Decide the ICC Test Championship by straight ladder
Roar Guru 
South Africa's Jacques Kallis, left, is caught out for 46 runs by Australia's Ed Cowan. AP Photo/Rick Rycroft
Related coverage
To become the ICC Test champs, a team has to top the ICC Test rankings. Sounds easy, right?
If we have a look at the ICC rankings website, which ranks the best Test team in the world, we see the table that has the name of the teams, the matches they play and a rating calculated by a complex mathematical formula.
Whoever tops the ratings get the trophy for being the best Test nation in the world.
I don’t believe this is a best way of determining who the best team in the world is. When the average cricket fans look at the rankings, what do the points and rating mean?
There’s a disconnection between the results of the Test match being played and the table to determine who is the best team in the world.
For the competition to have legitimacy it has to be decided either by a tournament (such as the ODI World Cup) or an alternative, for which my suggestion is a ladder.
Go through the last series played between the two nations (both home and away). Award two points for a series win and one point for a draw. Set it up as a ladder with a series win, loss and draw column.
This is simple to understand, has a direct connection to the results of the series and is a fairer way to determine the results.
People may point out this is similar to what the ICC had in the past, before they changed it to the rating system.
This led to a situation where South Africa were the number one team in the world when Australia dominated cricket (after beating them 3-0 home and away), which led to the mocking of the system.
However in this situation Australia had yet to play a home and away series against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which counted in the rating system. A victory over those sides would have elevated Australia to number one.
Nowadays where everyone has played each other home and away (except for Bangladesh versus India in India), this is less of an issue.
So using the results of the last series played against each other, this is the table:
Teams Series Played Wins Draws Losses Points
South Africa 18 12 5 1 29
England 18 12 3 3 27
Australia 18 11 3 4 25
India 17 10 3 4 23
Pakistan 18 9 3 6 21
Sri Lanka 18 6 6 6 18
West Indies 18 5 4 9 14
New Zealand 18 4 4 10 12
Zimbabwe 18 2 1 15 5
Bangladesh 17 2 0 15 4
This is pretty similar to the current ICC world rankings but with India swapped with Pakistan, and Zimbabwe missing from the ranking (not enough games in the last three years).
However even if the ranking is only marginally different in terms of the results, the key difference is the way the ranking is presented. It is now easy to understand instead of based on a points system calculated by a formula that isn’t easy to understand.
Australia’s next series is against India in India and we will all know Australia is trying to gain two points, while India are trying to defend their two points. The only way we know how this affects the ranking is by using a calculator on the ICC website.
The main issue some people have against this system are that there is no time frame for the last results being counted to the ranking.
Due to Zimbabwe’s isolation from Test cricket between 2004-2011, some of the results used were from decades ago.
Australia’s away victory over Zimbabwe came in 1999. Zimbabwe’s away victory over Pakistan in 1998 and home draw over England in 1996 (the oldest series used in the ranking) can be argued to inflate Zimbabwe’s already low ranking in this system.
My response is that sport isn’t about saying one team is better than another on paper. You must demonstrating it by winning the match on the day.
England has to prove they can beat Zimbabwe away from home, India has to prove they can beat Bangladesh at home, which they haven’t proven despite having the talent to do that.
This will ensure that the Test Championship will be decided by a proper table which is well established and used in many sports, instead of a complex mathematical formula.
Passionate about your cricket? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily cricket email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (21) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Cricket, ICC, Test cricket
January 9th 2013 @ 5:59am
James said | January 9th 2013 @ 5:59am | Report comment
If you closely examine results in terms of series wins – for and against – and matches played and in which countries, SA have been the best side for the past 6 years. Personally, I don’t much care about all these various ranking charts – there are far too many variables in cricket such as pitch conditions, weather, umpiring etc. It is a like hearing people present projects for financing and they give you figures to 2 decimal places based on 5 year forecasts? Laughable. It is the assumptions that the stats are based on that are important, not the stats themselves. Only over a significant period of time can you get some feel for who is the best batsman etc, etc. Take, for example the modern greats like Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Kallis. Their stats show a consistency over a very long period of time, in many different conditions etc. etc. Kallis in particular has shown he is, without doubt, the finest cricketer in history.Tendulkar the best batsman and so on.
This current system of rating who is best side etc is nonsensical.
And no, I don’t want to hear much how much better someone was 50 years ago etc.That is the path of even more bias. If you want to use stats then look at the scoreboards over a long period of time.Ultimately that is all you have in terms of a statistical base.
The rest is just people being people and expressing their opinions, prejudices, bias etc.
That’s what makes the game great – there is never going to be black and white analysis, just constant argument over what it all means.
January 9th 2013 @ 8:22am
Dadiggle said | January 9th 2013 @ 8:22am | Report comment
haha South Africa is so far in front considering matches played which is 12 less that people are trying to find new calculations to make that gap look much smaller. Classic cherry picking there.
But using predictor I typed in SA win 2 – 0 against Pakistan and NZ which is 5 tests but the predictor said 36 matches for some reason
http://www.icc-cricket.com/match_zone/test_predictor.php
January 9th 2013 @ 1:09pm
James said | January 9th 2013 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
@Dardiggle You are quite right. Gave this mess to an Englishman who is a nephew with PhD in maths from Cambridge and very gainfully employed as an actuary. He just said that he gave up a long time ago trying to explain the total uselessness of relying on current stats to give a definitive answer to the “who is best” questions. He said much vital and critical info was missing e.g. weather,pitch conditions,umpiring mistakes,travel etc,etc. A long playing history(10 years plus at least) would help even up the distortions created by the variables. He looked at the stats on Cricketinfo and Howstat and confirmed what we all know to be true – much cherry picking goes on to use the stats to prove our own biases and prejudices. Interestingly, he said that the weight of incorrect media reporting and writers bias is also a critical factor in influencing our assessments.People tend to parrot others opinion as if it were a fact (e.g. Sobers better all rounder than Kallis when the stats clearly show otherwise etc) and then selectively use whatever stats to prove their argument. You can’t have it every which way.
January 9th 2013 @ 1:51pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
So are you accusing me of cherry picking? I’m not too sure picking up the results of the last series between the two team is cherry picking. It seems more legitimate
I’m not trying to create a system of cutting down South Africa lead but rather create a conventional ranking system. I agreed with this system back in 2001 when Australia were dominating cricket but were 2nd to South Africa and I thought it was short sighted of ICC to change it back then.
In any case the gap between England and South africa isn’t really that big
England are the best home team in world cricket winning 8 out of their 9 series. Their only loss is to South Africa who are the greatest team away from home.
However South Africa drew to England, Australia and India at home. It’s only when you take in their superb away record that brings them slightly in front of England.
Test cricket has never been more competitive right now where the gap isn’t that big between the top 4 sides.
January 9th 2013 @ 3:53pm
James said | January 9th 2013 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
No, I am not accusing you of cherry picking! I am talking of the many others who do it all the time and usually when you check the stats they quote you find they are incomplete or just plain incorrect! I support your argument in trying to simplify the system. See my earlier remark about calculations to 2 decimal places for forecasts! The current system is far too complicated and quite ridiculous because it is using over complex calculations as if they were talking of really definite facts and comparing like with like – which they are not. For example SA has played considerably less tests than the others and far less against the really weak sides.
January 9th 2013 @ 5:22pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Sorry James, the comment was directed to Dadiggle where it was “classic cherry picking” not at you
January 9th 2013 @ 1:32pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
I realised that since tables can’t be created in the article. The table doesn’t look clear
Teams Series Played Wins Draws Losses Points
South Africa 18 12 5 1 29
England 18 12 3 3 27
Australia 18 11 3 4 25
India 17 10 3 4 23
Pakistan 18 9 3 6 21
Sri Lanka 18 6 6 6 18
West Indies 18 5 4 9 14
New Zealand 18 4 4 10 12
Zimbabwe 18 2 1 15 5
Bangladesh 17 2 0 15 4
I hope that table is clearer now.
I do believe that the Test rankings will have more legitimacy if it was presented in this matter
January 9th 2013 @ 1:33pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
aghh it doesn’t work. I tried putting spaces and have the number align with the heading.
January 9th 2013 @ 1:40pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
1. South Africa, Series Played – 18, Wins – 12, Draws – 5, Losses – 1, Total Points – 29
2. England, Series Played – 18, Wins – 12, Draws- 3, Losses – 3, Total Points – 27
3. Australia, Sereis Played – 18, Wins – 11, Draws – 3, Losses – 4, Total Points – 25
4. India, Series Played – 17, Wins – 10, Draws – 3, Losses – 4, Total Points – 23
5. Pakistan, Series Played – 18, Wins – 9, Draws – 3, Losses – 6, Total Points – 21
6. Sri Lanka, Series Played – 18, Wins – 6, Draws – 6, Losses 6, Total Points – 18
7. West Indies , – Series PLayed – 18, Wins – 5, Draws – 4, Losses – 9, Total Points – 14
8 New Zealand , – Series PLayed – 18, Wins – 4, Draws – 4, Losses – 10, Total Points – 12
9 Zimbabwe , – Series Played – 18, Wins – 2, Draws – 1, Losses – 15, Total Points – 5
10 Bangladesh, – Series Played – 17 Wins – 2, Draws – 0, Losses – 15, Total Points – 4
January 9th 2013 @ 2:18pm
Matt F said | January 9th 2013 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
The problem with this is that a 2-1 series loss ends up being the same as a 5-0 series loss when in fact it isn’t. Under this system our 4-0 win gainst India last summer would be the same as a 1-0 win. That doesn’s show the true gap that existed in the series
Also the current ICC version doesn’t include results from 4+ years ago so England’s loss to Zimbabwe, rightfully, isn’t on there. Results for 3-4 years ago are also weighted down to 50%. While I can understand where your coming from by saying England need to prove they can beat Zimbabwe no player that was involved in their last series is still playing. It is completely irrelevant to 2013 rankings. The idea that England could potentially jump up level with South Africa just by winning a series in Zimbabwe doesn’t lend this system much credibility, and you freely admit that when the ICC used a similar system the lack of playing Zimbabwe pushed Australia down to number two.
You seem to be arguing for a system which has a number of flaws (many which you’ve already identified) simply because it’s easier to understand for someone who spends 10 seconds looking at a table.
January 9th 2013 @ 2:43pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
That’s just means there a little bit of adjustment to the system. I don’t think this system is perfect but it’s in the right direction
“The problem with this is that a 2-1 series loss ends up being the same as a 5-0 series loss when in fact it isn’t. Under this system our 4-0 win gainst India last summer would be the same as a 1-0 win. That doesn’s show the true gap that existed in the series”
However I als o think the ICC system goes the other way. They give a points for every test win and a bonus points for series wins when in my mind a series win is the primary objective.
I was thinking about adding a bonus points for a white wash
It was tinkering with it, and I’m thinking 4 points for a win, 2 points for a draw and 1 point for a clean sweep. (The bonus point makes me to double the points for a win and a draw because in my opinion, white washing a home series and then losing away should not equal winning the series at home and drawing away as it would if a win and draw were just 2 points and 1 points).
This would change the ranking to something like this
South Africa – 62
England – 58
Australia – 58
India – 51
Pakistan – 45
Sri Lanka = 41
West Indies – 31
New Zealand – 27
Zimbabwe – 11
Bangladesh – 9
” Results for 3-4 years ago are also weighted down to 50%”
I don’t really agree with that. The test championship should be based on results against every nation , however since there are only few test per year, this means that you are using results over a wide time period let say 10 years.
“no player that was involved in their last series is still playing. It is completely irrelevant to 2013 rankings.”
I could simply do what ICC do, simply remove all Zimbabwe matches from the ranking. However this would cut the margin of South Africa over England to be South Africa gpes frp, 29 to 27
And England will drop from 27 to 26. Therefore only one point margin over England.
“The idea that England could potentially jump up level with South Africa just by winning a series in Zimbabwe doesn’t lend this system much credibility”
First thing, it wouldn’t jump the level to South Africa, it would cut the margin from 2 points to 1 points. how would it cut down the credibility. Yeah South Africa has a better head to head record over England but they stumbled away to Sri lanka and home to England,Australia and India. Disregarding zimbabwe and Bangladesh and assuming both south africa and zimbabwe flogged them, South Africa would only have a one point margin over England which is fair enough
“when the ICC used a similar system the lack of playing Zimbabwe pushed Australia down to number two.”
To be honest, I have no problem with that. It’s akin to a football season where a team top the ladder but the team 2nd them still has game to spare against teams on the bottle of the ladder. All it takes is time for Australia to beat Zimbabwe and bangladesh to rectify it.
January 9th 2013 @ 2:02pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
For people who are curious about their home and away record
Home
1. England, Series Played – 9, Wins – 8, Draws- 0, Losses – 1, Total Points – 16
2.South Africa, Series Played – 9, Wins – 6, Draws – 3, Losses – 0, Total Points – 15
3.Pakistan, Series Played – 9, Wins – 6, Draws – 2, Losses – 1, Total Points – 14
4. India, Series Played – 8, Wins – 6, Draws – 1, Losses – 1, Total Points – 13
5. Australia, Series Played – 9, Wins – 6, Draws – 1, Losses – 2, Total Points – 13
6. Sri Lanka, Series Played – 9, Wins – 4, Draws – 4, Losses 1, Total Points – 12
7. West Indies , Series Played – 9, Wins – 3, Draws – 2, Losses – 4, Total Points – 8
8. New Zealand , Series Played – 9, Wins – 2, Draws – 2, Losses – 5, Total Points – 6
9. Zimbabwe ,Series Played – 9 Wins – 1, Draws – 1, Losses – 7, Total Points – 3
10. Bangladesh, Series Played – 9 Wins – 1, Draws – 0, Losses – 8, Total Points – 2
Away
1. South Africa, Series Played – 9, Wins – 6, Draws – 2, Losses – 1, Total Points – 14
2. Australia, Series Played – 9, Wins – 5, Draws- 2, Losses – 2, Total Points – 12
3. England, Series Played – 9, Wins – 4, Draws – 3, Losses – 2, Total Points – 11
4. India, Series Played – 9, Wins – 4, Draws – 2, Losses – 3, Total Points – 10
5. Pakistan, Series Played – 9, Wins – 3, Draws – 1, Losses – 5, Total Points – 7
6. Sri Lanka, Series Played – 9, Wins – 2, Draws – 2, Losses 5, Total Points – 6
7. West Indies , Series Played – 9, Wins – 2, Draws – 2, Losses – 5, Total Points – 6
8. New Zealand , Series Played – 9, Wins – 2, Draws – 2, Losses – 5, Total Points – 6
9. Bangladesh, Series Played – 8, Wins – 1, Draws – 0, Losses – 7, Total Points – 2
10. Zimbabwe, Series Played – 9 Wins – 1, Draws – 0, Losses – 8, Total Points – 2
January 9th 2013 @ 4:58pm
matt h said | January 9th 2013 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
I would look at a higher weighting for away series wins
January 9th 2013 @ 2:35pm
Timmuh said | January 9th 2013 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I actually use a slightly different formula, but one that would only work if the FTP ensured every nation played each other every four years and if nations actually stuck to the FTP once they had agreed to it.
It takes the most recent meetings, home and away, but limiedt to within the last 5 years. I do it over 5 years, so oif there are few months one way or the other in a four year cycle series can be included until the new series is complete.
It also awards points slightly differently, 9 points for winning a series with 1 point for each win in the margin of victory. eg a 1-0 or 2-1 win gets 10 points, a 2-0 win 11 points and so forth. Australia’s 3-0 won over Sri Lanka therefore being worth 12 points. This rewards dominating longer series. Drawn series are given 5 points.
Because of inequities in the schedule, it doesn’t give an accurate results (England are on top, simply because they have played the lesser nations more than, for example, South Africa).
England 134 (16 series included)
South Africa 110 (13 series included)
Australia 95 (14)
India 90 (13)
Pakistan 63 (11)
Sri Lanka 56 (13)
New Zealand 55 (15)
West Indies 42 (15)
Bangladesh 11 (12)
Zimbabwe 10 (4)
This is more the type of system I would like to see used, if the scheduling is ever fixed. Currently it is worthless. However, if I set it to a time limit of 150 years (effectively endless) and include the latest match-up of all series home and away, I then get:
South Africa 152
England 150
Australia 138
India 122 (17 series)
Pakistan / Sri Lanka 106
West Indies 63
New Zealand 60
Zimbabwe 25
Bangladesh 21 (17 series)
Note 1: I was doing this an exercise in learning some PHP, and its not fully tested, so may be incorrect from coding errors or from having entered data incorrectly somewhere.
Note 2: The above both include singles Tests as series.
Perhaps the other thing to note is that India have never hosted Bangladesh in a Test. At a quick glance it appears they will go to Bangladesh for 2 Tests in 2015, but do not host them within the period of the current FTP (which runs until April 2020).
January 9th 2013 @ 2:55pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I actually like the look at the rating, at least the lower rating using the latest match-up disregarding time period
A 9 point for a win + a single point for a margin seems to get a better balance.
January 9th 2013 @ 3:20pm
Timmuh said | January 9th 2013 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Thank you.
As I said, the time limit thing doesn’t really work with the way scheduling happens now. At the time I first came up with this, or something very like it, the rankings were in their infnacy and I saw the time limit as a way to give an incentive to nations to play against all other nations regularly.
From that point of view, it goes beyond pure rankings and was originally devised with administrative matters (more even scheduling) in mind as well as being a ranking system. The idea goes back a long way, maybe to the late 1990s. I have only done something with the idea recently, purely as a learning exercise.
January 9th 2013 @ 5:28pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
I agree about the scheduling issue.
In an ideal world there will be a round robin with every side over let say a 4 or 5 year period. At the end you give a trophy on who is on top of the ladder and then repeat .
January 9th 2013 @ 5:54pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
with the old ICC system they ended up solving the team not playing each other by doing an average of the points per game. If you do that on SA they ended up topping the ladder with your system
It wasn’t a perfect solution because the average still pushed South Africa in front of Australia in 2002 because Australia haven’t played against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh yet.
January 9th 2013 @ 4:37pm
biltongbek said | January 9th 2013 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
I don’t much care for the rankings, When I look at South Africa’s record over the past 6 years it brings me much more satisfaction than worrying about a ranking system that supposedly tell you who is the best team.
As long as we keep winning that is more important to me than any ranking.
January 9th 2013 @ 5:09pm
Andy_Roo said | January 9th 2013 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
I don’t think a test championship tournament is feasible. The rankings system may not be perfect but I don’t hear anyone seriously arguing that they are incorrect. Nobody is claiming that South Africa is not the current no.1.
The ICC introduced the Mace as a trophy for the no.1 ranked test team.
January 9th 2013 @ 5:49pm
dasilva said | January 9th 2013 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
I’m not talking about a tournament. I”m calling the mace given to the number one rank side the Test championship.
It’s just something I’ve adopted from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship
I rather have a ladder than a ranking determining who gets the mace