ICC rankings - Flawed?

[SaiSrini]

I read an interesting article where Aamir Sohail says that the ICC rankings are flawed.

According to him, the Champions Trophy results exposed how irrelevant was the system and there was a strong need to review the whole process.

"If you look at the results, top teams like India and South Africa are out of the Champions Trophy semifinals," Sohail said

ICC rankings flawed: Aamir Sohail: Cricket Next

I am forced to agree with him. For example according to the current ICC ODI rankings, Australia are No. 1 at 126 points and India are No. 2 at 124 and South Africa are No. 3 at 121 points. If Australia lose to England tomorrow in the semifinal, then they get to 124 points and lose to India on the decimal calculation. So India will be the No. 1 ODI team inspite of not making it to the semifinal stages of an ICC event thats underway right now. Neither Pakistan nor England or New Zealand can hope to make big strides in the rankings even if they win the ICC trophy. It shows that the rankings are flawed and need some serious re-thinking to do. I am happy with India being No. 1 but I wish they are deserving No. 1

 

[Howsie]

I thought this was going to be about the player rankings

Tbh I don't see anything wrong with the team rankings, they signify who has been the best team over a period of time. I have no idea why Australia would lose points for losing tommorow, they're in a semi after all.


Edit: Okay what the heck

International Cricket Council - News Details

For its part, England moves back ahead of New Zealand into sixth place in the team rankings. A reasonable performance in the ICC Champions Trophy could see Andrew Strauss's make it up as high as fourth place as it is now just four ratings points behind Pakistan in that position

So England lose a series 6-1 and they're able to move infront of New Zealand?

I think the player rankings are a joke though.

 

[Hooper]

Ratings don't really mean much to people but do they?

I think fans and supporters would rather see their team lift the trophy or have a series win then see themselves no.1 in the ICC rankings.

 

[sohum]

Aamir Sohail is just trying to get his share in the limelight, although I do agree that the rankings are flawed. But they're flawed in the way that most rankings are flawed. Cricket is far too unpredictable a game to really be able to decide who is better than who on a consistent basis.

That said, Sohail is just trying to stir the pot, here. If 3 games is all it takes to decide which team is better (3 games is what South Africa and India had), then you would have a reshuffling in the rankings table every tournament. It would be absolutely ridiculous and would make the system entirely useless.

 

[Fatal Shot]

They are flawed, but still. Teams play to win and lose, so their more worried about the silverware, rather than the rankings. The rankings are just an added incentive.

 

[sifter132]

Basing world rankings of a short little tournament like the Champions Trophy would be a bit short sighted so once again Aamir is full of hot air. Yes it would look bad for India to regain top spot after failing to make the semis, but they only lost ONCE. That would be a harsh penalty indeed, nah you can't be ranked top because you lost one important game. If that were the logic Australia is the only team who hasn't lost once yet in the tournament - they must be the most awesomest team ever :doh

All it shows to me is that the teams are quite close at the moment. The more ridiculous thing to me is that Australia made up a LOT of ground just by stomping on one team - England in a long 7 game series. In that way a team could almost guarantee a big rise up the ladder by organising a 7 game series against say the West Indies and you could probably almost go straight to the top with a 5-2 or better victory in that series. Yes that shows the rankings are close, but there is too much weight for each match in a series, rather than a series win itself.

 

[KBC]

The players factor is unseen. Like west indies are turned into more like a domestic side after the contract issues, and India had to lose lot of players to injuries. There you have the fluctuation in the power of the sides.

 

[drainpipe32]

Rankings are just that - they hold nothing more than temporary boasting rights. To be the best you have to step up to the plate when your under the pump. South Africa have failed to do this consistently over a long period of time, so why are they the number one team in the world? Because the rankings say so.

 

[angryangy]

The thing is that Australia, having just won 6 ODIs against England, are a short favourite and that affects what reward they can derive through the ratings. Yes, this tournament calls into question somewhat the high positions of South Africa and India, but they have been visibly down on form and in India's case, it's quite a way off from their best side. I think winning a tournament is its own reward; teams shouldn't be punished for having a blip for two or three games.

Similarly, if it is more like a 10 game blip for these sides, then that will be quickly balanced out in coming series. England will get a chance to prove their win against South Africa wasn't a fluke in November, while Australia and India will probably be duking it out for the No. 1 spot in another 7 match ODI series this month.

International cricket isn't a week to week game, it's not even a properly fixtured game. There's simply not going to be a inarguable, foolproof method to rank the teams.

 

[pcfan123]

Not sure how many people put stock into these rankings. Or anything the ICC does for that matter

 

[STLIndian]

I read an interesting article where Aamir Sohail says that the ICC rankings are flawed.



I am forced to agree with him. For example according to the current ICC ODI rankings, Australia are No. 1 at 126 points and India are No. 2 at 124 and South Africa are No. 3 at 121 points. If Australia lose to England tomorrow in the semifinal, then they get to 124 points and lose to India on the decimal calculation. So India will be the No. 1 ODI team inspite of not making it to the semifinal stages of an ICC event thats underway right now. Neither Pakistan nor England or New Zealand can hope to make big strides in the rankings even if they win the ICC trophy. It shows that the rankings are flawed and need some serious re-thinking to do. I am happy with India being No. 1 but I wish they are deserving No. 1

Who cares if it is an ICC event?

The fact of the matter is, SA only played 3 games, and Indian only played 2 (and got knocked out because they lost ONE game). That shouldn't be enough to change the rankings.

These teams have been consistently the best in the game over the last couple of years, and it would be foolish to say England/Pakistan/NZ should gain major ground on them on the basis of a couple games.

 

[sohum]

That said, I think extra weight should be given for winning or faring well in a world event such as this. For example, when India reached the semis of the 2003 World Cup, they still came out of the tournament ranked number 6.

It would also be good to have some sort of decay function to make up for the long 7-match series that are one-sided. After you win the series, each win should add fewer points...

 

[Brook]

Getting knocked out of a tournament after not playing for a long time and only losing one match doesn't prove anything, and the whole point of the rankings is that they're not just about one result moving teams up and down.

 

[SaiSrini]

A world event like this could be given more weightage. If you do well to get to the top 4 of such events, you can be rewarded by some boost in your rankings. Such a system could be introduced so that these world events carry more prestige.

Rankings are considered important by the players. We often see news as to which team took over the No. 1 spot and which team lost out, etc. Its popular with the players as well as cricket followers (apart from a few who like to neglect it). So they should have an efficient system to determine the best.

saisrini80 added 1 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...

That said, I think extra weight should be given for winning or faring well in a world event such as this. For example, when India reached the semis of the 2003 World Cup, they still came out of the tournament ranked number 6.

It would also be good to have some sort of decay function to make up for the long 7-match series that are one-sided. After you win the series, each win should add fewer points...

Well, I agree with your idea, sohum! The 7 match series, if one sided, could have such a function.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

south africa were very rusty coming into this tournament, I don't think it would be fair on them to lose their high ranking after failing in the first couple of matches after coming back