For example, a strong side like South Africa might easily beat a developing team like Bangladesh in a 5 match test series. But, how should that compare with a hard fought series between say, India and Pakistan? Sir Donald Bradman had a test match batting average of over 99, but how should this be compared with today’s stars of world cricket who play far more tests, but where a batting average of over 50 is considered as outstanding?
Various dedicated fans have developed rating systems to solve these problems. These rank individual players by awarding points or by calculating batting/bowling averages. Ranking periods range from 18 months to a whole career. None are perfect, but the best known system was developed by Price Waterhouse Coopers (accountants), and is now used by the ICC.
The ICC rankings rate players on a 0-1000 point scale, separately for tests and ODIs. They consider the runs scored or wickets taken, the ratings of their opponents, the total runs scored in a game and the match result. These rankings are a moving average, so if a player’s performance improves on his past record, his rating increases. But, it reduces if his form declines.
This is great for comparing current and past players. The calculations are pretty complex, but the ICC player comparison tool does all the work for us. Try comparing Sir Len Hutton and Brian Lara, and see if it solves your after dinner debate about who is the best. It’s clever stuff, but of course it’s only as good as the rules for awarding rating points.
Team ranking systems are equally complicated. The first system for test teams was devised in 1995 by Wisden, and awarded points for a team’s performance in recent test series. This was used by the ICC from 2001, when the global test championship was inaugurated. But, the system didn’t take account of the relative strength of opponents, and a new test championship system was adopted in 2005.
This was devised by David Kendix, a cricket scorer and an actuary. It works like a batting average – a winning team improves its average/ranking while a losing team sees its ranking fall. Tests and ODIs use different variations of this system.
The “official” ICC-Kendix system is comprehensive, but there are still several others that are based on points, ratings, averages or some combination of these. They show that cricket records are a statistician’s dream, but what do they all prove?
The bottom line is that Australia are currently top of all the different rankings for tests and ODIs. South Africa are rated second in all ODI rankings, and England are second in all but one of the test match ratings. The official ICC ratings give definitive league tables.
So much for rankings, but there’s far more to world cricket than number crunching. The “premier league” of world cricket comprises ten nations who play each other in test matches, ODIs, the Cricket World Cup and the ICC Champions Trophy. However the ICC World Cricket League includes 87 other nations who don’t have test status, but do play ODI cricket. These form five global divisions, and take part in five regional ODI tournaments.
Kenya are the present WCL champions, and the six members of WCL division one qualified for the 2007 Cricket World Cup, alongside the test playing nations. There are financial benefits for achieving test match status and for playing in the world cup, which in turn aids cricket development. So, the WCL promotes cricket development and offers non test playing nations a route through to cricket’s “premier league”.
The world test cricket championship, ODI rankings, world cricket league and player ratings are relatively new. Whether you love or hate them, they give cricket real global interest which is great for the sport. But despite all this science, will fans ever agree who is the best?
|
Anthony Jenkins is a cricket player and coach, and has been involved with the game for over 4 decades. He manages a junior cricket team, and plays in the Shropshire cricket league. He also manages http://www.cricket-for-parents.com where you can read more of his work.
|