New ICC ODI ranking table

[aussie_beater]

I didn't have the time to go through the formula for these new ratings, but it looks a little lopsided.... with India getting pushed to the 8th place although they have a win percentage of 60% which is just next to Australia and South Africa.Also Pakistan has a better win percentage then England, WI, and NZ and SL which are above it in the rankings.

 

[Mr. P]

weird

 

[Rich2001]

Isn't the rankings only from when they introduced the 10 year ODI system (same as the test one)

Therefore although India have a good win %, only the matches in say the last year or so count towards it.

So in the last year India lost in NZ, they won in the WI didn't they


Whereas teams like England have won matches vs Pak, SA, Zim etc and being SA are 2nd you get more points I blieve for beating a higher placed side

However I could be wrong!

 

[Neil Pickup]

That just shows how dismal the Kendix/ICC ranking systems are.

Ah well, don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[Langeveldt]

Hmm I reckon that One Day games should be ranked, just as in baseball... By win Percentage...

Interesting to see the powerhouses of one day cricket (Ind, Pak, SL) languishing....

 

[luckyeddie]

That just shows how dismal the Kendix/ICC ranking systems are.

Ah well, don't say I didn't warn you.

Time to update yours again, Neil? The ICC one is total, abject rubbish.

 

[Rich2001]

This news piece from cricinfo (New Zealand) gives a good run down of why teams have had sudden changes and apprant better sides have slipped etc

ODI Rankings

 

[krkode]

Yeah, I too disagree with this ranking system.

If only matches of the last year count, I think India's world cup performance counts for something more than #8, essentially the LAST non-minnow nation (considering Zim is still sort of a minnow).

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeah, I too disagree with this ranking system.

If only matches of the last year count, I think India's world cup performance counts for something more than #8, essentially the LAST non-minnow nation (considering Zim is still sort of a minnow).

Agreed. Laughable.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Time to update yours again, Neil? The ICC one is total, abject rubbish.

Mine's Tests Only, I'm afraid

And Rich, win % ranking wouldn't work unless everyone played the same number of matches against the same teams each year (i.e. the Aussie idea we laughed out the door a few weeks ago) :P

 

[luckyeddie]

It strikes me that not enough weighting is given to 'major' ODI tournaments such as the World Cup and the Champions Trophy.

India (finalists in WC2003 - just 3 or 4 months ago) at No 8 seems quite crazy to me.

 

[Bazza]

I think additional weighting is given to the World Cup and ICC Champions Trophy games, and that more weighting is given to the final than the group games for example.

I did find it odd that India were 8th, yet I've never previously had any strenuous (sp?) objections to the ODI system.

Neil, do you have enough time now to try and come up with an ODI system? Maybe some members could give suggestions to what they think is important? One idea I had was maybe counting the last 5 meetings between teams home, away and neutral (in most cases this will cover 2-3 years maybe). Just one idea.

Just visited Cricinfo for a look - it's not exactly as bad as some people have made out. There are only about 3 points between 3rd and 8th, and only one year's worth of games are taken into account - probably not enough but means it's recent as opposed to going back 5 years - this means India (and the other 5 teams) haven't been consistent whereas Australia and South Africa stand out because they have been.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I could give it a shot.. The problems with ODIs are that there are so few straight-out series now that it's difficult to value matches properly..

How do you distribute Tri-Series points?
How do you implement the weightings?
If a team lost all 3 group games to another, and then won the final, how do you distribute the points?

They're the three major issues at present.

 

[Langeveldt]

And Rich, win % ranking wouldn't work unless everyone played the same number of matches against the same teams each year (i.e. the Aussie idea we laughed out the door a few weeks ago) :P

So why cant they??? isnt that the whole point of having a proper league???

Tradition hindering the games advance i guess

 

[krkode]

There are only about 3 points between 3rd and 8th.

You make a point that just *might* justify this ranking - atleast with India. Considering the only good series they've had in the past year is the world cup and perhaps the series right after it with South Africa and Bangladesh.

Another series victory and that 8 could become a 3 or 4, which sounds much more reasonable.

A world cup holds a lot of weightage, but I guess it doesn't hold everything. For example, if Aus lost WC03, they still would've been first.

 

[full_length]

Considering the only good series they've had in the past year is the world cup and perhaps the series right after it with South Africa and Bangladesh.

From Jan 2002,
Won at Natwest
Won against Zimbabwe at home
Drew England at home
Won against WI away
Won ICC knockout tournament, shared with SL
Lost against WI at home (3-4)
Lost against NZ away (2-5)
Runner up in WC finals
Shared TVS trophy with SA

India lost three series in the year- the WC, NZ and WI home won everything else.
The problem I see for India is that we didn't play Australia or Pakistan in a series. Or for that matter SA in this period.
However, I think this is a better record than all other teams bar Australia and SA for the same period.

Whatever, I don't think people really care about the rankings. It's not like tennis where seedings and the such come into play.
Cricket rankings are an afterthought.


BTW, how can the fact that 3 pts separate no. 3 to 8 be a defense for the rankings? That should be a negative factor! It means that a single win/upset can drastically change the ratings of the teams rendering any ordering meaningless. It's not robust to small changes, therefore useless.

 

[krkode]

Okay, my bad on "bad last year" point.

When I said a defense for the rankings, it meant that the current ranking didn't necessarily show the true ranking of the teams and that another performance in every team's current direction (a win for the better teams and a loss for the others) would probably reflect a more accurate ranking.

I did not mean to, in any way, imply that the point system was effective or reflected truth.

 

[Neil Pickup]

So why cant they??? isnt that the whole point of having a proper league???

Tradition hindering the games advance i guess

So all eleven teams play one home and one away game each year against the other ten.

Are you not seeing the huge problems this causes?

Go dig out the thread...

 

[marc71178]

Lost against WI at home (3-4)
Lost against NZ away (2-5)

There's your reason for India's lowly ranking...

BTW, how can the fact that 3 pts separate no. 3 to 8 be a defense for the rankings?

A lot of times recently on here, much has been said about how even sides in ODI are - the rankings do indeed reflect that.

 

[Langeveldt]

So all eleven teams play one home and one away game each year against the other ten.

Are you not seeing the huge problems this causes?

Go dig out the thread...

They dont have to do it all in a year, and they can make series' out of it...

What about the ICC 10 year plan?