How come there are five teams in a narrow and high-rating range in the ODI format?

[Buffet]

Normally you will see 2-3 teams with high rating points in any format. Here we have a situation where 5 teams have 110+ points and then there is a huge gap.

For any team, having a rating points of 110 is hard and here we have 5 teams above 110 at the same time. Those 5 teams beating rest of the lot is not going to earn too many points then how come 5 teams are in narrow and yet a high rating band?

Any explanation?

 

[MMHS]

2 reasons - those 5 are overall distinctively better squad than rest 5. And, they play lots of game among themselves (and don't play many against lower tier).

First point is probably self explanatory. 2nd point is maths - unless you are playing higher ranked teams, one can't make up point (or loose points to drop down). Those 5 are playing lots of games among themselves and regardless of results (unless it's a crushing), neither team makes much (or lose much). For example - even a 4-1 (can be either side) doesn't change SAF/IND's overall point much - it's 1 vs 2. Problem for bottom half teams is that, they don't play much against top teams - so, 1. if they sweeps a lower ranked team, still can't make grounds, 2. the top half teams don't lose enough to drop down that much.

For example - we made up 29 (?) points in 9 months from 58 (?) in Nov '14 to Sep '15 from 5-0 (ZIM), WC QF (win against Poms & not losing against AFG, SCT); 3-0 (PAK), 2-1 each (IND/SAF), because the base was 58. Similarly, PAK made up almost 10 points from 3 wins against IND, ENG & SAF (& not losing against SRL) at CT. On contrary, winning/losing 5-0 against SRL/NZ hardly had any impact (2/3 points I believe). Had some how this result been 0-5 & 5-0 in opposite direction, still points would have been same for the surprise loss against SRL & surprise win against NZ. PAK had a chance to cover 9 points I believe had this one been 5-0 for PAK..........

Ranking system is done in a way that, playing lots of games within same level hardly helps - PAK-BD can play 3 series at home, away & neutral for 8 X 3 = 24 games; if W/L remains close around 12/12, hardly their is a point change. Similarly, IND-AUS can play 7 match series every year and their ranking would be safe at similar spot - W/L doesn't earn or cost much there, unless it's a sweep.

 

[Buffet]

2 reasons - those 5 are overall distinctively better squad than rest 5. And, they play lots of game among themselves (and don't play many against lower tier).

First point is probably self explanatory. 2nd point is maths - unless you are playing higher ranked teams, one can't make up point (or loose points to drop down). Those 5 are playing lots of games among themselves and regardless of results (unless it's a crushing), neither team makes much (or lose much). For example - even a 4-1 (can be either side) doesn't change SAF/IND's overall point much - it's 1 vs 2. Problem for bottom half teams is that, they don't play much against top teams - so, 1. if they sweeps a lower ranked team, still can't make grounds, 2. the top half teams don't lose enough to drop down that much.

For example - we made up 29 (?) points in 9 months from 58 (?) in Nov '14 to Sep '15 from 5-0 (ZIM), WC QF (win against Poms & not losing against AFG, SCT); 3-0 (PAK), 2-1 each (IND/SAF), because the base was 58. Similarly, PAK made up almost 10 points from 3 wins against IND, ENG & SAF (& not losing against SRL) at CT. On contrary, winning/losing 5-0 against SRL/NZ hardly had any impact (2/3 points I believe). Had some how this result been 0-5 & 5-0 in opposite direction, still points would have been same for the surprise loss against SRL & surprise win against NZ. PAK had a chance to cover 9 points I believe had this one been 5-0 for PAK..........

Ranking system is done in a way that, playing lots of games within same level hardly helps - PAK-BD can play 3 series at home, away & neutral for 8 X 3 = 24 games; if W/L remains close around 12/12, hardly their is a point change. Similarly, IND-AUS can play 7 match series every year and their ranking would be safe at similar spot - W/L doesn't earn or cost much there, unless it's a sweep.

I do follow the explanation, but I am not sure if this explanation holds true in current situation.

Last 3 years against top 5 teams,



SA, Eng, Ind, Pakistan and WI have played 29-32 ODIs. Not much difference.

SL has played 37 ODIs against top 5 and only behind Aus.

Only BD has played the least with 24 games.

 

[Buffet]

2 reasons - those 5 are overall distinctively better squad than rest 5. And, they play lots of game among themselves (and don't play many against lower tier).

First point is obvious, but it should be hard for all 5 teams to have rating of 110+.

 

[barah_admi]

Because they are good teams who are somewhat evenly matched. But on any given day, I'd pick the current England side to beat most of them in most matches. Say 4-1 or 3-2 per series.

England have lost like 2 matches in 20 in the last 18 months or so. No team has approached that level tbh. Pakistan have won a tournament, while India and NZ have good teams that perform consistently. Aus ranking is based on point accumulated a while ago and as it currently stands, in the last 1 year or so, have looked lost.

They don'r even know their best XI, their best middle order etc.

 

[MMHS]

I do follow the explanation, but I am not sure if this explanation holds true in current situation.

Last 3 years against top 5 teams,

View attachment 78346

SA, Eng, Ind, Pakistan and WI have played 29-32 ODIs. Not much difference.

SL has played 37 ODIs against top 5 and only behind Aus.

Only BD has played the least with 24 games.

You misunderstood my explanation - it's not about total number of matches, rather how much one match is earning (points).

To understand the logic, modify this table with games played against each others (you can take just 1 cut - top 5 & bottom 5); it should be evident.

Ranking is done on per match basis - that's total points earned, minus deduction for loss , divided by total number of games played. Therefore, BD might play 75 games, but if 60 of those are against bottom half, it can only hurt the rating - win hardly earns much, loss pulls down (not much because we are 7th/8th, but take a team at 5th).

 

[Snatch]

Simple really, those top 5 sides in the world us so far above the rest they're almost in another league.

A tournament between SL, Pakistan, Windies, Ireland. Afghanistan, Bangs and Zim would be very good to watch.

 

[BD-fan]

Top 5 plays each other.

SA: 18-13 58%
Ind: 15-14 51%
Eng: 16-15 51%
NZ: 15-19 44%
Aus: 18-22 45%

This is the ranking with Eng and NZ switched because Eng were lowly rated (103) before that.

However, there records against other opponents are stellar. (since 2016)

Eng 19-3 86%
NZ 17-2 89%
Ind 15-4 78%
Aus 12-3 80%
SA 11-3. 78%.

If you follow the same for Pak, BD, SL, and WI them % would be awful.