Twenty20 International Rankings (or the lack of them)

[-D-S-B-]

Definitely Pakistan will be top. But people can't take the win% and rank them exactly that way (I'm not saying this is what you are doing BTW). Because some teams like NZ lost a lot of games early on but have won a decent number lately, and I guess some teams have done the opposite.
Quite amazing, 8 tied matches, cheers for the table mate.

 

[ADA]

1.Pakistan
2.Sri Lanka
3.South Africa
4.India
5.West Indies
6.Australia
7.New Zealand
8.England

 

[CG123]

The thing I am actually surprised about is that NZ have played the most T20I's.
You would expect Ind or Aus to have played the most.

I think the thing is, it's hard to rank something that is so inconsistent.
If you take out Pak, the other seven main nations are all separated by just 25% winning records.

I would have Pakistan first, and England and West Indies the last two (out of the eight major teams).
West Indies seem to be getting rated very highly, but IMO they rely heavily on Gayle at the top, and with the ball.

Mine would probably have to go:

Pak

Next five all very close

SA
Ind/Aus [Can't really be bias here, as I like to see both countries lose.]
NZ
SL

Breathing space

WI
Eng

 

[Owzat]

Not everything is a conspiracy theory against Pakistan.

He may have a point in mentioning India though, if they were top of a table then I'm sure they'd push through rankings pretty fast.

Personally I am quite happy we're not very good at a rubbish version of cricket, maybe we should just 'opt out'. Yankball is pretty dire, we don't play that. Baseball is glorified rounders, we don't play that either. Basketball is end to end nothing, we don't play that. I suppose because we play proper cricket we are almost forced to concede to the other nations wanting to play us at it, plus plenty of people are willing to fork out ?$$?? to watch it.

Perhaps the truth is the ICC see it as it is, that it has great commerical value but in terms of cricket it just isn't cricket. Would the rankings then lead to player rankings and would they hold any significance? Maybe the difficulty in getting any meaning out of player rankings would be (partly) the reason they don't do nation rankings, note they have Test and ODI player rankings as well as country rankings.............................

 

[Dabi]

I think the win % does a fairly good job in this case, that'd be my order (barring associates).