I was wondering does anyone know or know how to get hold of the formula used by the ICC for the player rankings. I think it would be interesting and id love to use it on domestic cricket in New Zealand and other countries to get player rankings for each countries.
Email David Kendix and ask him.
Having such a ridiculously complex formula that has been devised by one of The World's top mathematicians is absurd IMO.
RD
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
It's probably a relatively simple formula. Just calculate the strength of each side, the player's form, and then measure a specific player in terms of standard deviations from the mean.
"The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis
-My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with
How the Universe came from nothing
If only such a thing were so simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMO trying to measure the exact performance of individual players is so utterly ridiculous it beggars belief. Especially when you try to put them over as genuine rankings, rather than just a form-guide.
But it almost always tends to be a very good approximation of how good a player has performed recently. In my experience at least, it seems to work.
Ha! It's a very good approximation of how good their figures have been. And it still attempts to pass this off as a ranking, not a form-guide, and that enables people to make the ludicrous claim "Harmison was the world's best bowler".
If their rankings formula was so simple and reliable. Then how would you explain me that how did MS Dhoni manage to reach no.2 spot in LG odi rankings ahead of Ponting who is at no.3 atm. In last 7 games Dhoni played he probably hasn't any more than 250-300 odd runs(which mind you damn good but not better than ponting's performances).
Because it takes into account more than 7 games, and also takes into account things other than scores. Meaning, scores against South Africa and Sri Lanka are counted higher than scores aganist England.
the ratings have a place in cricket simply because they encourage discussion. Thats all they are, an interesting talking point.
No-one gains financial reward for being the number one ranked player so I dont see what the big fuss is.
If that talking-point is nonsense like "Harmison was the best bowler in The World" we're best off without.
Even if South Africa happened to be missing Ntini, Nel and Kallis and Sri Lanka happened to be missing Murali and Laaaasith Maaaalinga...
Yup. So? It all evens out, and its not like anyone is treating them as gospel. It's still a good guide, and the top ten in each category tend to be pretty accurate even if you would rather change the order around.
It might even-out, it might not. Simple fact of the matter is, there's no way you can use weighting of point-scoring according to assumed standard of opposition without making plenty of huge mistakes IMO. You're far better not to bother and just to assess for yourself how high the calibre of the runs scored was.
The rankings are reasonable enough.
At what?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote