A few days ago Team India had a brief stint at the top of the charts; the love affair barely lasted 24 hrs.
Obviously, India's stay at the # 1 spot generated some debate.
Some good questions were raised.
For instance, a team that fields so badly, can it claim to be #1?
Or, a team that loses by huge margins and displays feeble/insipid performances, can that claim to be #1?
Or, a team whose "front line bowlers" basically leaked runs and did well only against the rather hapless Kiwis, does it deserve the #1 status?
Like I said, good questions.
However, we all know that the rankings are decided by the ICC based on win/loss records. And it is what it is.
Team India, despite its failings, qualifies for the #3 spot.
(And for those brief 24 hours, a few days ago, they deserved #1.)
A look at the stats:
(I am posting stats since 2007, following the World Cup, because that is when India started its rise up the charts.)
India in Bangladesh ODI Series 2007 India 2-0 (3)
India in Ireland ODI Match 2007 India 1-0 (1)
Future Cup (India, South Africa in Ireland)2007India2-1 (3)
Future Friendship Cup (India, Pakistan in Scotland)2007abandoned0-0 (1)
India in Scotland ODI Match2007India1-0 (1)
NatWest Series [India in England]2007England4-3 (7)
Australia in India ODI Series2007/08Australia4-2 (7)
Pakistan in India ODI Series2007/08India3-2 (5)
Commonwealth Bank Series (Australia, India, Sri Lanka in Australia)2007/08India
Kitply Cup (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan in Bangladesh)2008Pakistan
Asia Cup (Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates in Pakistan) 2008Sri Lanka
India in Sri Lanka ODI Series2008India3-2 (5)
England in India ODI Series2008/09India5-0 (5)
India in Sri Lanka ODI Series2008/09India4-1 (5)
India in New Zealand ODI Series2008/09India3-1 (5)
India in West Indies ODI Series2009India2-1 (4)
Compaq Cup (India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka)2009India
Not bad eh?
And this is not just against weaker teams like Bangladesh or Ireland or ZIM.
And most of these victories were on foriegn soil.
Sure, some of you might reject stats, but these stats are what decide the rankings!
And, sure Team India isn't as good as the all-conquering Aussies of the past; they haven't managed to distance themselves from the rest of the pack as successfully and consistently as the Aussies did.
And the fielding is embarrasing.
So is some of the pace bowling.
But, remember, this was a team without its regular openers, and ZAK.
And things change.
Heck even the Aussies, who struggled against spin not so long ago, are calling themselves "working class"!!!
And when was the last time South Africa won a major tournament?
Maybe Team India is not that great, but the flux in the rankings (Ind, Aus, SA keep changing places) is also proving that there isn't any one team that is a clear leader.
And maybe that isn't such a bad thing.
38 Maidens bowled!!:
Nice to see India having a one-night stand with the rankings.
It is quite nice to see no clear leaders. Imagine the champions trophy or this world cup won't be boring.
Nice to see India having a one-night stand
lol.
:-)
Wisely, I laid low in all blogs post Ashes. Dammit it still hurts a month on that Eng hold the urn.. Ah well it's only for a yr and bit and next yr end it will go back to Aus :-)
To the rankings debate , can't quibble too much on India being up there. Well back to #3, after their #1 ranking for a day. But as you've pointed out, they have been consistent enough to be ranked in top 3. The impressive thing is the consistency, and the fact that they can win while being sloppy :-)
I would love Aus to start dominating again, and they still might ! But they are team in making, and I still wouldn't put it past them to dominate. Simply because the rest aren't that good enough.
South Africa - I'm sorry barring the Wills cup in 98, have nothing to show for in the international arena. And till they consistently win the multi team tournaments, they can whinge/whine, but fact is a fact !
TG,
WELCOME BACK!!
:-)
The impressive thing is the consistency, and the fact that they can win while being sloppy
I know!
I have to agree, even with all the retirements, the Aussies are still a pretty good team.
Yep, back when the timing was just right :-) Actually I did my Ashes timing at work also right. Left for my holidays just after Headingley test, got back two days before the ODI's began :-)
6-0, back to joint #1 , what's all the fuss about Aus being down anyway :-)
Predictions for CT, mine goes Aus/Ind/SAf/NZ in Semi. Aus - Ind, final and the rest you know :-)
TG,
Well I too hope it's an IND-Aus final ... and India wins!
;-)
Punter and the boys are still smarting from the CB series defeat in 08. Maybe the CT final is a good place for retribution, but first step is to get there :-)
Maybe the group stage can be an appetiser, for the main course CT final ;-)
How is South Africa supposed to win a multilateral tournament when there are hardly any of those nowadays? The Asia Cup is the only legitimate multilateral ODI tournament outside the Champions Trophy and the World Cup and South Africa can't play it. When was the last time India won the Asia Cup? 1995?
Winning a tri-nation series like the one India just won doesn't count as much as winning a five-match bilateral series against quality opposition. The CB Series win was legit because we played four games each against the two world cup finalists and came out on top against the reigning World Champions in their backyard.
India is one of the top 3 ODI teams as of now. With Sehwag and Zaheer it might well be the number one side, but as of now South Africa are by far the better side in ODIs. Australia are pretty good but they've lost 7 of the 10 ODIs against South Africa this year so obviously you can't rate them higher than the Proteas. The Champions Trophy and subsequent ODI series between India and Australia should decide the order of the top 3, even if it's for a short period of time.
Honestly speaking, Sehwag the ODI king is a myth. He has produced a few sensational cameos here and there but oddly he is far superior Test player. Remember the last time he played a full series in New Zealand? As someone pointed out elsewhere: some day he is going to regret the way he is indulging in casual sex with the form of his life.
How many ODI match-winning Sehwag innings can you prattle off the top of your head? It is easier to do so with Dhoni and Yuvraj.
Zaheer Khan, in my opinion, is a better Test player, too. But more consistent in ODI's than Viru.
The key thing for India in the CT in SA is going to be the return of Gambhir, the most consistent batsman we had in all three forms of the game combined in the last year.
India being #1-2-3 has more to do with Gambhir than Sehwag and ZAK put together. Just saying (to use a Leelaism).
Here's Sehwag's ODI record:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting
TG,
Everything said and done, nothing like an Ind-Aus match, so I do hope we get to see these two in the finals.
:-)
Mahek,
How is South Africa supposed to win a multilateral tournament when there are hardly any of those nowadays?
I agree.
However, with SA unless they get rid of the chokers tag it's diff to treat them like table toppers.
Much like it's difficult for others to consider India a top team because of its sloppy fielding.
J,
Yes Veeru's stats are (surprisingly) not-so-great for ODIs, but he does bring the X factor.
For me ZAK is the biggest loss because frankly who is bowling well nowadays?
At least, even when he is not taking wickets, he does baby-sit Ishant.
And RP is looking more and more like Munaf (minus the lost-soul look).
And Nehra... well.
And welcome to the blog.
Just saying...
;-)
Leela
True, since the last decade or so, Ind- Aus are always the ' spicy' contests. Fair enough, India were the only team to run Aus even close, the WC03 final notwithstanding :-)
Mahek
Mate, S Af have been back in the international fold since the 92 WC. Let's see how they've done
In 96, won all group stage matches, met BCL on a high and got knocked out - ok not their fault.
In 99 - well enuff said :-)
In 03 - again enuff said :-) If u can't read the table rite, you deserve to go !
In 07 - met a red hot Aus and got knocked out.
They've done none too well in CT or in T20 WC. How come Aus have shined like a beacon, Ind have won the T20 and yet S Af close to 2 decades on, still are yet to be in a final. Let alone win it.
Sorry mate, they've had their chances and they are not good enough. Period.
Jaunty,
Sehwag has been a lot better since his return. In the last two years he's averaged 49 with a strike rate of 123. That's a lot higher than his career numbers of 34 and 102. His return to the test and ODI teams has been crucial in India doing well. Notice how Gambhir's purple patch has coincided with the time he's spent with Sehwag at the top of the order? Just to put this discussion into perspective, Gambhir has averaged 40 with a strike rate of 88 during the same period. Sehwag has 3 hundreds and 10 fifties in 30 innings, Gambhir has 4 hundreds and 10 fifties in 47. What does this mean?
Not only has Sehwag averaged more runs at a higher strike rate than Gambhir, he also has a lower innings per hundred and innings per fifty ratio than his opening partner.
Tifosi Guy,
Australia are in a completely different league so let's not even go there. As for India and South Africa, the only thing separating them is a Twenty20 WC win. If you really believe it makes India better than South Africa then so be it. Maybe it makes the West Indies and New Zealand better than them.
The Proteas may falter at the big stage but that's not what the rankings are about. Most of the cricket played at international level is outside the multilateral World Cup and Champions Trophy tournaments and the South Africans have been the most consistent side in all forms of cricket since 2007. If India don't win the Champions Trophy I'd like the Proteas to win it so that people can stop talking rubbish about them.
Mahek
Sorry, but where exactly did I state that India is better than South Africa ? Read my last post - it says India have won the T20 WC. No where can you find me saying India is better than South Africa.
My simple point is this - unless a team wins on the big stage, no matter how consistent you are, it matters not a jot. Sure rankings indicate that SAf are tops, but ask the team themselves and they would say not having won an Intl multi team tournament rankles them.
They had a good shot at this years T20, and lo behold yet again they choked. Sorry mate, a team that chokes always on the big stage cannot be rated that highly.
Since you are also a football fan, tell me this. What comes to your mind when you think of the Dutch teams in the 70's and Brazil's soccer team in 1982 ??? Guess you get my drift !!!!
I don't think they choked at the World T20. That match was decided at the toss itself, there was no way the side batting second was going to win. To Pakistan's credit, they played at their utmost best. It's not like South Africa faltered, they were beaten by a better side.
I'm sure South Africa would love to win one of these tournaments, but that doesn't undermine the rest of their achievements.
Coming to the football analogy, it's really hard to draw a parallel between the FIFA World Cup and the ICC World Cup because of how dominant Australia have been in that tournament for so long. Moreover, football is essentially a club sport with not too many international games, which is what makes the World Cup all the more prestigious. That's not the case with cricket, is it?
A classic case of blaming anyone but themselves for a defeat ! I'm sorry but I watched the match, and didn't see anything wrong with batting second !
Point is that South Africa bumbled in the chase very well. Duminy was a culprit in it, and also the stupidity in not experimenting with the batting lineup and getting Morkel in earlier.
You can go on and defend them, but they always shown the penchant for crumbling under pressure way too often. Unless that trend changes, and the CT is a good place to start, there will be more blokes like me who question their no 1 status.
Leela, sorry for the confusion, Jaunty and Jaunty Quicksand are the same person, unfortunately. :-) I forgot to log in properly before I left that previous message. Are you back in the US for a prolonged period now? If so, good to have you back and blogging again.
Mahek, breaking down into smaller bits of time does reveal a clearer picture. My point still stands - how many match-winning innings of his can you remember? Ones where he did more than create a platform, a stupendous one at that. (To continute to steal from Leela, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that). I agree with your second point that Gambhir is a different person when he has Sehwag for company. Definitely a better, more assured player. It will be interesting to see how the think tank decides openers between Sehwag, Gambhit and SRT for the CT.
Since when did the effectiveness of cricketers depend on the number of memorable performances they put up? If you're the captain would you rather have a batsman play the occasional blinder that's etched in your memory, or would you have someone who will score good runs on a consistent basis?
JQ,
NP.
:-)
Yes, I am back in the land of the free and will be blogging on a regular basis.
I've always wondered about rankings, to be honest. Does anyone actually know how the ICC calculated rankings?
We've never been told explicitly so, but I imagine the algorithm - assuming one exists, unless the ICC is just pulling out these numbers from its behind - takes into account the following factors in the least:
1. Where the game is played (i.e. home/away/neutral)
2. What are the relative standings of the teams competing in the game - if team #1 beats team #2, they get more points than if they beat team #8
3. The margin of victory - surely, beating someone by 200 runs ought to give you more points than beating someone by 10 runs.
4. Bonus points for series wins.
5. Bonus points for ICC events, like World Cups and Champion Trophies.
Has the ICC ever made the information public?
Or failing that, I wonder if anyone's had the time/inclination to reverse engineer the weight each of the above factors carries in the calculation. Surely it shouldn't be too hard given the number of years we've had these rankings for.
I know it's not on Cricinfo, and with cricket related matters, if it's not on Cricinfo, it usually means it doesn't exist. But still...
And Leela, yes, given that we don't know anything about how the rankings are calculated, I say we take them on face value. They say South Africa is the best, so they must be the best. India was number one for a day, so we're good enough to be number 1 for a day. No more, no less.
We didn't grumble whether the rankings were valid when Australia were number one. Why start now?
Sharath,
Does anyone actually know how the ICC calculated rankings?
Not me... but I am sure someone does.
Well I hope someone does!
;-)
I think Rediff started their own (??) ranking system because they weren't too happy with the way ICC did the rankings.
We didn't grumble whether the rankings were valid when Australia were number one.
Oh lets not go there... Aussies were the clear number #1 team during the 90s and until the recent past.
They were quite dominant and certainly did not need the ICC to rank them!
But I know what you mean...
:-)
And that's exactly what I was trying to say in this post.
On a slightly unrelated topic, I often find people mentioning, quite off-hand, that Australia was good throughout the 90's and into the new millennium. But it's not true. Why, when they came to India in 1998, they were branded 'unofficial test champions' or something similar. Clearly, no one at that time thought Australia were the best in the world. South Africa were actually better than Australia were at that time, I remember. Pakistan had a good team too.
It was only in 1999 with the retirement of Healy (and the arrival of Gilchrist) that Australia made that step from very good team to a great team. That was when all their great players started peaking at the same time too - coupled with a general decline in bowling standards everywhere else.
So Australia was undeniably at the top only from 1999-2007 or thereabouts - before and after that period, there's room for debate.
But that's all beside the point. I am just bored at work :-)
Mahek, of course I will choose the person who is consistent and not one capable of a blinding innings once in a while. :-)
Talk about perceptions...I did not realize that in his last 21 ODIs, Sehwag has scored 1240 runs at an average of 62 and a strike rate of 131.49. I guess I saw what I wanted to see. Looks like he has combined both aspects that you pointed out - incandescence and consistency. You were right to defend him so.
And now he wants to concentrate only on his batting!!? Heaven help the bowlers of the world as Sehwag strives for batting immortality. :-)
Sharath,
I often find people mentioning, quite off-hand, that Australia was good throughout the 90's and into the new millennium...So Australia was undeniably at the top only from 1999-2007 ...
Well I am guilty of that I guess...
:-)
There you go :)
http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_C0B4A990FF6812A97BEED9873F82973E_1251697863098_18.pdf
http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_C0B4A990FF6812A97BEED9873F82973E_1251697906076_17.pdf
Sharath
Can I take you up on the Australia debate ? , Leela trust this wouldn't be an issue :-)
Mate, your claim that Aus dominated from 1999-07 is not quite true. What Aus started doing from 99 is win EVERYTHING. From 1995, when they became the first team to beat West Indies in West Indies for 15 years, they won everywhere ( barring India).
The main difference was that once the series was done and dusted, they would lose the dead rubbers. From the top of my head, I recall them losing to Eng in 97 at Oval, chasing 120 odd. Ashes were won by then of course.
They lost they last test match to South Africa in 97/98 after they won the first two tests.
They even used to lose test matches at home !
What Steve Waugh changed when he became captain was to ensure all games were won. There was no dead rubber syndrome in the Aus team from 1999.
Pretty much everyone accepted that Australia were the #1 from 1995 onwards. It's just that the level they took it from 1999, makes it a touch hard to believe !
Cheers !
Thanks for that, Soldier.
However this is more of a qualitative 'FAQ' type document that answers a few questions.
For example, I was very surprised to see there is no account taken of venue of the match, or the margin. Also, the ratings don't take into account 'big matches' - so a world cup final is equal in status to the first match of a bilateral 7 match series? Interesting indeed.
But what the documents do not have is the actual algorithm (or mathematical model, or whatever you want to call it) that goes into the calculation. It does give a 'rule of thumb' which will help us 'speculate on how ratings might change', but then speculation is precisely what we DON'T want to do :-)
But still, thanks for digging that out.
TG,
No prob.
Apologies to all for the comment moderation (I feel all censor-boardish...)but someone has been leaving me messages in Japanese which is wierd.
Leela, the Japanese gave us haiku, origami, and shibui...can't you give them a little leeway? ;-) All they want you to do is spend a few (thousand) dollars while at it.
TG,
You're right. What you said in your post was exactly what I was getting at. From 1995 to 1999, under Taylor, Australia WAS number 1, but only just. They still lost matches, sometimes even series pretty badly (India 1998 being a case in point - they were drubbed).
And let's not count the Ashes. 1990s England was not really a world-class team :-)
It was only in 1999, with the arrival of Gilchrist, that they ran away from the pack. Wasn't Gilchrist's debut the first of their sixteen straight wins that ended with Eden Gardens 2001? Or was it the second? Something like that...
So yes, you and I are pretty much saying the same thing. They were at the top of the heap from 1995 - 1998, but only just. They were not smashing everyone they played. You had a feeling they were working for their wins. They were a 'working class' team, as they have become now.
But from 1999-2007, though, they were unstoppable - except by once-in-a-lifetime performances - for various reasons, one of them being that all their players peaked beautifully at the same time, and another being that all the other countries faced a dearth of good bowlers at the same time.
Just looked up team records from the end of Australia's Tour of the West Indies in 1995 to the start of Pakistan's Tour of Australia in 1999.
http://tinyurl.com/m2arhh
Australia have the highest win percentage of all team while South Africa has a better win/loss ratio. I'd say it was pretty even between the two during this period.
As an aside, I'm still curious as to how you knew of my application on the RCB website. I'm not a cat so I won't die, but I may need IV to keep me going until I find out :)
I wasn't quite sure how/where to ask you so I just asked you here, knowing you can choose to not publish this and just respond to me off this forum.
JQ,
You know what... it could be Chineese too..
:-)
Mahek,
Hey I was deleting those comments because I wasn't sure you wanted the BRC thinggy discussed.
:-)
I think I deleted my comment, where I mentioned the "discovery" before you read it.
here it goes...
basically the feedjit thinggy on my blog lists all links and "visitors" to this blog. When I saw the BRC link, I was curious and clicked on it.
If you would like, I will put a link on the blog. I do think you deserve it.
Oh I thought I left a comment saying it was okay for you to talk about it here. I wasn't going to voluntarily ask you to, but since you mentioned it I figured why not. So write away, and write me a good reference on their website ;)
And I'm impressed that you're aware of my tendency to lay low unless I absolutely need to be otherwise :)
Sharath
My response to your initial post was because you had the following line in your post ' Clearly, no one at that time thought Australia were the best in the world. South Africa were actually better than Australia were at that time, I remember. Pakistan had a good team too'
That statement mate is what I don't accept. Australia were acknowledged to be the best post 95/96. South Africa used to run them close, but you couldn't say they were better than Aus. Why ? Aus beat SAf home and away.
Pakistan were an enigma, and I think the Pak team of the late 80's early 90's were better than the ones post 95.
As to the Gilchrist query - his debut came against Pak in 99. Was the second test in the first sequence of 16 test wins.
Right, so we'll let this now rest :-)
Mahek,
I think I misunderstood what you wrote.
:-)
No worries, like I said, I think you deserve it.
Post a Comment