New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@TeWaio said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

It has that feel of the aussie ice speed skater that won gold when everyone in front of him crashed.

Yeah a little bit. For years I thought even getting top 3 in test cricket would be a massive stretch for NZ, to get 2 is incredible.

This doesn't feel like the best post-Paddles team but with the ascendance of Latham and Nicholls over the past year perhaps this is the most reliable batting line-up 1-7 we've had.

no perhaps about it, luckily the rest make up for CDGH.

We've had better fast bowlers in the past but never a trio as good as the one we have now.

Weak at spin and all rounder, very strong elsewhere.

Imagine how good we'd be with Stokes, provided NZ nightclubs were less fight-y than Bristols.

he's good but really he's just a slightly better bowling Jimmy Neesham really. no where near world class in either discipline.

Stokes pisses all over Neesham in my opinion. For a start he can string some games together.

@Crazy-Horse said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@TeWaio said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

It has that feel of the aussie ice speed skater that won gold when everyone in front of him crashed.

Yeah a little bit. For years I thought even getting top 3 in test cricket would be a massive stretch for NZ, to get 2 is incredible.

This doesn't feel like the best post-Paddles team but with the ascendance of Latham and Nicholls over the past year perhaps this is the most reliable batting line-up 1-7 we've had.

no perhaps about it, luckily the rest make up for CDGH.

We've had better fast bowlers in the past but never a trio as good as the one we have now.

Weak at spin and all rounder, very strong elsewhere.

Imagine how good we'd be with Stokes, provided NZ nightclubs were less fight-y than Bristols.

he's good but really he's just a slightly better bowling Jimmy Neesham really. no where near world class in either discipline.

Stokes pisses all over Neesham in my opinion. For a start he can string some games together.

Fair opinion but is Stokes World Class in either discipline ? not even close.

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crazy-Horse said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@TeWaio said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

It has that feel of the aussie ice speed skater that won gold when everyone in front of him crashed.

Yeah a little bit. For years I thought even getting top 3 in test cricket would be a massive stretch for NZ, to get 2 is incredible.

This doesn't feel like the best post-Paddles team but with the ascendance of Latham and Nicholls over the past year perhaps this is the most reliable batting line-up 1-7 we've had.

no perhaps about it, luckily the rest make up for CDGH.

We've had better fast bowlers in the past but never a trio as good as the one we have now.

Weak at spin and all rounder, very strong elsewhere.

Imagine how good we'd be with Stokes, provided NZ nightclubs were less fight-y than Bristols.

he's good but really he's just a slightly better bowling Jimmy Neesham really. no where near world class in either discipline.

Stokes pisses all over Neesham in my opinion. For a start he can string some games together.

Fair opinion but is Stokes World Class in either discipline ? not even close.

No I wouldn't call him world class in either, but more than useful in both. A bit like Cairns.

@Crazy-Horse said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crazy-Horse said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@TeWaio said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

It has that feel of the aussie ice speed skater that won gold when everyone in front of him crashed.

Yeah a little bit. For years I thought even getting top 3 in test cricket would be a massive stretch for NZ, to get 2 is incredible.

This doesn't feel like the best post-Paddles team but with the ascendance of Latham and Nicholls over the past year perhaps this is the most reliable batting line-up 1-7 we've had.

no perhaps about it, luckily the rest make up for CDGH.

We've had better fast bowlers in the past but never a trio as good as the one we have now.

Weak at spin and all rounder, very strong elsewhere.

Imagine how good we'd be with Stokes, provided NZ nightclubs were less fight-y than Bristols.

he's good but really he's just a slightly better bowling Jimmy Neesham really. no where near world class in either discipline.

Stokes pisses all over Neesham in my opinion. For a start he can string some games together.

Fair opinion but is Stokes World Class in either discipline ? not even close.

No I wouldn't call him world class in either, but more than useful in both. A bit like Cairns.

Cairns was a far better bowler than Stokes. No ifs and buts.

Of current players Jason Holder might end up one of the best ever if he keeps going like he has.

@MN5 Stokes has 127 wickets @31.92 and 3,000 runs @ a shade under 34 so not as good a bowler as Cairns but he already has as many test runs.

He's definitely an international class all rounder - 4th seamer who bats 6 or 7.

@dogmeat said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 Stokes has 127 wickets @31.92 and 3,000 runs @ a shade under 34 so not as good a bowler as Cairns but he already has as many test runs.

He's definitely an international class all rounder - 4th seamer who bats 6 or 7.

Weird thing is, can normally dismiss an MN5 opinion as he just reads stats. But those stats are actually good.

Let alone actually watching shows how Stokes' bowling role perfectly dovetails into the current England bowling makeup.

In retrospective rankings, NZ have been second before.

Official rankings date only from 2002.

Saw this on reddit:

@dogmeat said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 Stokes has 127 wickets @31.92 and 3,000 runs @ a shade under 34 so not as good a bowler as Cairns but he already has as many test runs.

He's definitely an international class all rounder - 4th seamer who bats 6 or 7.

I never said he's not international class I'm pointing out that Cairns was better.

Stats don't tell the whole story in lots of cases but they can be pretty invaluable as a guide as to how good a player is.

@Rapido said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

In retrospective rankings, NZ have been second before.

Official rankings date only from 2002.

Saw this on reddit:

View image

Fascinating graph really. Thanks for posting it.

Gives some credence to that 2001-2004 team being in the same conversation; achieving a similar peak points total as the current side - just with a wider spread of teams. It looks as though the cursed 2004 England series (which you can clearly see on the graph where the teams start even then diverge) where NZ were winning every game going into Sunday and somehow lost the series 3-0 could have ultimately put them in second along with the current side and the late 80s side.

edit: The graph is a bit tricky in the sense it's a trailing measure so the peak for each team/era is likely already a year or two from the absolute peak of the team. A lot of the peak is going to be in "climbing" the rankings. Would be interesting to see it as a moving average +/- ~2 years.

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@dogmeat said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 Stokes has 127 wickets @31.92 and 3,000 runs @ a shade under 34 so not as good a bowler as Cairns but he already has as many test runs.

He's definitely an international class all rounder - 4th seamer who bats 6 or 7.

I never said he's not international class I'm pointing out that Cairns was better.

Stats don't tell the whole story in lots of cases but they can be pretty invaluable as a guide as to how good a player is.

If you plucked a random test performance from Stokes and Cairns - Stokes is better. At peak performance Cairns was better.

I would say the inverse is true of Cairns vs Flintoff.

@MN5's post just disappeared as I was reading it.

@Nepia said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5's post just disappeared as I was reading it.

If only that happened all the time aye....

@Nepia said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5's post just disappeared as I was reading it.

Best kind of MN5 post.

I've got lots of upvotes. I'm a legend on this board.

I edited and tried to insert a table, fucked it up and lost everything.

but yeah, Cairns is the best. end of.

I'd like to know exactly which games have contributed how many points to our ranking, but can't find anything.

It covers the last 4 years, but not every match. Yet the last time we toured away to Sri Lanka was 2012 (The Taylor sacking tour), which is outside the time period.

From: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/874363.html

What is the time period considered?

A minimum of 36 months, and a maximum of 48 months. Every May, the results from months 37 to 48 drop off. For example, in May 2015, the time period considered is May 2012 onwards, with results from May 2011 to April 2012 dropping off. Till April 2016, this is the time period considered; in May 2016 all results between May 2012 and April 2013 will be knocked off.

How are the older results weighted compared to the more recent ones?

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.

Anyway. Individual stats over the last 4 years. Some unknown parts of which contributed to the ranking.

Batting:

Bowling:

Fielding:

These are the matches played in the 4 year period:

I have highlighted this series v Sri Lanka, thinking it wouldn't count as we have hosted them twice in this period, thinking this would drop off. But I don't think that's how it works.

Out last away tours to the following countries aren't counted in our rating:

• to West Indies in 2014, won 2-1
• to Sri Lanka in 2012. drew 1-1
• to Bangladesh, drew 0-0

How do the ICC Test ratings work?

The rating system is based on assigning points to teams for every Test match played, and then averaging it out over all Tests played by the team during the period under consideration. The final rating is thus an average score for the team during that period.

The points awarded to a team depends on the strength of the opposition. A win against a stronger opposition counts for more than a win against a weak opposition. The strength of the opposition is determined by their rating points at the start of the series, and updates happen only at the end of a series, not after each Test.

Is there a bonus for winning a series?

Yes, a series win counts as an extra Test match won. So, if a team wins a series 2-1, when assigning points it will count as a 3-1 win.

Does an away win count for more than a home win?

No, there is no extra weightage given to an away win; only the opposition strength is taken into account.

The FTP says we have Sri Lanka away in August. Then we have to put up the series win against England in November (short turn around, no?). Before Aussie where we can only gain points after the humiliation last time.

Strangely we do not appear to play West Indies in a test away until 2023 which cannot be right.

@rotated said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

The FTP says we have Sri Lanka away in August. Then we have to put up the series win against England in November (short turn around, no?). Before Aussie where we can only gain points after the humiliation last time.

Strangely we do not appear to play West Indies in a test away until 2023 which cannot be right.

I can't remember the last time we played in the Windies.....

@canefan said in [New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time]

Strangely we do not appear to play West Indies in a test away until 2023 which cannot be right.

I can't remember the last time we played in the Windies.....

They went twice in quick succession in 2012 (1-1) and 2014 (2-1 win).

2012 notable for Wagner finally being eligible and debuting.
2014 only really notable for Mark Craig taking 8-fer and being MoTM on debut.