Numbers game: Why India’s top position in ICC Test rankings comes with caveats

The fervour and frenzy that the current India-South Africa series had conjured have now somewhat softened. While India redeemed some dignity by winning the last Test, the series loss has caused its followers some angst and scepticism. To many, however, it is “Lost, but not all gone”. India has retained the ICC Test championship mace and an award of $1 million for the second successive year.

While the series may have been a roller-coaster ride, it is possibly the best time to take a dispassionate view and turn analytic. Does the ICC Test ranking portray the right picture? Does the battering, by a team ranked second, make India worthy of the top spot?

Finding answers to such questions would require delving deep. It is as much about the performances of various teams as it is about the ICC’s ranking system. At the core of this analysis, therefore, is an attempt to examine a few subtle points: how the ranking system functions and the top teams (notably, India, South Africa and Australia) fare.

How does the ICC Test ranking work?

The current ICC ranking is based a four-year cycle starting from May 2014.
Year-1: May 2014 – April 2015; Year-2: May 2015 – April 2016; Year-3: May 2016 - April 2017; Ongoing year: May 2017 – current day (last updated on 27th Jan 2018).
The ranking is carried out by following a few steps.

Step 1: Calculate the series points for each team: 1 point for each match won; 0.5 points for each match drawn or tied; 1 bonus point to the team winning the series; 0.5 bonus points to each side for a drawn series.

Step 2: Convert these series points to rating points in two ways

• Rule-1, if the gap between the ratings of the two teams before the series was < 40 points (For Example, Gap of rating points between India (124) and South Africa (111) before the start of series was 13 which is <40) the series points for each team equals: (The team’s own series points) x (The opponent’s rating + 50) + (The opponent’s series points) x (The opponent’s rating − 50)
• Rule-2, if the gap between the ratings of the two teams before the series was >= 40 points then the series points for the stronger team equals: (The team’s own series points) x (The team’s own rating + 10) + (The opponent’s series points) x (The team’s own rating − 90); and the ratings points for the weaker team equals: (The team’s own series points) x (The team’s own rating + 90) + (The opponent’s series points) x (The team’s own rating − 10).

Step 3: Add these series points to team points earned before the start of the series (For Example, India had 4969 points before the IND-SA series) to reach to the cumulative points

Step 4: Calculate new rating points by using formula = Cumulative points/ number of matches.

The number of matches (For example, India had 40 matches in the ranking table before the South Africa series) is calculated within two-time periods. First two years of the cycle with 50% weight of (Tests + Series) and subsequent years with 100% weight of (Tests + Series). India’s figure of 40 matches is arrived at as mentioned below:

With these rules explained, let us now find out if the relative positioning of the top three teams is justified.

First: Not a level playing field

It must be told that international sides are playing Test matches somewhat randomly. Many concerned have often expressed the phenomenon as “lacking context”. One prime example of this is non-standardisation arising out of the unequal distribution of home and away series and matches. The below table shows how teams are playing bilateral series in the current four-year ranking cycle.

The patterns to note here are twofold:

1. Not all teams are playing against each other, however, some are playing more than required. For example, Pakistan and South Africa have never played between them (so are India and Pakistan) but India and Sri Lanka have played thrice.
2. Unequal distribution of matches across Home-Away roundups. For example, India-South Africa, Australia- New Zealand, Australia- Pakistan they all have played two rounds against each other, but the number of matches is odd.

In such a world, what goes around does not always come around. Scheduling matches in such manners by the boards, either for financial reasons or their apathy towards Test ranking, makes its implications grave.

Let’s take the example of ongoing India-South Africa series. India played a three-match away series in return for a four-match home series. While India successfully retained its top position post the three-match Test series,what would have happened if it were a four-match series instead?

That this poses severe inequality in points and subsequent rating distribution of the two teams can be established by an examination. Calculation (by following the four-step method explained above) shows if India had lost a four-match series, 4-0, India would have conceded the number 1 position to South Africa.

Calculation Methods:

Step 1

· South Africa Series Point (A): 5 (4-win points + 1 series bonus, Step-1)

· India Series Point (B): 0 (No wins + no bonus)

Step 2

· South Africa Point Earned from the Series (C): 870 (Step-2, Rule-1)

· India Points Earned from the Series (D): 305 (Step-2, Rule-1)

Step 3

· South Africa Overall Points (E): 4758 (3888 points before the series + C)

· India Overall Points (F): 5274 (4969 points before the series + D)

Step 4

· Number of ICC Ranking Matches for South Africa (G): 40 (4-year match/series weighted average)

· Number of ICC Ranking Matches for India (H): 45 (4-year match/series weighted average)

· South Africa Rating (E/G): 119 (Nearest whole number), ICC Test Rank-1

· India Rating (F/H): 117 (Nearest whole number), ICC Test Rank-2

The scenario would have looked like this:

Now, it is anybody’s guess whether it is a meticulously designed ploy by one board or a relaxed one by another. This hypothesis testing not only showcases the vagaries of Test cricket but also proves the arbitrariness of the ranking system.

Second: No prize for finding home from away

The prevailing ICC’s Test championship model is a dubious one on multiple counts. The strongest of all arguments is its ostensible neutrality in dealing with home and away matches (or series) alike. While conditions play a rather nominal role in limited-over games, for the longest format of the game, it proves game-changing.

A look at the series results of all Test playing nations in the form of a ‘Heatmap’ suggests how increasingly difficult it has become for touring teams to win series in overseas conditions. There are not only more ‘Red Cells’ (meaning away series losses) than the ‘Green’ (meaning away series wins) and ‘Grey’ (drawn series) cells in the map, the ratio of away win to away loss is almost 1:2, with 19 wins versus 36 losses (nine drawn series), across these years.

The heatmap scripts a compelling argument. Should away match/series win not be given more weights than home series? It is only logical to put higher stakes for away wins to go by the statistics: probably 2:1 in favour of away to home points.

Interestingly, paving the way for such away-win advantages would put South Africa some distance ahead of the others. South Africa has not only won more away series than its nearest rivals, but it has also garnered those against formidable teams with healthy ratings in their backyards: against Australia in 2016 and New Zealand in 2017.

In comparison to that, India (which overpowered West Indies in 2016 and Sri Lanka twice in 2015 and 2017) and Australia (West Indies in 2015 and New Zealand in 2016) put up a pale away show in the four-year ranking time frame.

Third: Undue advantage

India went to South Africa being number one with a nine-series winning streak. Six of those came at home. Arguably, India’s current ranking is a result of its leveraging the sweet spot of international cricket’s ad hoc scheduling.

In the latest two-year period (May 2016 to present day), which is given double the weight over the past two years (May 2014 to April 2016), India has played 26 Tests in comparison to South Africa’s 24 Tests and Australia’s 20 Tests.

The crux, however, does not lie in just the number of matches played. It is in the home-away ratio. In the latest two-year period, India has played just ten away matches (including three against South Africa, three against an inferior Sri Lanka and four against even more inferior West Indies) but put together an elongated 16-match stretch at home.

South Africa and Australia, on the other hand, have had more matching home-away appearances. Knowing difficulties in earning bagful of points from away matches imply India has had some freebies where others had to toil hard.

Reasons to rejoice or rue?

Evidently, there are reasons to doubt the legitimacy of the ranking system, and alongside it, India’s position bestowed by it.

After India won the last of the three-match series in Johannesburg, a Twitter post endorsed that India’s 4-2 lead completed over two-legs (Home-Away) against the world No 2 side should unquestionably put them ahead of others. Contrary to that simplistic judgment, India’s quite the same position comes with far complex and rigorous logic in ICC’s Test ranking.

It must be lauded, for a large part, such ranking rationale lends some degree of exhaustiveness and consistency to Test cricket. But only by that much. Before the current four-year cycle ends in April 2018, some anomalies (the series and match distribution et al) would even out, however, much of the system’s flaws and lack of all-inclusiveness will continue to haze cricket and its fans. Let us hope that ICC’s proposed new Test Championship model brings more reliability in its pursuit to discover the best and the most deserving.

Debnath is a Management Consultant. He tweets at @ImDebnath