Cricketweb ODI Rankings

[Bazza]

The one team I would question is WI, i think they are a much better ODI than they are given credit for

At home, WI only have a favourable record against NZ and Pakistan, and away only against India of the major teams.

 

[Bazza]

Will the tie do anything strange to the points system?

No ties are not considered in the rankings so this series will now be considered a 6 match series unless in the highly unlikely event there is another tie, or a no result.

 

[Bazza]

I'm suppose I'm just confused that there is such a small gap between NZ at 2nd and Eng at Third. NZ won over 80% of their onedayers (better % than Aust) in 2004 including a number of games against SA,PAK,ENG,WI and Aust hardly weak opposition. I don't know what Eng's winning % was, perhaps someone can let me know but I'm sure it wasn't even close to this.

Also I would have thought the recent 1-1 series between NZ and Aust in Aust would have counted for as much as Engs 1 win at the CT as this was a win over Aust at home.

Englands winning percentage was 60%. Remember the rankings are based on the most recent results against all teams, not just the last year. In contrast NZ didn't win a single series in 2003! Also the rankings consider home and away performances to be of equal importance, therefore a home win is worth more than an away draw.

New Zealand are the only team to get the better of England in England, and I think New Zealand are also hurt by a home series defeat to Zimbabwe.

 

[Bazza]

Something I've noticed in many sports with rankings is that England and English players always seem to get unproportionally large points with their victories/good performances.
I dont know how England manage to be third here for the life of me I can't see what they've done to get that high. I agree with Zinzan although I would not have England all the way down at 8...possibly 6?

The rankings are based on mathematical formulas, so England are third on merit I can assure you.

If you look at the breakdown into home and away, Sri Lanka and South Africa are very strong at home but quite poor away from home, and that is why overall they sit below New Zealand and England, who are more consistent away from home.

 

[Zinzan]

look..how the hell would a NZ supporter know what its like to be playing a game where you have already won the series

Of course, NZ really struggles in one day cricket these day. Especially when we Played the Natwest series in England last and won 7 out of 7 games.

 

[Swervy]

Of course, NZ really struggles in one day cricket these day. Especially when we Played the Natwest series in England last and won 7 out of 7 games.

I was only teasing

 

[Jono]

I think its fair enough having England at third...they have in the last few months beaten and tied with SA in SA (I know the series hasnt finished,but in my opinion England look the better team

Big call now

 

[Swervy]

Big call now

hey its a funny old game isnt it...maybe SA have gotten over the hump now

 

[Sir Redman]

The rankings are based on mathematical formulas, so England are third on merit I can assure you.

If you look at the breakdown into home and away, Sri Lanka and South Africa are very strong at home but quite poor away from home, and that is why overall they sit below New Zealand and England, who are more consistent away from home.

Yeah I know. I guess it appears as though England get bonus points because usually they're stuck in mediocrity, only winning enough games to keep them with the pack. Then whenever they get on a good run they dont have much ground to catch up so get ahead of the other teams who keep being inconsistent.

I wanted to attach this to my other post but was having serious computer problems i.e. "freeze. reset. freeze. reset. Finally manage to connect to internet - computer resets itself. Repeat"

 

[Gangster]

Of course, NZ really struggles in one day cricket these day. Especially when we Played the Natwest series in England last and won 7 out of 7 games.

Full credit to the New Zealand ODI team. They're awesome. I think they have the best idea of what a "team" is supposed to be. Everyone plays together and to win, no "I" mentality at all. Australia doesn't have much of that kind of bad mentality but they do have some, centered around guys like Brett Lee, but their extreme talent helps them out. If only there was more money in the New Zealand cricket industry, it would be great. I think the ICC should implement some form of revenue sharing, if they don't already. Countries like India, Australia and England really should give money to help cricket prosper in places like New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan.

 

[Zinzan]

I think its fair enough having England at third...they have in the last few months beaten and tied with SA in SA (I know the series hasnt finished,but in my opinion England look the better team),beaten Australia,Sri lanka and completely outplayed India in a three match series.

The one team I would question is WI, i think they are a much better ODI than they are given credit for

Well done in pointing out the above wins. Strange you didn't include the losses in your argument, such as the 3 out of 3 losses to NZ (in english home conditions), their 60% winning ratio in 2004 (compared with 80% of NZ and 70 odd % for srilanka) or their failure to appear in the final of their own oneday tournament (always an embarassment).

How can you justify them being ahead of Sri-lanka at 3 for a start??

 

[Zinzan]

Full credit to the New Zealand ODI team. They're awesome. I think they have the best idea of what a "team" is supposed to be. Everyone plays together and to win, no "I" mentality at all. Australia doesn't have much of that kind of bad mentality but they do have some, centered around guys like Brett Lee, but their extreme talent helps them out. If only there was more money in the New Zealand cricket industry, it would be great. I think the ICC should implement some form of revenue sharing, if they don't already. Countries like India, Australia and England really should give money to help cricket prosper in places like New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan.

I give YOU my vote for the ICC's chairman's Role, not sure the Aust/india cricket boards would be so happy though

 

[Swervy]

Well done in pointing out the above wins. Strange you didn't include the losses in your argument, such as the 3 out of 3 losses to NZ (in english home conditions), their 60% winning ratio in 2004 (compared with 80% of NZ and 70 odd % for srilanka) or their failure to appear in the final of their own oneday tournament (always an embarassment).

How can you justify them being ahead of Sri-lanka at 3 for a start??

have alook at SL ODI record away from home vs good teams!!!!!

Hey look,I am not saying England are the third best, I just think that given how close the middle pack are,its not entirely out of the question that they may be considered to be third

 

[Zinzan]

have alook at SL ODI record away from home vs good teams!!!!!

Hey look,I am not saying England are the third best, I just think that given how close the middle pack are,its not entirely out of the question that they may be considered to be third

Well, hang on you did say to quote you..."I think its fair enough having England at third".

Given they are now 2-1 down in the series with S.A (should have been 3-1 if s.a didn't lose the plot in the tied game).I'd disagree and say their is a reasonable gap from NZ at no.2 down to england at no.5. (ICC ratings ), in fact if they do lose this series to s.a they will be 6th equal with W.I and S.a and if they lose all the remaining 3 games they will be 7th.

 

[Tim]

thats if your talking recent form...over the past 4 or 5 years you'll find that it all evens out because don't forget prior to 2004, NZ were truly awful at ODI cricket for awhile.

 

[Zinzan]

thats if your talking recent form...over the past 4 or 5 years you'll find that it all evens out because don't forget prior to 2004, NZ were truly awful at ODI cricket for awhile.

But we aren't talking the last 4 or 5 years.If we were, NZ would be one of the higher rated test sides. The ratings are clearly done on the last couple of years. That is why we(NZ) rate so highly in ODI's at the moment and so low in the test ratings.

Remember it was only 18 months ago that NZ were the 3rd ranked test side and Challenging for 2nd (prior to the Pakistan/S.A tours).

18 months is a long time in cricket these days....its all about current form

 

[Swervy]

Well, hang on you did say to quote you..."I think its fair enough having England at third".

Given they are now 2-1 down in the series with S.A (should have been 3-1 if s.a didn't lose the plot in the tied game).I'd disagree and say their is a reasonable gap from NZ at no.2 down to england at no.5. (ICC ratings ), in fact if they do lose this series to s.a they will be 6th equal with W.I and S.a and if they lose all the remaining 3 games they will be 7th.

when I said 'fair enough' I meant that it wasnt something I would strongly argue with.

(when I talk of the middle pack I mean the teams from 3rd to say 7th or 8th..the fact that if England just lose the next three games to SA away from home means they slip to 7th suggests that those teams are tightly packed in there,and its pointless quibbling over positions when there are hardly any ranking points separating them)

 

[Zinzan]

when I said 'fair enough' I meant that it wasnt something I would strongly argue with.

(when I talk of the middle pack I mean the teams from 3rd to say 7th or 8th..the fact that if England just lose the next three games to SA away from home means they slip to 7th suggests that those teams are tightly packed in there,and its pointless quibbling over positions when there are hardly any ranking points separating them)

Definately close between 5,6 and 7th place, but you'll find Sri Lanka are well ahead in 3rd place and Pakistan holding strong in 4th.

 

[Swervy]

Definately close between 5,6 and 7th place, but you'll find Sri Lanka are well ahead in 3rd place and Pakistan holding strong in 4th.

and yet Sri lanka cant beat anyone away from home..and happen to have played loads of ODI's at home recently.

The fact of the matter is:
Sri lanka arent too good
Pakistan arent too good
India arent too good
England arent too good
SA arent too good
WI arent too good

pretty much on any given day,and if the coin toss is won,anyone of these teams could beat each other on neutral ground...and too be honest I suspect that NZ are not really that much ahead of that pack either

 

[Zinzan]

and yet Sri lanka cant beat anyone away from home..and happen to have played loads of ODI's at home recently.

The fact of the matter is:
Sri lanka arent too good
Pakistan arent too good
India arent too good
England arent too good
SA arent too good
WI arent too good

pretty much on any given day,and if the coin toss is won,anyone of these teams could beat each other on neutral ground...and too be honest I suspect that NZ are not really that much ahead of that pack either

Depends how you define "not much ahead of the pack".

Perhaps you should have another look back at the ODI results in the last 12 months or so. I would have thought there was a significant difference.