for a while. We reckon that the CW rankings are the best around rating the last four years back (at least, everybody but the New Zealanders do). But how about, say, the recent year? Is it possible to rank the teams' "form" instead of their "class" as CW attempts?

Using the CW rankings as a baseline, and doing some very complicated calculations (which I may write up if anyone requests them - at the moment, I'm a bit lost myself in trying to get my head around it) on the Test and ODI series in this last year, I get:

Tests:

1st Australia 1803
2nd India 1279
3rd England 1121
4th Pakistan 1065
5th Sri Lanka 835
6th New Zealand 814
7th South Africa 812
8th West Indies 260
9th Bangladesh 84
10th Zimbabwe 68

ODIs:

1st Australia 2015
2nd Sri Lanka 1369
3rd New Zealand 1131
4th Pakistan 970
5th India 950
6th England 913
7th West Indies 769
8th South Africa 728
9th Zimbabwe 92
10th Bangladesh 2
11th Kenya 0

The calculations for Tests and ODIs work a little bit differently - for Tests, series results are used, while for ODIs, points are given on a match-by-match basis. This is due to lessen the effects of the one-off series such as the Asia Cup and the Champions Trophy. Another flaw in the system is that even whitewashes against Bangladesh draw down the average number of points, so those teams who play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in the same year have a problem.

Again, these rankings should not be taken as a ranking of nation's strengths over a sustained period of time - it is more of a PwC ranking for teams.

 

[steds]

Looks about right...well done

 

[Richard]

Form is a fickle thing and should not be attempted to be defined.
Not to try to render your work meaningless, Hakon, but just to say what I believe.
Oh, and form has no place in Pakistan cricket. If many Pakistani batsman\bowlers have ever exhibited reliable form, either "in" or "out of" I'll eat my computer.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Oh, and form has no place in Pakistan cricket. If a Pakistani batsman\bowler has ever exhibited reliable form, either "in" or "out of" I'll eat my computer.

Inzy? Was pretty reliably out of form at the WC, and is usually solid otherwise...

 

[Richard]

And that lasted a long time, didn't it?
He epitomises it better than anyone - the closest Pakistan will ever come to a Mr. Reliable, but he's got out playing lazy shots on more occasions than I care to remember - or caused crucial run-outs through wholly unneccessary incidents.
As for Youhana - anyone who calls him a Mr. Reliable needs a serious reality check.
He's good in ODIs - but not as good as his average might suggest. In Test-matches, he is one of the more overrated players of today.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

or caused crucial run-outs through wholly unneccessary incidents.

Yeah, but that's because he's fat

See your point though. I think it arises from the entire system of cricket in Pakistan - no stability whatsoever, just changes all the time (to both team and selectors) - it's not gonna pay off in the long run. Pakistan is likely to be a lot of potential and not real success unless everyone - selectors, players, and board chairmen - work for stable conditions.

 

[Richard]

From everything I've ever heard about Pakistan turbulence is just part-and-parcel of the country - stability is something that probably has a different meaning to those who know only Pakistan as it does to us Europeans.
If everything else in the country has no stability, it's not really realistic to expect cricket to be any different. A shame, but no more of a shame than that everyday life is so chaotic compared to over here.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Form is a fickle thing and should not be attempted to be defined.
Not to try to render your work meaningless, Hakon, but just to say what I believe.
Oh, and form has no place in Pakistan cricket. If a Pakistani batsman\bowler has ever exhibited reliable form, either "in" or "out of" I'll eat my computer.

Wasim Akram

31st Test - 40th Test (10) : averaged 19.27 with the ball (43 wickets)
41st Test - 50th Test (10) : averaged 23.14 with the ball (49 wickets)
51st Test - 60th Test (10) : 19.16 (60 wickets)
61st Test - 70th Test (10) : 22.13 (43 wickets)
71st Test - 80th Test (10) : 21.43 (44 wickets)
81st Test - 90th Test (10) : 25.71 (38 wickets)
91st Test - 100th Test (10) : 25.33 (27 wickets)
101st Test - 104th Test (10) : 60.2 (5 wickets)

Looks to me like Wasim was in consistently excellent form for about 50 Tests and in consistently mortal form for the next 20. Poor form at the very end admittedly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Specifics...

In the best period of that listing above, Wasim Akram's 51st to 60th Tests...

3/50 and 6/43 v NZ
4/60 and 7/119 v NZ
2/54 and 3/105 v NZ
3/30 and 5/43 v SL
4/32 and 1/70 v SL
3/75 and 5/63 v Aus
1/62 and DNB v Aus
2/113 and 2/53 v SA
1/95 and DNB v Zim - Zimbabwe's famous win
3/40 and 5/43 v Zim

That's pretty consistent in my book.

 

[Swervy]

Wasim Akram

31st Test - 40th Test (10) : averaged 19.27 with the ball (43 wickets)
41st Test - 50th Test (10) : averaged 23.14 with the ball (49 wickets)
51st Test - 60th Test (10) : 19.16 (60 wickets)
61st Test - 70th Test (10) : 22.13 (43 wickets)
71st Test - 80th Test (10) : 21.43 (44 wickets)
81st Test - 90th Test (10) : 25.71 (38 wickets)
91st Test - 100th Test (10) : 25.33 (27 wickets)
101st Test - 104th Test (10) : 60.2 (5 wickets)

Looks to me like Wasim was in consistently excellent form for about 50 Tests and in consistently mortal form for the next 20. Poor form at the very end admittedly.

he is an anomaly

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

he is an anomaly

But that shouldn't stop Richard from enjoying his tasty computer.

 

[Richard]

True, Wasim is a very unusual case.
It is true that he could bowl a brilliant spell one day and get belted the next, but that's true of any bowler, especially in the one-day game.
Maybe I'll modify that a bit.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

True, Wasim is a very unusual case.
It is true that he could bowl a brilliant spell one day and get belted the next, but that's true of any bowler, especially in the one-day game.
Maybe I'll modify that a bit.

Too late now. Some salt for that mouse?

 

[Richard]

Ah, but if you look you'll see it was just malicious misquoting.

 

[marc71178]

The position of India at number 2 immediately makes me question these.

 

[masterblaster]

To be fair, India have done exceedingly well in test matches as of late. Their poor form has been in the ODI version of the game and you can see them at number 5, where they rightly belong.

India haven't done anything wrong in Test Cricket just yet (disregarding the current Australia series).

 

[SJS]

he is an anomaly

I am sure one can find others. I havent looked at figures but Miandad was consistent.

 

[marc71178]

To be fair, India have done exceedingly well in test matches as of late.

Over the period in question, it's 3 wins, 4 draws and 2 defeats.

That's hardly 2nd in the World credentials.

 

[masterblaster]

We'll see how England fare's when they play Australia.

 

[marc71178]

Yes we will, however if this series ends 3-0 or something, they won't be able to do much worse