• 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.

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

Blaze 18

Banned
The ranking system takes into account performances over the last few years, doesn't it? That means it includes "India's" two losses to Zimbabwe, a tri-series loss in Sri Lanka, Australia's 5-0 against Pakistan, 6-1 against England, etc.

Maybe more weight needs to be given for World Cup matches, because the current system doesn't differentiate between a dead rubber played in UAE and a World Cup final. No biggie though. I've no issues with Australia being on top. They're still a gun side.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
India also won the Asia Cup, which is a pretty important tournament for the subcontinent teams. Overall, India have picked and chosen their losses very wisely of late. :D
 

Inny Binny

Cricket Spectator
Why not though? You accrue more ranking points in tennis and golf by winning a major instead of an ATP/ PGA regular event.
They're completely different systems. Tennis ranking points are given in fixed amounts by quality of tournament, i.e. 250 points for winning 250 series, 1000 points for winning a grand slam. A grand slam has better players than the 250 series so you get more points for winning it.

Cricket rankings have pretty much nothing in common, most likely because it's a team sport compared to individual. Points are dynamically calculated based on the relative quality difference of the two teams playing each other.

There is no statistical reason to give greater weighting to and Australia vs India World Cup ODI than the same match-up as part of a standard series. It's the same teams, the odds don't magically change from 70-30 to 20-80.

Yes, the rankings are a much better indicator of quality than the World Cup result. Rankings are a medium-term average played over different sets of conditions. World Cups are a much smaller sample, and are inevitably going to throw up biases that favour certain teams.

Of course, a World Cup is much more important than some mathematically calculated index that has little public connection. But it wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense to add weighting to a World Cup match. Again, grand slams give more points than lower series because they contain greater quality - something already taken into account in every match calculation with the cricket rankings.

Essentially, World Cup games are the prestige. They're what actually matter. The ICC rankings are there to provide an unbiased, medium-term, large-sampled snapshot of the most consistent winners in cricket.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Just for the record, a tennis grand slam is actually worth 2000 points

And explain to me why a Masters 1000 is worth more than a ATP 500 tournament when they have the same amount of players entering? Because they are a more prestigious tournament!

The same should be the case for the World Cup, and hell even the Champions Trophy.
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
It's because the ICC have failed to notice that half their bilateral ODI series are treated as little more than warm up matches.

Remember that ODI in October between India and Australia that had an Indian top order featuring Dhawan, Vijay and Tiwary against Aussie bowling of McKay and Starc? That counts as much as the World Cup Final to these rankings.

Granted, Australia had a poor 2010 but on the whole they've been able to keep their consistency going a lot through these. 5-0 against Pakistan, 6-1 twice against England, hammering Bangladesh, etc.

India meanwhile, and completely reasonably, have thrown everything into their World Cup campaign and that means they have neglected the majority of their ODI cricket, such as sending effectively a second XI to Zimbabwe to get beaten.
Yeah. Bilateral ODI series are not being taken seriously these days. They used to take ODIs as seriously as tests (at least in subcontinent) till the arrival of T20s. And oddly T20 are never taken seriously anyways. Basically all interest in LO cricket is now only commercial. The cricketers and selectors aren't too interested in either of the shorter formats.

EDIT: keeping that in mind, it makes more sense to give more weight to WC matches now than it did 5 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Jacknife

International Captain
Nah man, you win the biggest pressure tourney there is, you're the best team. End of.
I agree, as far as more points should be given to the WC winners, but what if Pakistan or NZ would have won the WC, it wouldn't be right or make sense, to move a team from 6th or 7th place in the rankings to first.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
If they changed the weighting of the matches to be higher for WC matches the teams would go up the table naturally. It wouldn't be "unnatural" or not make sense.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pretty sure that the majority of people don't care about the rankings, and all that matters is the WC.

That said, I support the notions that the WC requires more weighting.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
If you win the world cup, you've won the friggin' world cup IMO. I think that's pretty significant in itself, doesn't need to be shown in the rankings.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Agree with Jono. WC matches should definitely be weighted much more than regular matches.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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.
So you think Sachin is easily >>> Ponting as an ODI batsman then?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
They're completely different systems. Tennis ranking points are given in fixed amounts by quality of tournament, i.e. 250 points for winning 250 series, 1000 points for winning a grand slam. A grand slam has better players than the 250 series so you get more points for winning it.

Cricket rankings have pretty much nothing in common, most likely because it's a team sport compared to individual. Points are dynamically calculated based on the relative quality difference of the two teams playing each other.

There is no statistical reason to give greater weighting to and Australia vs India World Cup ODI than the same match-up as part of a standard series. It's the same teams, the odds don't magically change from 70-30 to 20-80.

Yes, the rankings are a much better indicator of quality than the World Cup result. Rankings are a medium-term average played over different sets of conditions. World Cups are a much smaller sample, and are inevitably going to throw up biases that favour certain teams.

Of course, a World Cup is much more important than some mathematically calculated index that has little public connection. But it wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense to add weighting to a World Cup match. Again, grand slams give more points than lower series because they contain greater quality - something already taken into account in every match calculation with the cricket rankings.

Essentially, World Cup games are the prestige. They're what actually matter. The ICC rankings are there to provide an unbiased, medium-term, large-sampled snapshot of the most consistent winners in cricket.
There is no logical reason to NOT weigh the WC games more.. none at all.
 

pup11

International Coach
Winning a worldcup is the biggest prize in the game of cricket and any team that does it should obviously be proud of their feat, but winning such a tournament doesn't equate to a team becoming #1.

For example there were no official team rankings back in 1999 and that year Australia went onto win the worldcup, now despite being a huge Australian fan I have no issues in admitting that Pakistan and South Africa were arguably better ODI sides than Australia at that time, but despite that Australia defied the odds and went onto win the tournament.

The rankings are a fair reflection of how a team performs over a period of time and Australia being #1 in the ODI's and #5 in tests is a pretty fair reflection of what they have done in each of these formats in recent times.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Winning a worldcup is the biggest prize in the game of cricket and any team that does it should obviously be proud of their feat, but winning such a tournament doesn't equate to a team becoming #1.

For example there were no official team rankings back in 1999 and that year Australia went onto win the worldcup, now despite being a huge Australian fan I have no issues in admitting that Pakistan and South Africa were arguably better ODI sides than Australia at that time, but despite that Australia defied the odds and went onto win the tournament.

The rankings are a fair reflection of how a team performs over a period of time and Australia being #1 in the ODI's and #5 in tests is a pretty fair reflection of what they have done in each of these formats in recent times.
That is all fine and dandy but why the hell is a bilateral ODI the same as a WC ODI?
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
So you think Sachin is easily >>> Ponting as an ODI batsman then?
That is completely irrelevant to what he is saying. I think it's fair enough for Australia to be on top given their winning percentages, Champions Trophy win and recent big wins over England, Pakistan etc. but agree with the general consensus that WC matches should be given more weightage. That would probably make it closer at the top between them and India.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Got no problem if they decide to rank World Cup victories more than ordinary ODI's. Just wish they would get rid of the waste of time Champions Trophy, a pointless extra competition nobody cares about.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
No one (except maybe Burgey?) is arguing that winning the WC should automatically make you #1. Just that the WC matches should be weighted more-so than the dead rubber 7th match of England vs. Australia where Australia are already 5-1 up :dry:
 

Top