Form Rankings for Teams

[Swervy]

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

I agree..I was only pre-empting what Richard would normally have said in that situation.

Its obviously a silly thing to say that all Pakistan players were/are inconsistant

 

[FRAZ]

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.

Dont have the link in my mind . But their was a website where Ajit Agarkar was compared with Wasim Akram . And Ajit Agarke amazingly had more support and he won the verbal contest ..................
Hmmm he is better than Wasim in some technical experts's views ...

 

[masterblaster]

I don't think any 'technical expert' would claim Ajit Agarkar is better than Wasim Akram. If they do they never deserve to voice their opinion ever again.

I think it was just fanatical fans, not technical experts. Just for the record mate, you'll find Indians giving Wasim Akram the upmost respect for his achievements. But some people do like stirring the pot.......

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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

It's the quality of the opposition thing again I'm afraid...England are actually "punished" for playing poor tourists such as West Indies, and didn't get many points from the Sri Lanka series, either (who CW rates as poor at home). Whereas India has one series win and two draws - both against very good teams (touring NZ and home Aus).

They won't lose much from this series either, because Australia are such good tourists. Only a whitewash would see them drop to fourth. The second place is really a measure of the fact that they've overperformed in Tests over the past twelve months.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Hmm. I think the nature of my ranking system in that it balances out over all the teams is a problem here.

Need to find some kind of a way to avoid this.

 

[Waughney]

The rankings look good IMO

 

[pakster]

The rankings look good IMO

Why wouldnt they, aus are number 1! :P

 

[Waughney]

Why wouldnt they, aus are number 1! :P

 

[marc71178]

But some people do like stirring the pot.......

Including the person that was aimed at...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Dont have the link in my mind . But their was a website where Ajit Agarkar was compared with Wasim Akram . And Ajit Agarke amazingly had more support and he won the verbal contest ..................
Hmmm he is better than Wasim in some technical experts's views ...

Wasim Akram is one of the greatest bowlers ever. Few would argue that. If Ajit is better then the CW gurus have been right all along!

 

[Neil Pickup]

How's the system work, then?

 

[Tony Blade]

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

Definately. Scored double centuries against all but 2 countries and average never dropped below 50. Good average against most countries. Though, I havent seen him play much.

 

[SJS]

Definately. Scored double centuries against all but 2 countries and average never dropped below 50. Good average against most countries. Though, I havent seen him play much.

I have seen him all through his career. He had the mental toughness of Steve Waugh, all the orthodox strokes PLUS the innovation of a Moin Khan and revelled in a scrap.

I would have adored him but for the fact that he got under my (Indian) skin so often and so successfully.

To paraphrase what was said for another, you could see the Pakistani flag fluttering in the air when Miandad was batting.

Great guy.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

How's the system work, then?

You're gonna regret that question...

Tests:

First, I modify the CW home and away rating by dividing it by the total rating and multiplying up by 10,000 (this gives the losers a better chance and is more systematic IMO).

I find all the Test series played in the past year. Then the result of each series is split based on the result of the Tests and how many Tests were played - so that the result becomes a percentage of the total wins, with 50 % for a draw. The result for the home team is multiplied by the away team's away rating, and vice versa. The figure for the home team is then divided by the sum of the home team's and away team's figures, and multiplied by 1000. The home team's figure is then again multiplied by the away team's away rating, and square rooted.

Let's go through that with numbers before the next step:

1) West Indies (965 at home) 1-0 Bangladesh (143 away) (2 Tests)
Series result: 1.5-0.5 ---> 0.75-0.25
West Indies points: 0.75 * 143 = 107.25
Bangladesh points: 0.25 * 965 = 241
Total points: 107.25 + 241 = 348.25
West Indies ranking points: sqrt(107.25/348.25*1000*143) = 210
Bangladesh ranking points: sqrt(241/348.25*1000*965) = 692

This only gives a measure of how well the team performed compared to its opposition, however - so it becomes a kind of "how much the team overperforms" ranking. What I want, though, is more of a skill ranking.

To achieve this, I total all the points awarded to a team playing at home, multiply it by the team's home rating and divide by 600 (this to get figures roughly similar to the CW ratings) - similarly, I total all the points for the team playing away, multiply by the team's away rating and divide by 600. Then, these two figures are added together, and divided by the total number of series played.

Worked example with West Indies:

1-0 (2) in Zimbabwe = 620 points
0-3 (4) in South Africa = 829 points
0-3 (4) to England = 435 points
0-4 (4) in England = 0 points
1-0 (2) over Bangladesh = 210 points

Total at home = 644 points (sums doesn't add up because everything is rounded)
Total away = 1450 points

Home points = 644 * 751 / 600 = 807
Away points = 1449 * 205 / 600 = 495

Total = 807 + 495 = 1302
Divide by 5 series played
1302/5 = 260.

The sqrt part of the function means that teams get a 0-3 is rated much better than a whitewash. If the sqrt is removed and points are divided by 1000 instead, however, that means beating smaller teams is worth owt.

Current standings, with Australia leading India 1-0 (yes, I know it is wrong to stipulate that they'll win the next three, but hey...)

1st Australia 2192
2nd England 1121
3rd Pakistan 1065
4th India 959
5th Sri Lanka 835
6th New Zealand 814
7th South Africa 812
8th West Indies 260
9th Bangladesh 84
10th Zimbabwe 68

However, if India draw a single Test, their ranking goes up to 1259. If they draw two, it becomes 1361. If they lose 1-2, it becomes 1429. So the disadvantage here is clearly that close results aren't awarded enough points...I'm not sure how to work around that.

ODIs:

A similar system, but here I count matches instead of series. This is because I don't want small tournaments such as the Asia Cup, with single-match series, to count for more than the VB series with six games.

Using maths instead of English, because it's shorter:

Hr = Home team's home ranking (multiplied up to make 10,000 again)
Ar = Away team's away ranking (multiplied up to make 10,000 again)
Hw = Home team's wins
Aw = Away team's wins

Hp1 = Hw/(Hw+Aw)*Ar
Ap1 = Aw/(Hw+Aw)*Hr

Hp2 = Hp1/(Hp1+Ap1)
Ap2 = Ap1/(Hp1+Ap1)

Hp = sqrt(Hp2*Ar)*(Hw+Aw)
Ap = sqrt(Ap2*Hr)*(Hw+Aw)

For matches on neutral ground, the overall CW rankings are used for Hr and Ar. The points are summed up, divided by the total number of matches, multiplied by the team's overall ranking, divided by 600 (was 575, but fixed
that to make it consistent with the Test rankings) - and we're home.

Wow, that was complicated...the new calculations for ODIs, anyway, including Sri Lanka beating Zimbabwe 1-0 on neutral ground and Pakistan beating Zimbabwe 2-0:

1st Australia 1931
2nd Sri Lanka 1303
3rd New Zealand 1084
4th Pakistan 945
5th India 910
6th England 875
7th South Africa 741
8th West Indies 737
9th Zimbabwe 78
10th Bangladesh 2
11th Kenya 0

 

[Deja moo]

You're gonna regret that question...

Tests:

First, I modify the CW home and away rating by dividing it by the total rating and multiplying up by 10,000 (this gives the losers a better chance and is more systematic IMO).

I find all the Test series played in the past year. Then the result of each series is split based on the result of the Tests and how many Tests were played - so that the result becomes a percentage of the total wins, with 50 % for a draw. The result for the home team is multiplied by the away team's away rating, and vice versa. The figure for the home team is then divided by the sum of the home team's and away team's figures, and multiplied by 1000. The home team's figure is then again multiplied by the away team's away rating, and square rooted.

Let's go through that with numbers before the next step:

1) West Indies (965 at home) 1-0 Bangladesh (143 away) (2 Tests)
Series result: 1.5-0.5 ---> 0.75-0.25
West Indies points: 0.75 * 143 = 107.25
Bangladesh points: 0.25 * 965 = 241
Total points: 107.25 + 241 = 348.25
West Indies ranking points: sqrt(107.25/348.25*1000*143) = 210
Bangladesh ranking points: sqrt(241/348.25*1000*965) = 692

This only gives a measure of how well the team performed compared to its opposition, however - so it becomes a kind of "how much the team overperforms" ranking. What I want, though, is more of a skill ranking.

To achieve this, I total all the points awarded to a team playing at home, multiply it by the team's home rating and divide by 600 (this to get figures roughly similar to the CW ratings) - similarly, I total all the points for the team playing away, multiply by the team's away rating and divide by 600. Then, these two figures are added together, and divided by the total number of series played.

Worked example with West Indies:

1-0 (2) in Zimbabwe = 620 points
0-3 (4) in South Africa = 829 points
0-3 (4) to England = 435 points
0-4 (4) in England = 0 points
1-0 (2) over Bangladesh = 210 points

Total at home = 644 points (sums doesn't add up because everything is rounded)
Total away = 1450 points

Home points = 644 * 751 / 600 = 807
Away points = 1449 * 205 / 600 = 495

Total = 807 + 495 = 1302
Divide by 5 series played
1302/5 = 260.

The sqrt part of the function means that teams get a 0-3 is rated much better than a whitewash. If the sqrt is removed and points are divided by 1000 instead, however, that means beating smaller teams is worth owt.

Current standings, with Australia leading India 1-0 (yes, I know it is wrong to stipulate that they'll win the next three, but hey...)

1st Australia 2192
2nd England 1121
3rd Pakistan 1065
4th India 959
5th Sri Lanka 835
6th New Zealand 814
7th South Africa 812
8th West Indies 260
9th Bangladesh 84
10th Zimbabwe 68

However, if India draw a single Test, their ranking goes up to 1259. If they draw two, it becomes 1361. If they lose 1-2, it becomes 1429. So the disadvantage here is clearly that close results aren't awarded enough points...I'm not sure how to work around that.

ODIs:

A similar system, but here I count matches instead of series. This is because I don't want small tournaments such as the Asia Cup, with single-match series, to count for more than the VB series with six games.

Using maths instead of English, because it's shorter:

Hr = Home team's home ranking (multiplied up to make 10,000 again)
Ar = Away team's away ranking (multiplied up to make 10,000 again)
Hw = Home team's wins
Aw = Away team's wins

Hp1 = Hw/(Hw+Aw)*Ar
Ap1 = Aw/(Hw+Aw)*Hr

Hp2 = Hp1/(Hp1+Ap1)
Ap2 = Ap1/(Hp1+Ap1)

Hp = sqrt(Hp2*Ar)*(Hw+Aw)
Ap = sqrt(Ap2*Hr)*(Hw+Aw)

For matches on neutral ground, the overall CW rankings are used for Hr and Ar. The points are summed up, divided by the total number of matches, multiplied by the team's overall ranking, divided by 600 (was 575, but fixed
that to make it consistent with the Test rankings) - and we're home.

Wow, that was complicated...the new calculations for ODIs, anyway, including Sri Lanka beating Zimbabwe 1-0 on neutral ground and Pakistan beating Zimbabwe 2-0:

1st Australia 1931
2nd Sri Lanka 1303
3rd New Zealand 1084
4th Pakistan 945
5th India 910
6th England 875
7th South Africa 741
8th West Indies 737
9th Zimbabwe 78
10th Bangladesh 2
11th Kenya 0

Does that also involve chi squaring the past year results and juxtapositioning them with the last series factor ?

 

[Neil Pickup]

How would a chi-squared help?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Does that also involve chi squaring the past year results and juxtapositioning them with the last series factor ?

Go back to year-4 maths and stop namedropping

 

[Deja moo]

How would a chi-squared help?

I dont know...like Master Vimes said , just name dropping ( Like they say--If you cant understand them , join them .. )

 

[Craig]

I don't see why I should go off the CW system.

All other sports and cricket included rank off recent form, if somebody or a team isn't playing well, then that will reflect that then instead of how a team was going four years ago when they might have had some of their good players playing for them yet they have retired etc.

 

[Waughney]

I don't see why I should go off the CW system.

All other sports and cricket included rank off recent form, if somebody or a team isn't playing well, then that will reflect that then instead of how a team was going four years ago when they might have had some of their good players playing for them yet they have retired etc.

Yes, but those can be prone to excessive fluctuations.