Decide the ICC Test Championship by straight ladder

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.

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

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 .

Sorry James, the comment was directed to Dadiggle where it was "classic cherry picking" not at you

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.

I would look at a higher weighting for away series wins

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

aghh it doesn't work. I tried putting spaces and have the number align with the heading.

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

@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.

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