Australia is still number one - haters can rightfully ask why.

[Burgey]

This morning as I was attending to ablutions I heard on the radio that Australia is still number one in the latest ICC One Day rankings.

This is two weeks after India won the one tournament where all the international teams are assembled, and follows Sri Lanka beating Australia in an ODI series in Australia before Christmas.

What's going on here? Is this computer the same one which kept Greg Norman at number one in golf rankings despite him not winning a tournament for two years in the late 80s?

Seems very odd to me - you win the WC two weeks ago and you aren't number one? Renders these things meaningless IMO.

 

[Quaggas]

WCs aren't everything. Yeah! Redemption.

 

[stephen]

Because believe it or not, consistency is far more important to any kind of skill ranking than tournament results.

 

[marc71178]

A statement which would have far more bearing if Mitch Johnson weren't 6th in both the Test and ODI rankings...

 

[Prince EWS]

Seems very odd to me - you win the WC two weeks ago and you aren't number one? Renders these things meaningless IMO.

Actually, I think automatically putting the World Cup winners at the top of the rankings would make them meaningless. Everyone knows who won the World Cup; we don't need the rankings to tell us.

I don't think Australia are the best ODI side in the world at the moment but if they won the World Cup, I still wouldn't think they were. There's more to it than that.

 

[Burgey]

Bollocks. You win the WC you're the best team in that format. FFS, Spain weren't the best football team i the world two weeks' after the last WC?

Bizarre. What's the point of having a pre-eminent tournament then?

 

[Adamc]

Hmm yeah, AW(some of)fTA. I don't think they should automatically be no. 1 purely on the basis of winning the WC, but surely WC matches need to carry more weight than run of the mill ODIs.

All ODIs are treated equally. Although the ICC Cricket World Cup final will have more at stake than any other match, every ODI is subject to the same formula for ratings purposes

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm yeah, AW(some of)fTA. I don't think they should automatically be no. 1 purely on the basis of winning the WC, but surely WC matches need to carry more weight than run of the mill ODIs.

Well, that's pretty silly. World Cup matches should definitely count for more. Not everything, but more.

 

[Athlai]

Reliance ICC Rankings, ICC ODI Team Rankings, ICC Rankings Predictor

If Pakistan win their next 7 matches they only gain 2 points. The system is a wee bit silly.

 

[TumTum]

Nice title

IMO it is ok the way it is, not sure with how the points system works but I' happy with the larger concept of it.

WC is a knockout / pressure match of a way for determining the best team, whilst the ICC rankings are about consistency. Both can co-exist peacefully.

Although I do not believe that either of them truly tell who the #1 team is.

 

[vcs]

I think Australia's recent ODI results haven't been good, apart from the 6-1 win against England. Lost to SL, lost (one game) to India before that, and lost in England. It must be pretty close among the top teams.

 

[Contra]

Reliance ICC Rankings, ICC ODI Team Rankings, ICC Rankings Predictor

If Pakistan win their next 7 matches they only gain 2 points. The system is a wee bit silly.

That has a lot to do with the kind of teams they are facing though. And WI are at an all time low you'd have to say. I mean I knew they were always somewhere around 7-8 in the rankings but not as low as having only 68 points. Beating a team ranked that low will only give you so many points. I reckon if you replace WI with Aus and then if Pak won they would gain a lot more points.

 

[Spark]

I think Australia's recent ODI results haven't been good, apart from the 6-1 win against England. Lost to SL, lost (one game) to India before that, and lost in England. It must be pretty close among the top teams.

The gap is still pretty big IIRC.

 

[vcs]

Well, I dunno then. Are the WC results updated in those rankings?

 

[Burgey]

Nice title

IMO it is ok the way it is, not sure with how the points system works but I' happy with the larger concept of it.

WC is a knockout / pressure match of a way for determining the best team, whilst the ICC rankings are about consistency. Both can co-exist peacefully.

Although I do not believe that either of them truly tell who the #1 team is.

Nah man, you win the biggest pressure tourney there is, you're the best team. End of.

 

[Redbacks]

Swap India and Sri Lanka above Australia and the rankings are pretty much right. Given the number of matches it covers, this will happen in due course anyway.

 

[Mike5181]

Bollocks. You win the WC you're the best team in that format. FFS, Spain weren't the best football team i the world two weeks' after the last WC?

Bizarre. What's the point of having a pre-eminent tournament then?

Nah, i only really have to point you to the the sport of rugby.

 

[Spark]

Well, I dunno then. Are the WC results updated in those rankings?

I'd assume so but they aren't weighted, so in reality India only has three extra wins on Australia's one extra loss.

 

[vcs]

Oh, and at the thread title. Nicely done Burgey.

 

[pup11]

Worldcup in any sport is a global tournament where every participating side has an equal opportunity of winning it, at times in different sports we have seen less fancied sides winning the tournament or making it into the last legs but obviously that doesn't mean that makes these sides better than the other more consistent sides.

Australia's #1 ranking is a result of consistent performances in the ODI format over the last 18 months, their winning percentage is close to 75% in that period and that's the reason they are where they are on the ranking table.