|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Games||Mobile|
International cricket in 2007 is a bell curve, with a great big bulge in the middle. Inzamam-ul-Haq may have gone, but his silhouette lives on
October 16, 2007
As anybody who has ever tossed a coin knows, the more times something happens, the more predictable it should become. But this rule is currently being blatantly broken by international cricket. It has become more relentless than ever - and more volatile. India pulled off a rare Test series win in England, then lost a one-day series they were expected to win, then won a world tournament for which they were quite unfancied. Australia lost to Zimbabwe. Pakistan, who had done so well in the Twenty20, promptly lost a home Test series to South Africa, who had covered themselves in the opposite of glory. England seemed a sure thing to lose in Sri Lanka, yet they won.
Of course these results didn't all come in the same form of the game. But something strange is happening, especially in the middle echelon of cricket. There are several teams so close that you can't squeeze a scorecard between them.
Look at the ICC Test Championship table:
India and Sri Lanka are separated only by decimal points. South Africa are breathing right down the Sri Lankans' necks, and all these three are within striking distance of England. It's like an Olympic 10,000-metre race in which one runner is miles ahead and the next four are tripping over each other. New Zealand and Pakistan are practically attached to each other too. The range of points from second to seventh is just 15, half that from second to first.
The ODI Championship is much the same, only more so:
Here, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India and England are all virtually level, with New Zealand and West Indies close by at either end of the clump. This means a great deal can hinge on a single match: when Sri Lanka beat England in the otherwise dead game on Saturday, they hung on in fourth place. If England had won, they would have been at No. 4, leaping from seventh. In the switch from Tests to ODIs, England and India do a near-swap with South Africa and New Zealand, while only Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh stay put. The idea that it's all the same game, and you should pick the same XI for different formats, makes even less sense in this light.
So which is the second-best team in the world, let alone fifth or sixth? One crude way to try and work it out is to amalgamate the two tables. I can already sense their creator, David Kendix, going pale at the prospect, but let's see what happens. For simplicity's sake, and in deference to those who still love the 50-over game, let's give them equal weight.
|Ranking||Team||Test rank||ODI rank||Total|
We're not much the wiser, owing to the strange symmetry of England and South Africa on one hand, and India and New Zealand on the other. And we still have five teams pretty much level - those four and Sri Lanka. So let's try using Mr Kendix's ratings points, hard as they are to fathom.
|Ranking||Team||Test pts||ODI pts||Total|
The upshot is that the mid-table scrum has sorted itself out a little. There are no teams tied on the same spot, and only four teams are close together, not five - South Africa have pulled away, although they are still miles behind Australia, and Pakistan have faded.
We still need another divider. Step forward, Twenty20. The youngest form of the game has no official rankings yet, but Cricinfo helpfully supplies an all-time Twenty20 results table.
Suddenly, the mid-table jam is toast. Instead, we have three pairs and a rather distant foursome - with England plummeting to 10th, possibly inducing a mass global gloat. Which may well be repeated when everyone sees where Australia are.
Now let's fold this into the combined table. With no Kendix ratings in Twenty20-land, we have to revert to places:
India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have gone up in the world. The mid-table jam has gone, but in its place are a trio (India, Sri Lanka and South Africa), a pair (Pakistan and New Zealand), and a straggler (England).
We can tentatively conclude that Australia are the best team in the world, despite being mediocre at Twenty20. India, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and England really are much of a muchness. And West Indies (never higher than eighth in anything) and Bangladesh are the also-rans. International cricket in 2007 is a Bell curve, with a great big bulge in the middle. Inzamam-ul-Haq may have gone, but his silhouette lives on.
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
Five Firsts: Getting the stink eye from Curtly, getting behind the reins of a side - Matthew Hoggard looks back
Rewind: Few England sides have set out for Australia with as much confidence as the one which set sail in 1958. And few have come quite so spectacularly unstuck
Kumar Sangakkara says he owes a lot of his success to his father, who wants him to strive for a standard matched only by Bradman. By Andrew Fidel Fernando
Review: The story of India's U-19 World Cup-winning captain, Unmukt Chand, gives you an insight into what it takes for young Indian boys to find their place in cricket
Jon Hotten: Like Australia's Steven Smith, Morgan is unorthodox and audacious, and doesn't conform to England's straight-like thinking
ESPNcricinfo looks at five reasons for Australia's dominance in winning back the Ashes
ESPNcricinfo looks at five reasons for England's failure to compete in Australia