• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ICC explains it all.

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
The ICC have issued a defense of their ODI ratings, and it looks a clear and sensible answer to the critics (mainly Indian) of the new system.

Go here.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
As the report says Lord, they've played far too many weak sides in the recent time, hence their ranking is lower than they feel it should be.

It all makes sense, and is to me as good a mathematical model as I've seen for this ranking.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
Makes great sense. All India had to do was play Australia a few times and lose every time..

Tha ranking is absurd if only for one reason- 3 points seperate no. 3 and no. 8.
Which means a team wins the 'right' match and the whole pecking order is totallly changed. So over night the 8th best team becomes no. 5 or even 3. Apparantly India is 2 matches away from no. 3 :rolleyes:

ICC stuffed up again :D
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Here is a comparison of England's performances vs India's from 1/1/2002 onwards.

Against the top teams, India has played 43 matches to 39 by England. India has won 22 matches, lost 17 with no result in 4. England during the same period has won 17 matches, lost 21 with no result in 1.

India has a positive record against England, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka, an equal record against the Windies and a negative one against Australia and NZ. England has a positive record against Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka and a negative one against India, Australia and NZ.

India's overall win-loss is >50%, England's is <50%.

India's performance in major tourneys: Winner of the Natwest, joint winner of the ICC Champions trophy, WC 2003 finalist. England: Natwest finalist, nowhere in the Champion's trophy, nowhere in the WC, recent Natwest winner.

England's ranking is 3 while India's is 8. Very clear and sensible! Clear as mud, more like!!!

I am not even saying India should be at 3, but it's ridiculous to put India at 8 and England at 3 and give credit to England for getting battered at the hands of the Aussies time and again.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
give credit to England for getting battered at the hands of the Aussies time and again.
Yup! that was so ridiculous (from teh ICC) that I thought it deserves repetition :D

::sigh:: if only we'd played 7 matches against Australia and lost all seven...

I can understand how you consider the strength of the opposition you won against. But if A, B, and C are all going to lose to D, then as long as each of A, B and C havent played the same number of matches agaisnt D, how can you even use these statistics?


On current form most would put India at no. 2. However, from results 2002 onwards, I'd put SA at no. 2, and India at 3. England by virtue of their recent wins at home against Pak and SA at 4.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I guess it's not so much that they've played Australia so many times, but more that they've hardly played the crappy nations.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
full_length said:
Makes great sense. All India had to do was play Australia a few times and lose every time..

Tha ranking is absurd if only for one reason- 3 points seperate no. 3 and no. 8.
Which means a team wins the 'right' match and the whole pecking order is totallly changed. So over night the 8th best team becomes no. 5 or even 3. Apparantly India is 2 matches away from no. 3 :rolleyes:

ICC stuffed up again :D
Whats your take on this marc?
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
If India wins those two matches and becomes no. 3, will we have all of a sudden played the better opposition? or not played crappy nations ! overnight..

Seriously, these rankings are poorly conditioned. More than the principles behind them (strenght of opposition etc.) there's some problem in the numbers somewhere. Rankings need to be more robust than this.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Keep in mind that India also lost ODI series to WI and NZ. The system attempts to state that if say England played a weaker opposition than Australia, they would've won. India on the other hand have been playing relatively weaker opposition.

Also, England just beat the # 2 ranked team in the world and they only stand at 3 points ahead of India for it.

Are there any suggestions for alternative systems? I think we can find some faults in those too. The fact is that nobody will ever be fully satisfied with whatever rankings system they use. Besides, rankings are immaterial and trivial. Results are what count and India have had good results of late, so they shouldn't be fretting and neither should we. People won't remember that India was ranked at #8 in 2003, they'll remember that India were runners up in the World Cup in 2003.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
Ofcourse. This is just an academic discussion. I dont pay attention to rankings ('official' or otherwise :rolleyes: ) .

You are right in saying that one can punch holes in any rating system. But this one is zanier than most. I pointed out the reason in my earlier post.
The funniest part of it to me is that the ICC claims the rankings are a measure of consistancy (and India were inconsistant), when it is going to reward us with an advance of 4 places if we win just two matches!!
 

V Reddy

International Debutant
I think the loss to WI is the reason India is at 8. WI was lowly ranked at that time and only after that series did WI's results improved.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
The main thing that this ranking system shows is that everyone is so close.

The major flaws with the Kendix system(s) are the distinct definitions of form - 50% and 100% makes a hell of a lot of difference - and the fact that home and away results are weighted.

And finally the lack of weighting for finals etc...

It justifies the table but also shows the flaws in the system.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Well ive come to the conclusion that whatever the system, someone near the bottom will feel poorly treated, and feel they deserve better....
Sometimes the stats tell a different story from peoples opinions, and views on different teams...
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
what a pity that 'someone' near the bottom could be someone else every two-four matches!
So everyone has their joyride :D
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
As far as I can see, the only real complaints about this list have been from Indians - 8th does look harsh when taken as just a position, but then you look at the actual points behind the rankings, and it tells a different story - it proves something we've been saying on here for ages - the majority of ODI sides are very close and any can beat any on any given day (in fact I'd probably only exclude the 2 Test sides playing in Cairns at the moment from that)

This therefore must prove that Cricketweb > ICC, and for the second time on here launch my bid to become President of the ICC.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
Most of the criticism from Indians because when the crappy rankings came out India was the country which got the rawest deal.
Simple that.

You wont hear too many complaints after our ODI season is underway. Then it will be our turn to listen to someone else...

From my side anyway, this was a source of some amusement. I do find it strange that the silly explanations given by the ICC have satisfied quite a few!!

btw, you didnt answer my question of the previous page marc.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
It's all on one page for me!

Like it or not, India lost series to both the Windies and New Zealand recently, and as every game counts the same, that is one of the reasons why they're not further up.

Yes they came 2nd in the World Cup, but compared to the number of games they take part in, that achievement is diminished since we're using averages.
 

Top