-
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.
Cricketweb ODI Rankings
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Bazza
International 12th Man
I thought it was about time I got involved in this debate. 
First of all thankyou all for taking an interest in the rankings!
The main difference between the cricketweb rankings and the ICC rankings is that the ICC considers games played over a period ranging from 2-3 years, for some reason revolving around August as a cut off point. The cricketweb rankings consider results from the most recent meetings between all teams at home, away and neutrally. In some cases, this can be as much as 4-5 years, but often fits within the same 2-3 year window. However what this does mean is that we don't just exclude certain matchups simply due to the way the itineraries are drawn up.
In the last 3 years, it is likely that several combinations of teams have played each other on at least two separate occasions, yet other combinations won't have played each other at all, and this makes the system unfair. For example, a side which has played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more than it has played Australia would be buoyed by that and a team that has played Australia more than those two would be punished. Why should this be so?
That is why we chose to do the rankings the way we do.
Unfortunately I won't have access to the rankings database until the weekend but I am always happy and willing to answer any questions people have about the rankings, and certainly don't mind a bit of healthy discussion of them!
First of all thankyou all for taking an interest in the rankings!
The main difference between the cricketweb rankings and the ICC rankings is that the ICC considers games played over a period ranging from 2-3 years, for some reason revolving around August as a cut off point. The cricketweb rankings consider results from the most recent meetings between all teams at home, away and neutrally. In some cases, this can be as much as 4-5 years, but often fits within the same 2-3 year window. However what this does mean is that we don't just exclude certain matchups simply due to the way the itineraries are drawn up.
In the last 3 years, it is likely that several combinations of teams have played each other on at least two separate occasions, yet other combinations won't have played each other at all, and this makes the system unfair. For example, a side which has played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more than it has played Australia would be buoyed by that and a team that has played Australia more than those two would be punished. Why should this be so?
That is why we chose to do the rankings the way we do.
Unfortunately I won't have access to the rankings database until the weekend but I am always happy and willing to answer any questions people have about the rankings, and certainly don't mind a bit of healthy discussion of them!
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
ICC rankings, update today (Pakistan moved up for their win against Aus and England's loss to SAF):marc71178 said:
1 Australia 137
2 New Zealand 120
3 Sri Lanka 117
4 Pakistan 109
5 England 106
6 West Indies 105
7 South Africa 104
8 India 98
9 Zimbabwe 51
10 Kenya 26
11 Bangladesh 11
Swervy
International Captain
I dont think SA looked overwhelmingly better than England to be honest,despite the final scoreline,which is not too bad for England considering it was at the end of a tough tour with some players not 100% fit etc.zinzan12 said:
England, a year ago or so, would have been completely outclassed...they certainly werent this tourny.
I think 2 pretty even teams in reality..so yeah maybe I was a tad premature (!!!!)
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not Overwhelmingly better?? 4-1 ?? And the tied game where Africa did their usual crumbling under pressure...Swervy said:
I'd call 4-1 a Whipping !!!
The end of tour/injury excuse doesn't cut it i'm sorry. Everyteam has to deal with that. None more so than my beloved NZ who lost 3 even tests to England in England last year without 3 of its best bowlers. Unfortunately the results still count. Its almost down to the strenght of the squad these days as opposed to just the top 11.
Anyway, England are back to where I think they should be, around 7th place
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Out of interest, how much of the action did you actually watch?
To me, "overwhelmingly better" suggests a complete lack of doubt in the result of a match from a very early stage. Yes, SA were the better side, but could you honestly at the start of any of the matches confidently say that SA were hot favourites to win? There was only one thrashing in the series.
To me, "overwhelmingly better" suggests a complete lack of doubt in the result of a match from a very early stage. Yes, SA were the better side, but could you honestly at the start of any of the matches confidently say that SA were hot favourites to win? There was only one thrashing in the series.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
After SA won the match following the tie, Vaughan's shoulders drooped perceptibly. The difference between the two captains and their demeanour was stark.Neil Pickup said:
Smithy must get a lot of credit for SA's win and England must look very closely at their leadership.
Bazza
International 12th Man
Anyone worth their salt wouldn't even consider questioning Vaughan's captaincy/leadership. He has helped make England one of the stronger teams in world cricket in both forms of th game, following on from Nasser's good work.SJS said:
Zinzan, are they the three tests NZ lost by 7, 9 and 4 wickets?
As Neil pointed out 3 of the 4 defeats I think came in the last over. Englad probably deserved to lose the series but I think 4-1 flattered South Africa.
Anyway, will update the rankings tonight and we will see what effect all these games have had on the rankings.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
I agree to some extent - but it wasn't just Vaughan. All the senior players' demeanours/body language wasn't great - it's no coincedence that the best performers in the ODI series (Pietersen, Gough, Kabir to an extent) were fresh.
Whilst it's not really excusable for a professional sportsman, I can sympathise with the feelings (personally, the tour was over after the Centurion Test).
Not taking anything away from SA, however - they won the series and fully deserved it.
Whilst it's not really excusable for a professional sportsman, I can sympathise with the feelings (personally, the tour was over after the Centurion Test).
Not taking anything away from SA, however - they won the series and fully deserved it.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You know as well as I do, those margins didn't exactly reflect that series, no doubt Eng were the better side (i thought Harmy was the big difference in that series) but NZ were right in every game til the last innings...So they were all pretty even going into 4th and 5th days. Is that not fair comment.Bazza said:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I think you are right about the freshers.Neil Pickup said:
Even Flintoff brings life to this team. So does a relatively older player like Giles but overall there is a 'tiredness' about the side.
I cant say why I feel like that but its the overall impression that one gets.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
They're tired because thye've been out away from home for the best part of three months (don't forget the Zimbabwe and Namibia legs directly beforehand)!SJS said:
