ICC Rankings - A Joke?

Rohit Doshi

International Coach
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Location
Mumbai
Online Cricket Games Owned
Like, I have not been impressed by ICC Rankings at all. One of the example is Pragyan Ojha in top 20 that 15th in the Test Bowlers rating with just one series?

Seriously? R Ashwin who no doubt was brilliant in the series that his debut series starts of at 37?
 

Biggy

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Location
Australia
Online Cricket Games Owned
Yeah, as soon as India became No.1 in the Test rankings I just couldn't take them seriously any more.
 

Rohit Doshi

International Coach
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Location
Mumbai
Online Cricket Games Owned
They will soon be No 1. May be then you will stop watching cricket eh?

Back to topic, I would love to see better answers then that if not then mod's are welcomed to close the thread
 

Haarithan

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Location
India
The Twenty20 rankings is what is flawed tbh. The ODI and Test rankings seem pretty good imo. That is as far as the 'Team' rankings are concerned.

As for the Player's rankings, the system is flawed for all 3 formats. Absolutely rubbish.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Since the ICC officially started using ranking systems in 20002, they have always been flawed. As i always say people should never taken them seriously.
 

BKB1991

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Location
Manchester
Online Cricket Games Owned
It should be taken as mere guideline then letting us know whos the best.

The reason that makes sense regarding Ojha-Ashwin is, Ojha has played TEST cricket before had some points so he just gained in points. Ashwin just played his first series (?) and thats why I think he started like close to zero points.

Otherwise a debut bowler getting a 10Wm can just get into the top 10 with ease after one game.
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
Online Cricket Games Owned
^Exactly. You need to understand how the rankings work. Ojha already had some ranking points, Ashwin had none. I believe that rankings points slowly go down over time, so Zaheer Khan doesn't lose all his points just because he gets injured, but a guy like Doug Bollinger who hasn't played a Test for a year starts to lose them more quickly. Although probably not quickly enough, he's still at #21...Points should be lost more quickly if you've been dropped for non-injury reasons.

The other issue is that there just aren't a lot of great bowlers at the moment, so it's hard to rank them. If Ashwin has a good series in Australia he'll probably go top 10 only after a few Tests. When guys like Herath, Vettori and Shakib are top 10 bowlers I'm not sure world cricket is very strong at present. Watson, a part time bowler is 12 :eek:
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
it's not even just that there's isn't a lot of good bowlers now as if that could be connected to a weak era. There is 10 test teams, given a 4 bowler per team typical selection that leaves 40 spots for international bowlers the world over. Given that in that lot there are going to be a few poor players, especially in the weaker teams it's not that unbelievable that someone could push their way into the bottom end of that set with one good series.

He's 37th, but the players round him are philander (recent debutee), hauritz (dropped), benn (dropped, a few mainly batting all-rounders and some guys who are in and out of their teams.

rankings are comparative, and I'd say he weighs up ok against his peers even with only 1 series under his belt. perhaps try listig 40 better bowlers than him and we'll see.

perhaps the arguement should be if there's really any need for a top 100 when it will mean many dropped and part time bowlers are needed to make up the numbers in the list.
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
^Exactly. You need to understand how the rankings work.

Last time I looked at the workings behind them there were far too many "man made" factors, like the teams carried a rating and you couldn't get full points/ranking until you'd played an arbitrary number of games.

Should be based purely on the players, the form the bowlers or batsmen are in, conditions as much as you can factor them etc. All in all it's never likely to mean much, just imagine a side makes 200 on a 300 par pitch - what does that mean? Not a lot, could have been good bowling, poor conditions, poor shots, bad luck, anything. Why hasn't Sachina scored a hundred since the world media went on 'hundred watch' ? (not that I am overly impressed with it, 50 hundreds in any given format fair enough, but not all cricket because it's sumbolox not symbolic)
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
Online Cricket Games Owned
Well no rankings are perfect, that's why we have forums to argue about this stuff :p

I generally like the ICC rankings especially for players at their peak. Go and have a look at the top 100 lists of all-time and it tends to recognise those great patches of form players had when they were at their best. eg. Ricky Ponting has the equal 3rd highest ranking ever and he deserved it given the dominance he had in the early 2000s.

It's a bit weak on players just starting out or coming back after lay offs, but those things would complicate any rankings system.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
oops, reading that back I probably didn't make my point clearly. when I said
"perhaps the arguement should be if there's really any need for a top 100 when it will mean many dropped and part time bowlers are needed to make up the numbers in the list"
I meant, maybe publishing a top 100 is too many, and they'd be fine just publishing a top 50. I'm ok with the rankings too, and in all honesty only ever focus on the top 10, occassionally checking the full list to see who is on the cusp of breaking through.
 

icyman

ICC Chairman
India
The Boys
Joined
May 17, 2004
Location
Hong Kong
Profile Flag
India
They have always been a big joke. ICC rankings need to be revamped. Factors like opposition, grounds, pitches,quality of players in the side, margin of defeat don't seem to play any role in the rankings.

The worst of the lot is the T20 rankings. Its utterly rubbish and as such there was no need to rank the international teams for T20. Since the ICC capped the T20s at 7- i.e, the max that any team should play in any year, it makes no sense et all.
 

Ahmad94

Staff Member
Moderator
PAK...
KK
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Location
West Midlands, UK
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
The Ranking are awesome. Perfectly true. The best ODI bowler is Ajmal. They generally perfect. You can?t always get thing the way you want them. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top