ICC should take a second look at their ranking methods

[MMHS]

Today, I actually feel that ICC (Team) Ranking methods need an upgrade.
First, it doesn't factor Home & Away results - for a game like cricket, this is probably the most critical differentiator these days, because of the struggle of every team in contrasting venues (from their comfort zone).

That's probably not much applicable for LO cricket as more or less every LO Venue these days are batting paradise. But, what is not factored in formats of any ranking is the relative performance. Test Championship or ODI WC is a bit different as points are allocated for the Tournament and W/L/D/T will determine the table. But, for ranking teams over a period, some considerations should be there, particularly for LO cricket.

This is coming to mind after today's ODI between BD & ZIM. In 3 days time, on same venue, ZIM lost by 170 runs, then by 4 runs with one shot from winning in last 2 balls - at the end, both games will carry equal ranking points (Or loss of it) for respective teams, which I don't think is fair. By this method of calculation, we are basically depriving lower ranked teams due share of their credit to make a close game in uneven contest.

I think, ICC needs to put some "slab" in their ranking method, at least for LO games, which will encourage lower ranked teams to fight till end, otherwise often too many games are becoming boring after 60-70% overs of the game are played. Even in Test cricket, I think win by innings should be credited higher.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Yeah. Very flawed

 

[BDfanforever]

No, there are only wins and losses. However, they should consider home vs away for test matches as you have said.

 

[sweep_shot]

It is extremely faulty and ICC should come up with something better.

I call the ranking a farce.

 

[Titan24]

Heavily flawed. Home and away in tests surely needs to be incorporated as discussed in the ICC test championship thread as well.

 

[sweep_shot]

I think away wins should receive more points than home wins.

Most teams can dominate at home but most teams struggle when they play away.

 

[hitthestump]

LO's should be a clear win-loss, no need to mess about with this.

In tests there is room for maneuverability and lots of ways bonus points can be incorporated to make things more interesting.

At the moment gulf between test sides is huge and over 5 days teams like India have shown they have no chance of being competitive against powerhouses like NZ.

In the most recent series India simply gave up meekly once it was clear they were outmatched, but if they had some incentive to fight through test championship 'bonus points' then teams and fans should benefit together.

 

[Buffet]

I think away wins should receive more points than home wins.

Flip side should be losing more ponts for home losses.

 

[sweep_shot]

Flip side should be losing more ponts for home losses.

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Itachi]

I believe people expect too much from ranking.

If you want more accurate, then it will have to be done on individual player level based upon which, the overall strength of the team will be calculated and then the victory over this team should be measured.

For example, a victory against a team without kohli, bumrah, rohit should yield less points than that against the team when all those three are in the team. Because just because 12 players are wearing the jersey, it doesn't mean the X opponent has faced the same team as the Y team whilst both victory under similar circumstances will yield same points.

In short, this isn't possible. Rankings should be taken as reference only.

 

[Advaith]

Keeping same system as base and giving bonus points to away wins will improve it little bit..

 

[OffDrive]

Home wins should get 15 points and if the home team draws against the away team it should be 3 points to the home side and 10 points to the away side.

Away wins should get the maximum 60 points, a draw away should get 10 points.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Basit Ali speaking on his YouTube Channel:

"When I saw the ICC ranking (ODI batters), Babar Azam was at the top, number two was Rohit Sharma, number three was Shubman Gill, and then there was Virat Kohli at number four. I did not find it necessary to read the remaining names because I couldn't see Travis Head and Rachin Ravindra. I think the ICC wants that Babar doesn't perform. He would be happy with being the number one-ranked batter in ODIs. Who gives these rankings? On what basis are Babar Azam and Shubman Gill there"

"Babar's last ODI was at the last year's World Cup. We saw the likes of Rachin Ravindra, Quinton de Kock, Travis Head and Virat Kohli at the World Cup. They scored three-four hundreds in the tournament. For Pakistan, Mohammad Rizwan and Fakhar Zaman scored a century each. What kind of ranking do they give"​

 

[Kohlhaas]

I think these rankings are pointless, both intrinsically and empirically, because they are just based on particular selected criteria. Other criteria could equally well be chosen which would give different results (a bit like interpreting the Olympics medal table). As far as Test Matches are concerned rankings should be abandoned and every series valued for itself and not as part of some arbitrary and specious ‘championship’.