ICC team ratings relevance

[Vijay.Sharma]

It does. Imagine India played 4 tests against England. Srilanka Played 3 of them. Now if India had also played 3 they would have been number 2 at the moment. I mean it matters in longer run, Specially when you get more points beating a higher ranked side.

From wiki -

The calculations for the table are performed as follows:
Each team scores points based on the results of their matches.
Each team's rating is equal to its total points scored divided by the total matches and series played. (A series must include at least two Tests).
A series only counts if played in the last three years.
Series played in the first two years of the three-year limit count half; essentially, recent matches are given more weight.
To determine a team's rating after a particular series:

Find the series result
Award 1 point to a team for each win
Award 1/2 point to a team for each draw
Award 1 bonus point to the team winning the series
Award 1/2 bonus point to each team if the series is drawn

Convert the series result to actual ratings points

If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is less than 40 points, then the ratings points for each team equals:
(The team's own series result) multiplied by (50 points MORE than the opponent's rating) PLUS
(The opponent's series result) multiplied by (50 points LESS than the opponent's rating)

If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is more than or equal to 40 points, then the ratings points for the stronger team equals:
(The team's own series result) multiplied by (10 points MORE than the team's own rating) PLUS
(The opponent's series result) multiplied by (90 points LESS than the team's own rating)

If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is more than or equal to 40 points, then the ratings points for the weaker team equals:
(The team's own series result) multiplied by (90 points MORE than the team's own rating) PLUS
(The opponent's series result) multiplied by (10 points LESS than the team's own rating)
Add the ratings points scored by the team to the total ratings points already scored (in previous matches, as reflected by the Table)

Update the number of matches played by the team through adding one more than the number of games in the series (a two Test match series will result in the match count getting incremented by three)
Divide the new rating points with the updated number of matches to get the final rating.

 

[Redbacks]

Does any ranking/league system in any sport include points for how good a win it was?!

Fifa world rankings do. You get rewards for the margin of a victory and also for the quality of the opposition. Makes sense for football as beating a lot of teams ranked 100+ for a couple years shouldn't make you world number 1.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Fifa world rankings do. You get rewards for the margin of a victory and also for the quality of the opposition. Makes sense for football as beating a lot of teams ranked 100+ for a couple years shouldn't make you world number 1.

Incorrect. They used to but do not any more.

 

[Redbacks]

Incorrect. They used to but do not any more.

Really? How recent as I can remember probably 5 years ago Australia went down in rankings for drawing at home to a team that was ranked in the 80-90 region.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Really? How recent as I can remember probably 5 years ago Australia went down in rankings for drawing at home to a team that was ranked in the 80-90 region.

Sorry, should clarify. They consider opposition (and then the weird continental adjustment which means you don't get as many points for beating a #80 Asian side as a #80 European side) but not margin of victory, nor whether the match is home and away.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sorry, should clarify. They consider opposition (and then the weird continental adjustment which means you don't get as many points for beating a #80 Asian side as a #80 European side) but not margin of victory, nor whether the match is home and away.

Think we can all agree that any system that ranks England fourth is, at best, deeply flawed.

 

[Jacknife]

Think we can all agree that any system that ranks England fourth is, at best, deeply flawed.

There's another rankings system in football called the Elo Ratings that works on a different formula, which takes in more factors than the official rankings, they've got England ranked 6.
With England it''s funny because if you take out the World Cup disappointments, they win the vast majority of their games, while under Capello they only lost 6 times in 38 games but people only remember the WC.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Think we can all agree that any system that ranks England fourth is, at best, deeply flawed.

I liked them ranking Norway in the top 9 in Europe after we haven't qualified for a major tournament since 2000, too.

 

[Days of Grace]

Bumping this thread with a question.

According to wikipedia,

"Matches" is no. matches + no. series played in the 12–24 months since the May before last, plus half the number in the 24 months before that.

At the moment Australia has played 26 matches for 3028 points.

The May before last must be May 2019.

Therefore, Australia has played 10 matches in 3 series (therefore 13 matches) between May 2019 and now (excluding the first test against India).

Between May 2017 and April 2019 Australia played 19 matches in 6 series (therefore 25 matches).

(13*1)+(25*0.5) = 25.5 matches.

So it should therefore be 3028 points divided by 25.5 matches = 118.75 points, not 116 as published.

Am I missing something?

 

[Prince EWS]

Bumping this thread with a question.

According to wikipedia,

"Matches" is no. matches + no. series played in the 12–24 months since the May before last, plus half the number in the 24 months before that.

At the moment Australia has played 26 matches for 3028 points.

The May before last must be May 2019.

Therefore, Australia has played 10 matches in 3 series (therefore 13 matches) between May 2019 and now (excluding the first test against India).

Between May 2017 and April 2019 Australia played 19 matches in 6 series (therefore 25 matches).

(13*1)+(25*0.5) = 25.5 matches.

So it should therefore be 3028 points divided by 25.5 matches = 118.75 points, not 116 as published.

Am I missing something?

No teams on the ladder seem to be credited with playing fractions of matches, so perhaps it just rounds those to the nearest whole number.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

No teams on the ladder seem to be credited with playing fractions of matches, so perhaps it just rounds those to the nearest whole number.

well that's a bit ridiculous

 

[aussie tragic]

No teams on the ladder seem to be credited with playing fractions of matches, so perhaps it just rounds those to the nearest whole number.

From the ICC Rankings website:

"This rating is worked out by dividing the points scored by the match/series total, with the answer given to the nearest whole number."

I can understand rounding the final answer, however rounding numbers before a calculation is just flawed math.

Also, as Australia and NZ are both 116 points, they actually use the decimal places to show Aus at #1 and NZ #2 so why round at all, might as well show to 2 decimal places like batting and bowling averages (or should be equal #1 according to their own rules).

 

[Days of Grace]

Thanks guys. I thought there was something amiss. You’re right. That is totally flawed.

Easy to repair. Just give single weighting to seasons 1-2 and double the points and matches for seasons 3-4.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thanks guys. I thought there was something amiss. You’re right. That is totally flawed.

Easy to repair. Just give single weighting to seasons 1-2 and double the points and matches for seasons 3-4.

Or just get over their total aversion to decimals.

It's really weird.

 

[aussie tragic]

CW should ask the ICC to fix their flawed ratings

enquiry@icc-cricket.com

 

[Days of Grace]

Follow-up question:

Does anyone know how new teams are rated?

Lets say India play Ireland. Ireland have no rating yet. How many points does India get for beating Ireland? Are Ireland rated as 100 until they qualify for a rating?

And how many years/matches does a team need to play to acquire a rating?

 

[centurymaker]

Whoa, what a joke! How can they screw the ratings up like that..

All rating points till date are thus wrong and therefore all points earned in each and every series are wrong as well.

What a mess. They would need to correct everything from the beginning.

 

[Days of Grace]

I'm working on a system where the two teams get a percentage of points from a match.

The points that are available are the two teams ratings points added together.

So, for example, Team A is rated at 125. Team B is rated at 100. The total points available is 225.

If you win you get 75% of the points.
If you lose you get 25% of the points.
A draw of course would give both teams 50% of the points.

So in the above example, if Team A wins, they get 169 points. Team B would get 56 points.

The problem I have is when Team A is rated at 125 and Team B at 100. How do I calculate the redistribution of points? Team A should get less than 169 points if they win since they are the stronger team. Team B should get more than 169 points for a win since they are the weaker team.

If anyone can come up with a formula, please let me know. Cheers.

 

[Noumenon]

Cricket rankings aren't complex enough. Here's an idea to introduce a layer of complexity to make the whole thing delightfully convoluted.

Reward the losers by awarding points for how long they stay in the game. Did they win an impressive number of sessions before capitulating? Award points for sessions won in a test. Finally, moral victories would have solid numerical heft behind them. Besides, who wants to live in a world where winners take all?