Cricketweb ODI Rankings

[Bazza]

For years people have tried to successfully rate who is the best team in world cricket. There have been many attempts - some more successful than others. At the start of the year, Neil Pickup devised a system for ranking teams' abilities in test matches. These have now been adopted as Cricketweb's official test rankings.

Over the last few days (well months, intermittently), with Neil's assistance, I have produced a set of ODI rankings - based on the system Neil uses for tests. And here they are - these rankings include up to the Zimbabwe v West Indies series which finished last week, but not the current Pakistan v New Zealand series.

Home
1 South Africa 1348
2 Australia 1313
3 Sri Lanka 1131
4 West Indies 966
5 England 955
6 India 931
7 New Zealand 924
8 Pakistan 870
9 Zimbabwe 270
10 Kenya 115
11 Bangladesh 35

Away
1 Australia 1344
2 Pakistan 1066
3 South Africa 1048
4 India 947
5 Sri Lanka 922
6 England 888
7 New Zealand 798
8 West Indies 746
9 Zimbabwe 456
10 Kenya 316
11 Bangladesh 29

Total
1 Australia 1329
2 South Africa 1198
3 Sri Lanka 1027
4 Pakistan 968
5 India 939
6 England 922
7 New Zealand 861
8 West Indies 856
9 Zimbabwe 363
10 Kenya 216
11 Bangladesh 32

I will shortly write an explanation of how the system works, ie how the rankings are calculated. For now, feel free to pick to pieces my many hours of work,

Bazza

 

[Bazza]

Explanation

These rankings are based on a 'two series' system. This means that the last two series home, away and at a neutral venue between any two sides are taken into account. Even a one off match counts as a series, and neutral results contribute half towards home and half towards away.

For example, the last two series between Australia and England in Australia were 5-2 and 6-0. So overall, Australia take the rubber 11-2. The last two meetings at a neutral venue were both one off games, and each team won once. So each team gets half a point from these games, making a total of 11.5 - 2.5. If we double this for convenience, we have 23-5.

We then split one point for the series, so Australia take 23/28 which is (rounding) 0.82 and England get the other 0.18. This is done for every combination of teams home and away, giving a raw value for each teams ability home and away. As an example, England total 1.24 at home and 0.95 away. This rating is effectively out of 2, as this is the maximum achievable, so a score of 1 could be perceived as exactly average.

For each series, the raw value of each rubber (in our example 0.82 for Australia and 0.18 for England) is then multiplied by the relevant value reflecting their oppoment's ability. So Australia receive 0.82 x 0.95 = 0.78, while England receive 0.18 x 1.63 (Australia's home coefficient) = 0.29.

Again this is done for every rubber home and away, and the total of each teams home and away scores are averaged (divided by series played) and multiplied by 1000 to give a nicer looking number.

This gives the rankings you see above (home and away averaged to give an overall set of rankings).

These rankings are (as mentioned) based on Neil Pickup's system for ranking teams in tests, and aim to give credit for strength of opposition and the series result.

For example, South Africa are the strongest team at home despite being thrashed by Australia 5-1 last year. This is because they beat all their other opponents convincingly. However this series has a knock on effect by giving Australia by far the best away ranking - they thrashed the strongest home team on their own territory!

Okay I think that's about it as far as explaining how the system works. All that remains is for me to justify certain aspects of how they've turned out, so if anyone has any questions or comments please feel free to air them in this thread!

Bazza

 

[Neil Pickup]

Personally I think they're brilliant, but hey...

 

[masterblaster]

..yep looks quite good to me.

 

[marc71178]

Looks like a lot of number crunching to me, but the final answer does seem fairly accurate.

The key question is, did they deserve these results though?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Clearly lots of effort went into it and the finished product looks sharp. Well done.

 

[Anil]

Looks like a lot of number crunching to me, but the final answer does seem fairly accurate.

The key question is, did they deserve these results though?

 

[Anil]

Looks fairly accurate....good work Bazza!

 

[luckyeddie]

I think that it looks exceptionally good. Well done.

Part 2 of 'Cricket Web taking over the world' may now go into operation

 

[nibbs]

Clearly lots of effort went into it and the finished product looks sharp. Well done.

word

 

[Bazza]

Wow very flattered by the positive responses thus far. Except Neil, I knew he'd love it!

Thanks muchly guys.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

some Indian to see this thread and say that India is underrated in 5....4....3....

nah, seriously, good stuff

 

[Mr. P]

Looks awesome mate!

The outcome was just about perfect, good stuff.

 

[amits]

bazza, good rankings except for 2 things.

1. India at 5 :O India is no.2 just behind aus in odis.
2. Bangladesh at 11 :O either they shouldnt be in these ratings and if they r, they should be 13th.

otherwise, good and proper odi ratings, but please make ind no.2

 

[Craig]

Are these rankings similar to the ICC One-day International Championship in terms of formating?

Actually yours give New Zealand a higher ranking.

 

[marc71178]

bazza, good rankings except for 2 things.

1. India at 5 :O India is no.2 just behind aus in odis.
2. Bangladesh at 11 :O either they shouldnt be in these ratings and if they r, they should be 13th.

otherwise, good and proper odi ratings, but please make ind no.2

Erm, the ratings are based on actual results, so he cannot change the figures, and so it looks like results suggest India aren't as good as you think.

In the past 12 months did they not get hammered 5-2 by NZ and also lose to the Windies 4-3? Hardly the stuff of a number 2 side.

 

[marc71178]

Are these rankings similar to the ICC One-day International Championship in terms of formating?

Actually yours give New Zealand a higher ranking.

I believe the ICC uses all matches in the past 3 years (preferable IMO to recent series, but either way the results are pretty similar)

This is actually a case where I prefer the ICC ratings because they show the middle nations to be very close, which IMO is correct.

 

[luckyeddie]

New ranking for Amits' benefit

Total
1 India 587,132,900
2= South Africa 0
2= Sri Lanka 0
2= Pakistan 0
2= Australia 0
2= England 0
2= New Zealand 0
2= West Indies 0
2= Zimbabwe 0
2= Kenya 0
11 Bangladesh -32

All better

 

[Tim]

Sure, let's just change the rankings because I also disagree that NZ are 7th..pff..these rankings are justified & fair, live with it.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Top stuff Bazza