Cricketweb ODI Rankings

[Bazza]

Thanks again guys for all the positive feedback.

Marc makes a point - I also feel everyone between #3 and #8 are very closely matched, but these rankings are based on actual results, not just opinion, so it is possible what we perceive to be the case and what is actually the case are slightly different.

The ICC system I dislike because in July they include 3 years worth of games, then on the 1st August each year (why 1st August?) a whole years worth of games are discounted. This meant four months ago, literally overnight and without any games taknig place, England leapt from 7th to 3rd, West Indies climbed from 6th to 4th and New Zealand rose from 8th to 5th. Meanwhile Pakistan swapped with England (3rd to 7th), Sri Lanka swapped with West Indies (4th to 6th) and India swapped with New Zealand (5th to 8th). I find that very bizarre!

I did consider using a timeframe, but it would be the case that many fixtures would not happen within (for example) a two year period, so this would create alot of anomalies in the rankings.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

bazza, good rankings except for 2 things.

1. India at 5 :O India is no.2 just behind aus in odis.
2. Bangladesh at 11 :O either they shouldnt be in these ratings and if they r, they should be 13th.

otherwise, good and proper odi ratings, but please make ind no.2

Point 1 some other guys have treated, I won't bother with that.
Point 2, the rankings rank full ODI nations, not Associates like Canada, Nepal, Netherlands etc. Kenya is a full ODI nation, therefore they are ranked. There are only 11 of these, so Bangladesh can't be ranked any lower.

 

[marc71178]

The ICC system I dislike because in July they include 3 years worth of games, then on the 1st August each year (why 1st August?)

Traditionally a period of very small volume of ODIs - otherwise a series played could be half discounted!

 

[amits]

Point 1 some other guys have treated, I won't bother with that.
Point 2, the rankings rank full ODI nations, not Associates like Canada, Nepal, Netherlands etc. Kenya is a full ODI nation, therefore they are ranked. There are only 11 of these, so Bangladesh can't be ranked any lower.

samuel, canada and holland just won 1 match in the wc against their fellow minnoes (bangladesh and namibia) and it is weird that they arent in the ranking, however bangladesh, who havent won an odi for the last 4 years and have lost to even canada, r in the ranking. how weird.

as for 1st point, i now c it. if india play well in the vb series, then indias ranking will improve.

 

[marc71178]

samuel, canada and holland just won 1 match in the wc against their fellow minnoes (bangladesh and namibia) and it is weird that they arent in the ranking, however bangladesh, who havent won an odi for the last 4 years and have lost to even canada, r in the ranking. how weird.

Bangladesh play series of matches and are full members, Canada, Holland and the minnows don't play series and aren't full members. It's as simple as that - how can you rank them when they have no games that qualify?

 

[amits]

Bangladesh play series of matches and are full members, Canada, Holland and the minnows don't play series and aren't full members. It's as simple as that - how can you rank them when they have no games that qualify?

but bangladesh dont win matches and its weird that they r in no.11 without winning a match and canada and holland, who have won an odi arent in this ranking.

these minnows have played some odi games and if the ranking system is an odi ranking system, then it should include all odi teams (full member or not), otherwise what is the use of an odi system. namibia, also came very close to beat england. it was only a middle order collapse in around the 35th over which prevented them from doing so. had jb burger batted on and hit a 120-130, then namibia would have won. they were already going at almost 5 an over at that stage and jb burger was batting at a run a ball. he was out for a 86 ball 85.

now if namibia beat eng, then dont they deserve to be in the ranking ? canada beat bangladesh and yet bangladesh r in the ranking and canada arent :O

 

[marc71178]

but bangladesh dont win matches and its weird that they r in no.11 without winning a match and canada and holland, who have won an odi arent in this ranking.

Number 11 out of 11, which is bottom, where they belong out of the International sides - Canada and Holland aren't International sides because their games aren't full Internationals.

namibia, also came very close to beat england. it was only a middle order collapse in around the 35th over which prevented them from doing so.

Namibia came nowhere near to beating England. For a brief period (when there was no prospect of rain) they were a little bit ahead on D/L - they were 55 runs short in the end, which is a fair gap.

now if namibia beat eng, then dont they deserve to be in the ranking ? canada beat bangladesh and yet bangladesh r in the ranking and canada arent :O

Simple - they don't play Internationals, so how can they be ranked in something they don't play?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Namibia were only up on D/L which does rely on some late order slogging to win in. One wicket fell and it was all over.

We tried ranking the Associate members as well, but it didn't work properly due to the very low number of games they've played (and Canada wouldn't have any points, anyway, because Bangladesh are so poor you don't get points for beating them) so we decided to settle on the 11 Full ODI Nations.

 

[Bazza]

As Neil points out initially we did try to include Canada, Namibia and Holland. Unfortunately this caused no end of problems.

First of all if we included these teams should we not also include every side who has played a ODI (eg Scotland, East Africa!).

Also do we include Canada's results from as far back as 1979? Of course that is ridiculous as it is of no relevance to the current performances of teams but the way the system works this would have been necessary.

Finally these sides have played so few games (6) and that is too small a sample to go off, not to mention the fact that even though they beat Bangladesh or each other, there is little-no value in this as they are all so poor anyway!

As a result of all this, it made sense to exclude all the nations who were not full members. Kenya are included because they have ODI status and play ODIs more often than once every four years!

I think most people have given justified explanations to amits' questions, but I should point out that if I released this ranking last year, or in a couple of years time, this would not be relevant. It is only because we had a world cup earlier this year that any of these nations played ODIs.

 

[amits]

i c these teams arent being included. bazza, u can atleast include holland. they played in 1996 and then 2 games in 2002 and now in this years wc and there is a talk of them getting odi status.

now only those teams, who have odi status r included here. but still, lots of teams like holland, namibia, uae, nepal, etc. r aiming to get odi status.

 

[luckyeddie]

i c these teams arent being included. bazza, u can atleast include holland. they played in 1996 and then 2 games in 2002 and now in this years wc and there is a talk of them getting odi status.

now only those teams, who have odi status r included here. but still, lots of teams like holland, namibia, uae, nepal, etc. r aiming to get odi status.

When they get full ODI status, then they will be included.
Full stop.

 

[marc71178]

i c these teams arent being included. bazza, u can atleast include holland. they played in 1996 and then 2 games in 2002 and now in this years wc and there is a talk of them getting odi status.

Did you even read what he put?

1996 bears no relevance on current day, and I have never heard of any talk of Holland getting ODI status.

 

[anzac]

great work Bazza.....

I too was surprised to see NZ rated as high as they are, but I expect some sence of reality to be established following the current series.....

 

[Bazza]

To be honest Anzac, this series will replace one which Pakistan won 2-1 so it won't have much effect. A whitewash would see Pakistan's rating will improve by about 9 points and New Zealand's will go down by about 20 while other teams will change by 1 point at the most. Obviously this means the only positional change will be New Zealand moving below WI.

 

[Bazza]

Well following Pakistan's 5-0 whitewash of New Zealand, they have strengthened their place in fourth position in the table, whilst the Kiwi's have dropped below West Indies into eighth position:

Home
1 South Africa 1342
2 Australia 1309
3 Sri Lanka 1126
4 West Indies 962
5 England 952
6 India 927
7 New Zealand 924
8 Pakistan 887
9 Zimbabwe 267
10 Kenya 115
11 Bangladesh 35

Away
1 Australia 1349
2 Pakistan 1066
3 South Africa 1052
4 India 949
5 Sri Lanka 926
6 England 890
7 New Zealand 761
8 West Indies 748
9 Zimbabwe 457
10 Kenya 316
11 Bangladesh 30

Total
1 Australia 1329
2 South Africa 1197 (-1)
3 Sri Lanka 1026 (-1)
4 Pakistan 976 (+8)
5 India 938 (-1)
6 England 921 (-1)
7 West Indies 855 (-1)
8 New Zealand 843 (-13)
9 Zimbabwe 362 (-1)
10 Kenya 216
11 Bangladesh 33 (+1)

 

[masterblaster]

Once again, well done Bazza on a great rankings system.

 

[V Reddy]

Yeah well done Bazza, they look the best out there

 

[Salamuddin]

looks good although I am a little surprised to see the Lankans rated that highly.

 

[anzac]

To be honest Anzac, this series will replace one which Pakistan won 2-1 so it won't have much effect. A whitewash would see Pakistan's rating will improve by about 9 points and New Zealand's will go down by about 20 while other teams will change by 1 point at the most. Obviously this means the only positional change will be New Zealand moving below WI.

exactly.........

 

[MZ_RPFC]

Yeah I agree.

Very good rankings done there.