Print

[Johnny]

http://testcricketleague.wordpress.com/

Came across this today - interesting concept. I quite like the idea - what are other people's thoughts?

[Manormanic]

Interesting idea, but the absence of home/away distinctions could be seen to cause issues

[Johnny]

Interesting idea, but the absence of home/away distinctions could be seen to cause issues

Possibly - have you read the full website? He does list the weaknesses in the system, but also provides some argument to counter these. The home/away argument is covered there

[Manormanic]

must admit I didn't have time to read it in too much detail!

[uknsaunders]

Interesting idea, but the absence of home/away distinctions could be seen to cause issues

agree, read the arguments and they don't hold any water.

1. Winning a series means getting a draw in the next is easier
2. Home and Away balances out
3. The most recent series away should cancel out a previous home series
4. More at stake when a series isn't back to back, like the 2013 Ashes
5. Long Intervals between series shouldn't count

Sounds like he has a system that he either can't be arsed to tweak or loves it so much that he thought up some pointless counter arguments to justify it.

Playing in Asia is totalling different for England as it is for India playing in Australia. An overseas win to a major feat, but somebody like SA have actually struggled to win at home. Poor home form and excellent away form need to be reflected. England lost to Pakistan 3-0 in the UAE but won at home 3-1, I make that 4-3 to Pakistan overall in tests but series home and away is 1-1, that's a draw not a loss.

[uknsaunders]

and another problem, is winning 4-0 against India at home worth more than winning 2-1 or 3-1 in India. On completion of the series the winning % will fall for England and they might slip to 3rd place, despite possibly winning the toughest series going. A series nobody else has won in years.

[tim2000s]

and another problem, is winning 4-0 against India at home worth more than winning 2-1 or 3-1 in India. On completion of the series the winning % will fall for England and they might slip to 3rd place, despite possibly winning the toughest series going. A series nobody else has won in years.

This is a very big point. The idea of previous series being the only one that counts requires you to be comparing apples with apples anyway. England v Australia is 5 matches. England v Windies is 3 matches. Should one have a greater bearing on the result? Winning 3-2 in a five match series is not a dominant performance. Winning 3-0 in a 3 match series is. Yet both of these class the same.

I believe it should be a rolling 12 month period and based on number of matches played, score points (3, 1, 0), then normalise the performances to give a %age. In 12 months, if you have played 8 tests, won 6 and lost two then you have 18/24, or 75%. If you had played 8, drawn 1 and lost one you have 19/24 or 79%.

If you want to include multipliers or some level of additional bonus for away series, that works too.

What it looks like to me is that the ideas have come about from someone too focussed on the Ashes or India/Pakistan series, where the rivalries around the series trophy outweigh the reality of playing test cricket.  But maybe that's just me.

[Manormanic]

Even then you don't get an appropriate weighting for the various factors such as relative difficulty for visiting sides in your home conditions, and even the different number fo games played (England play on average 13 a year, some countries only 6...)

[Kieron_BT]

So apart from Pakistan and India being the opposite way round at 5 and 6 the rankings are exactly the same as the ICC rankings

Good to see his time hasn't been wasted!