From 1877 until World War One
Between the World Wars
Post War to the WSC Revolution
The Professional Era to the New Millennium
The New Millennium and Beyond
Other Pages
Home Page
Article Archive
How the System Works
Frequently Asked Questions
Statistical Points of Interest
Current and Future Series Predictions
Links
Site Map
Information for Visiting Webmasters
Contact Us
Get Free e-mail ratings updates
Over the past three years, whenever Chris Cairns has been available for a Test series then the Kiwis have seen their rating climb. Cairns is a class player who adds a definable difference to the batting order and the bowling attack.
New Zealand showed in their series against England that their relentless climb upwards through the ratings was no longer dependent upon the availability of Chris Cairns. New Zealand cricket has finally developed a sufficiently large pool of top class players to cope with such an absence.
In this series, Cairns was injured early in the first Test and was unable to play in the final two Tests. Regardless, New Zealand was able to bat out an honourable draw in the second Test before turning the tables on England to win the final Test.
New Zealand remains lodged in seventh place but have narrowed the gap to sixth placed India reduced to 15 points. The Kiwi rating of 1024 points is their 14th highest rating in history.
Following a prolonged dormant period after the Hadlee era, the current New Zealand team has now improved to their best rating since August 1990. While New Zealand will again miss Cairns while he recovers over the next six months, they appear set to close further on their highest rating in history of 1047 points.
For England, the outcome of their series in India and New Zealand has fallen short of their expectations.
England's selectors took a gamble prior to naming their squad for the tours of India and New Zealand. Having in the past been victims of indifference to certain tours, the selectors made it clear that to be selected then players had to be available for both tours.
The bold strategy to reinforce the position of the selection committee led to certain players being unavailable for the New Zealand tour due to being unavailable for the Indian tour. With Atherton?s retirement already weakening the team, the net result was that the touring team was without strike bowler Darren Gough.
While others like Stewart were also unavailable, England was always going to struggle without Gough. Losses in both India and New Zealand back this analysis.
It would now appear that the English revival over the last two-year has peaked. England emerged from a 15 year dormant period in January 2000. They raised their rating from 1024 points to 1070 points over the next 14 months. Such an increase over such a short time span is unusual. It took five consecutive series victories to achieve the rise. The result was that England climbed from sixth place to outright third place in the ratings.
However, since March 2001, England has lost 23 ratings points and has fallen back to fifth place. There is a real risk that India could pass them with its imminent series in the Caribbean.
In naming their cricketers of the year, the editor of Wisden has raised a hornet's nest in county cricket circles by questioning its value in producing Test match cricketers. The response was predictable.
The view, however, is simply what has been expressed in most of the rest of the world for the last decade. It is a pity for world cricket that the English cannot see what is so blatantly staring them in the face.
The fact remains that the strongest Test nation has only six first class teams competing in the domestic competition. Their nearest rivals have slightly more. The greater the number the higher the likelihood of mediocrity and England has sixteen.
Latest Ratings: 1. Australia (1216); 2. South Africa (1133); 3. Pakistan (1073); 4. Sri Lanka (1049); 5. England (1047); 6. India (1039); 7. New Zealand (1024); 8. West Indies (1006); 9. Zimbabwe (911); 10. Bangladesh (838).
