ICC Rankings

[icyman]

Don't you people feel that the ICC ratings system for countries and players is flawed ?

Look at it this way-
The ratings never seem to start at a particukar point.
If they start all countries at zero points every two years,it would efinately be better.

The current India-Australia series.
Well,even if Aussies had lost all 4 matches,they wopuld have still been sitting prettily at the top.

 

[SciD]

I would have voted Cant Say if it was there as i dont know the system. But i dont get it because New Zealand is either number 3 or number 7. Nothing else. Also many times Pakistan are above those countries which have been performing well.

The players rankings are mind boggling. Symmonds make 1 hundred as is in Top 10.

About Australia: Well even if they lost 4-0 they still have a huge margin over other countries. I dont see them slipping below 1 for 2 years at least.

 

[ivanvdm15]

Well it don't think it flawed but i think they should have worked it out better....

 

[Kev]

No they aren't flawed. It's a very good way of ranking players. The rankings are weighted so while past performance does still influence the result, past performance counts for less as time goes on. So current form does play a part in the rankings. Players also dont score 100% until they have played the required amount of matches (for batsmen after 10 test innings he scores 70% and its not until 40 innings he scores 100%), this stops new players suddenly appearing at the top of the rankings.

 

[Adarsh]

The current India-Australia series.
Well,even if Aussies had lost all 4 matches,they wopuld have still been sitting prettily at the top.

Well, if a team has been dominating cricket for the last 8 years, and only recently has had a record 16 wins in a row, losing a single series however badly shouldn't be enough to knock them off the top.

 

[irottev]

They need to be done somehow. What isn't flawed? I think they're done ok.

 

[gary0808]

The Player Rankings are a very good way of rating players. They take into account the runs scored, the opposition, the pitch and the match result. And in ODI's World cup Matches are more significant and so is Strike Rate.

Despite this they are still flawed but I can't see any better way of doing it.

For Team Rankings, I liked the old system where you got two points for a series win, one point for a draw and zero for a series loss.

 

[smssia0112]

The Player Rankings are a very good way of rating players. They take into account the runs scored, the opposition, the pitch and the match result. And in ODI's World cup Matches are more significant and so is Strike Rate.

Despite this they are still flawed but I can't see any better way of doing it.

For Team Rankings, I liked the old system where you got two points for a series win, one point for a draw and zero for a series loss.

That one was stupid because beating Australia away would give you the same amount of points as beating Bangladesh at home. There was no weighting of opponents.

The current system gives that weighting.

And why should Australia be knocked off the top by losing one series if they haven't done so since 2005?

 

[Owzat]

The ICC need to redesign the "World Championship" to be a tangible competition and address the issues below :-

- there is no beginning or end to the "championship", it's just ongoing rankings. Teams in the middle have no aim, a knock-out format might be better
- teams play however many Tests suit them, it should be a fixed number over a fixed period
- some teams are becoming too obsessed with one day cricket, I've read that India want to play two Tests and seven ODIs against England
- too many teams have Test status that aren't good enough, the gap needs addressing - possibly with a two tier system or knockout format
- while there is a gap in standard within Test cricket it is unlikely other countries will be given Test status. A multi-tier or knockout system would resolve this, new Test teams joining at the bottom tier
- money is becoming too much of a factor in cricket, this means teams want the money spinning games, big TV deals and pitches are tailored to last the full five days (in Tests) and not to produce good cricket.

- and the biggy, the issue of technology and umpiring in cricket. The ICC may hide away from it, but it won't go away. While millions see any bad decision replayed many times, the umpire sees it once. Are the ICC going to help the umpires with technology or let them continue to be subject to trial by TV? It's getting ridiculous with dismissed players watching their dismissal on big screens meant for the public, or team mates in the dressing room, and decisions are being questioned before they even get back to the pavillion. Even if the teams only see the bad decisions that evening or even at some later point, it builds up feelings of being hard done by and anger which isn't good for the relations between teams or with the umpires.

No they aren't flawed. It's a very good way of ranking players. The rankings are weighted so while past performance does still influence the result, past performance counts for less as time goes on. So current form does play a part in the rankings. Players also dont score 100% until they have played the required amount of matches (for batsmen after 10 test innings he scores 70% and its not until 40 innings he scores 100%), this stops new players suddenly appearing at the top of the rankings.

The player ratings are flawed, I have seen many questionable rankings. Some of the oddest are those for players like Shane Bond who may have a great Test record, but have hardly played. As I recall Bond is on 15 Tests in five or six years, that may qualify him for a full rating, but a lot of players manage that number in a couple of years. Have a glance down the rankings yourself and see how many odd looking rankings you come up with, I bet if you look at those who've been injured a lot you'll wonder how they're so highly ranked

 

[Owzat]

That one was stupid because beating Australia away would give you the same amount of points as beating Bangladesh at home. There was no weighting of opponents.

The current system gives that weighting.

It's supposed to be a championship, in football you get three points for beating Derby the same as you do for beating Chelsea. The problem is weighting systems tend to be difficult to gauge, last time I looked at the rating system for countries they gave arbitrary numbers for weighting the strength of each country. Surely it's not about the country you're playing, but the quality of the bowler. England started the kiwi series with Hoggard, Harmison, Sidebottom and Panesar which is way weaker than say one of Sidebottom, Broad, Flintoff and Panesar. Does the ranking system account for the change in bowlers within the side? If Sri Lanka play Murali does that affect the weighting?

Ideally the weighting of a country would be based on the strength of the bowling line-up in comparison with all others ie compare England's bowling quartet's averages, SRs etc against all other bowlers playing in the last year. It shouldn't be too hard to set up a database to do that automatically. And do the same with batsmen. And then you can fairly weight countries and give them a proper adjustment factor for beating a side.

And in fact it shouldn't really even be about beating the opposition in a series, it should be about bettering the result they should have got. You'd expect Australia to win 2-0 in a two match series against Bangladesh, Bangladesh should gain points for getting a better result than they should even if that means losing by 80 runs instead of 200. If Chelsea only beat Derby 1-0 then that is well below what you'd expect so credit goes more to Derby for not getting stuffed than to Chelsea for winning

 

[m_vaughan]

That one was stupid because beating Australia away would give you the same amount of points as beating Bangladesh at home. There was no weighting of opponents.

The current system gives that weighting.

And why should Australia be knocked off the top by losing one series if they haven't done so since 2005?

I agree. We need to realise that the best team in the World can have one bad series, and it wouldnt be fair if what they achieved over the past 4-5 years is nullified by one bad series.