Cricketweb ODI Rankings

[Bazza]

I thought this one might need some explaining!

Yes England lost out with their defeat to a lowly ranked West Indies team, and also in their win over Australia, as this replaced a 3-0 series win, and wins over Australia (the best team away) are worth alot. Yet England gained nothing from their victories over Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe as these both replaced 1-0 victories resulting in no change.

Also contributing was probably the combination of other results, with lots of teams playing each other on neutral territory (which means they count towards both home and away), there are alot of relatively small changes to each teams strength at home and away, and if these combine in a certain way one or two teams can make large gains or losses. Less severe examples of this are Australia gaining 21 points despite winning and losing one match, and Pakistan losing 17 points despite winning two out of three.

This tournament probably sees the biggest overall changes to the rankings apart from the world cup, due to there being so many matchups between different teams in such a short period of time and as mentioned most games contribute to both home and away rankings. Unfortunately due to the complexity of all the information which goes into the rankings, it is difficult in this situation to analyse in detail exactly how England lost out so much.

 

[marc71178]

Basically is it because the 3-0 ranks a lot higher than 1-0 does.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Our last home series v Australia was 0-3 (NatWest 2001), wasn't it?

 

[Jamee999]

I would like to point out








(Marc's gonna kill me for this)





































That that was Marc's 15th post in this thread.....Congratulations!
I almost had you there didn't I

 

[Neil Pickup]

Shut up, James.

 

[Bazza]

Our last home series v Australia was 0-3 (NatWest 2001), wasn't it?

Yes, but Neil you of all people should know the rankings take into account the two most recent series!

To answer Marc, yes I think that it is mostly because we lost two victories over Australia which of course are worth a fair bit! In fact what I can do is calculate that if England hadn't lost those two victories over Australia, they would have had 917 points, so you could say that accounted for 29 of the 36 point they lost.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, but Neil you of all people should know the rankings take into account the two most recent series!

To answer Marc, yes I think that it is mostly because we lost two victories over Australia which of course are worth a fair bit! In fact what I can do is calculate that if England hadn't lost those two victories over Australia, they would have had 917 points, so you could say that accounted for 29 of the 36 point they lost.

I didn't know that! Oops.

What would happen if you equally weighted the two previous series rather than depending it upon the number of games in them?

 

[krishneelz]

I believe this is an alien conspiricy and being an indian i believe the whole indian race is an alien species. So my point is we are doing well coming 4th. So long

 

[Bazza]

I didn't know that! Oops.

What would happen if you equally weighted the two previous series rather than depending it upon the number of games in them?

Well I'll try that when I have time (ie tomorrow), but my first thought is that this gives a one off win the same value as a 5-0 whitewash. Do you think this should be?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well I'll try that when I have time (ie tomorrow), but my first thought is that this gives a one off win the same value as a 5-0 whitewash. Do you think this should be?

Well there's definitely an issue there - but there's another similar issue in including games from the 1997 Texaco Trophy (England - Atherton, Stewart, BC Hollioake, Crawley, Thorpe, AJ Hollioake, Lloyd, Ealham, Croft, Silverwood, Gough vs Australia -Elliott, ME Waugh, SR Waugh, Bevan, Langer, Gilchrist, Healy, Warne, Kasprowicz, Gillespie, McGrath).

 

[Bazza]

Why, Australia still have the same bowling attack! :P

No I'll look into it this afternoon, but two series is what we agreed last year. I think this is an extreme example, with more and more series it is rare for two series to span 7 years.

The other option is to plump for a certain number of matches?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Set matches is even worse. Just see what comes up - maybe try with one series only?

How far back do other match-ups go?

 

[Bazza]

What would happen if you equally weighted the two previous series rather than depending it upon the number of games in them?

Well I did this and Neil saw the results. The effect was really quite minimal so we chose to look at how the rankings would stand if only the most recent series was taken into account.

 

[Bazza]

And here are the rankings with only one series:

Home
Australia 1316
Sri Lanka 1189
South Africa 1180
England 1151
New Zealand 1065
India 884
West Indies 884
Pakistan 795
Zimbabwe 257
Kenya 195
Bangladesh 0

I don't bother with decimals, numbers are rounded to make it easier but India are actually ahead of West Indies here by 0.5 points.

Away
Australia 1489
New Zealand 1115
Pakistan 981
India 936
England 934
Sri Lanka 926
South Africa 859
West Indies 669
Zimbabwe 451
Kenya 344
Bangladesh 27

Total
Australia 1402
New Zealand 1090
Sri Lanka 1057
England 1043
South Africa 1020
India 910
Pakistan 888
West Indies 777
Zimbabwe 354
Kenya 270
Bangladesh 14


So there we go, compared with the other system (two series), New Zealand leap three places to second and England are up four to fourth. South Africa drop from second to fifth and India from fourth to sixth with Pakistan and West Indies also down one. Australia's lead at the top is increased from 199 points to 312!

Feedback is important here and we would love to know what everyone thinks, but it seems likely that this system will be used from now on as it better reflects the current form of all the teams, and each game/series becomes more important.

 

[marc71178]

It'll be shouted out for not having India at number 2 I reckon!

 

[Bazza]

Well in that case before it is let me get in there first and point out that at home, India have only beaten South Africa and Sri Lanka in their most recent series, along with the bottom three although even then they dropped games to Kenya and Zimbabwe which hurts them.

Away from home India have beaten only Pakistan and West Indies of the 'bigger sides', and they are the two weakest at home which means these wins count for less. On neutral territory India have a good record but these games count for relatively little so this doesn't help them much.

 

[Bazza]

OK well the Paktel Cup has just finished, with Sri Lanka beating Pakistan in the final. However with Pakistan winning 4 out of 4 group games, they are the big gainers in the rankings.

Home
Australia 1287 (-29)
Sri Lanka 1179 (-10)
South Africa 1158 (-22)
England 1122 (-29)
New Zealand 1056 (-9)
Pakistan 929 (+134)
West Indies 869 (-15)
India 854 (-30)
Zimbabwe 257
Kenya 176 (-19)
Bangladesh 0

Pakistan jump two places then into 6th, in fact swapping places with India who are now 8th.

Away
Australia 1522 (+33)
New Zealand 1121 (+6)
Pakistan 981
India 954 (+18)
England 950 (+16)
South Africa 881 (+22)
Sri Lanka 804 (-122)
West Indies 680 (+11)
Zimbabwe 394 (-57)
Kenya 344
Bangladesh 27

So despite winning the Paktel Cup, Sri Lanka drop below South Africa in the away table and are now 7th.

Total
Australia 1404 (+2)
New Zealand 1088 (-2)
England 1036 (-7)
South Africa 1020
Sri Lanka 991 (-66)
Pakistan 955 (+67)
India 904 (-6)
West Indies 775 (-2)
Zimbabwe 325 (-29)
Kenya 260 (-10)
Bangladesh 14


So Pakistan overall move into 6th place above India, and Sri Lanka drop two places below England and South Africa into 5th place.

Next ODIs are between Bangladesh and New Zealand in early November. Bangladesh have only won one ODI in over 5 years and that was against Zimbabwe last year while New Zealand look to gain ground on leaders Australia. New Zealand have never played an ODI in Bangladesh before.

 

[krishneelz]

i dont like it

 

[marc71178]

No prizes for guessing why.

 

[krishneelz]

really damn