Decoding the ICC Ranking System and its probems

Pakistan were playing a burly English side at Lords. India were playing a fragile West Indies side at Antigua, while Sri Lanka were facing the not so mighty Australians in Colombo. India won a series overseas, versus an 8th ranked team and Australia suffered a rare, but destructive white wash from a 7th ranked team while the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams locked horns to square the series. Pakistan played in adverse English conditions after 6 years, having had no trace of cricket at home in past, or future, while India went for a short stint away from home, waiting a full fledged home season ahead of them. Australia went in, deservedly as the No.1 team, but on the back of a consecutive 6 match losing streak in Asia, awaiting a tour of India soon.

It is all too obvious what the near future is like, or was like for these teams. Unfortunately, the ranking system doesn’t take the circumstances in consideration, and it is not practically possible either, but the ranking system can certainly take account of stats and figures for a particular year for a given match. Here is a sneak peek into the ranking system followed by the ICC specifically in tests. Teams are ranked on basis of points given at the end of each series.The points awarded to a team depends on the strength of the opposition. The strength of the opposition is again assessed on the basis of the difference in rating points between the two teams in question. These rating persist for 36-48 months with varying weightage depending on the time period when the matches are played. The first two years get 50% weightage, while the last 12 to 24 months gets 100% weightage. For example, in May 2015, all matches from May 2012 to April 2014 gets 50% weightage, while matches after May 2014 gets 100% weightage.

Latest Rankings- Based on a points system and includes results from last 2 years 

So, all in all the system weighs a number of plausible factors including relative performance, opposition as well as time period. The rating points decide the final rankings, which change on a series to series basis, with the No.1 team provided with a trophy and cash incentive. What is this method missing? Surely, every thing has flaws, but this has a glaring and deeply penetrable one. The single most influential aspect, that has an overbearing say on the outcome of the game, players and officials aside, is the pitch. The 22 yard strip along with the playing conditions add to the over bearing home advantage that shakes the balance of the game, and makes one team look stronger than the other. Had India not produce colloquially spinning tracks, or England seaming tracks, there wouldn't have been any challenge of playing and winning in the sub continent or at Lord's, not to mention facing up to the different climactic conditions. The team winning away and losing away from home should be given more credit than the team playing at home.

India have had fruitful dominant periods at home and equally destructive periods away from home.

A 3-0 win against the No.1 team at home is impressive enough, but technically Sri Lanka would've got the same credit had they won 3-0 in Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, a seemingly impossible task. India got the more credit for beating South Africa 3-0 on abnormally spin friendly pitches, than England who beat South Africa 2-1 in their own den on hot bouncy tracks. What's worse is that the pitches are being powered more and more to suit the home team, sometimes the assistance is exaggerated, like we saw in Nagpur, and Colombo. The advantage is profound enough to double the rating points gained, after a series win, especially to top ranked teams. What about the margin of dominance? The Ashes 2015 saw England "edge" Australia out by what looked like an agonising 3-2 evenly fought margin, but in truth, none of the games entered day 5, and were disparate with the score line. It is obviously impossible to assign different points for every victory, but a few guide lines set would b beneficially in weighing the team's performance more accurately.

Test Cricket is also about endurance and consistency. Not one good year makes you No.1, but shear dominance or resilience for 4-5 years. Therefore, one bad year shouldn't lower your ranking from No.1 to No.7, in South Africa's case, as they had an unbelievably long dominant period before that. The rankings shouldn't alter so extravagantly every month either. Moments after Steve Smith won the mace, Misbah was handed the same, with Kohli well in line to receive it soon. In conclusion, the rankings system could do with some changes- some glaring ones immediately, while others that would give the system more relevance if applied. It must be conceded however, that the rating system weighs more factors in consideration than not, so must be appreciated for its utility.