My Alternative ICC Rankings

[Shutdown Corner]

This thread is at the request of Slog and Stallion who asked me to expand my data to a more meaningful sample size for the "flawed ICC rankings" thread.

So now the expanded data includes all Test series starting after Jan 1, 2013 and ending before Dec 31, 2014. Thus India's last tour of Australia is NOT included although some matches took place within the cutoff period.

I will try to run a regression analysis comparing the (ratings, win-loss ratio) of both the official ICC rankings and my system. I am not sure my formulas will pass this test, but we'll see.

I'll list the teams with their win-loss-draw record and official ICC ranking as well so you can have a better idea.


1. Australia | 7-10-2 | 4.671 | ICC rank 2nd
Despite their win loss record, they beat England 5-0 at home, and won 2-1 in South Africa - the only team to win a series in South Africa.

2. India | 7-5-3 | 4.533 | ICC rank 5th
Destroyed Australia 4-0 at home. Beat South Africa at home 1-0, lost to England 3-1 in England.

3. South Africa | 10-3-2 | 4.115 | ICC rank 1st
Harsh ranking, given their vastly superior win-loss ratio, but they've beaten mostly lower ranked sides at home. Still they are within close range of the top spot.

4. England | 8-7-7 | 2.539 | ICC rank 3rd
Beat India 3-1 at home.

5. West Indies | 5-6-1 | 2.210 | ICC rank 8th
They are the only team that are vastly out of position, then again their win-loss ratio is also a lot better than most people would expect.

6. Pakistan | 6-9-2 | 2.181 | ICC rank 4th
They were torrid throughout all of 2013 and most of 2014 only coming into good form late in the year. Just 2 series prior, they were ranked 8th.

7. Sri Lanka | 6-2-5 | 2.045 | ICC rank 7th
Like South Africa they have a harsh rating, but 2 of their series wins have been against Bangladesh. Did beat England 1-0 in England, but that was by mouse's whisker.

8. New Zealand | 6-6-8 | 1.586 ICC rank 6th
Another harsh rating, but they also had a wretched start in 2013 by losing their first 5 Tests or so.

9. Bangladesh | 4-5-4 | 1.345 | ICC rank 9th
Were below Zimbabwe, until the 3-0 win against them late in 2014. A handful of draws also helps to keep them above their African rivals.

10. Zimbabwe | 2-8-0 | 0.310 | ICC rank 10th
A big series draw against an-at-the-time-****-poor-Pakistan is not enough to keep them from the bottom of the table. However, being only a point behind Bangladesh, a hypothetical 3-0 win against the Tigers will see them swap places.

____________________________

Overall my ratings don't differ much from the ICC's rankings. Its also important to bear in mind two things about my rankings formulas:

1) The rating is a cumulative average, and like all averages can be skewed by statistical outlier results. However, as the number of matches increases the rating becomes more immune to such skewing.

2) Teams aren't directly ranked against their opponents ratings, which is good because each and ever series should be (and in reality is) an independent event unrelated to prior rankings and performances. However, teams are rated against the batting/bowling strength of their opponents and because a highly rated team will almost always have good averages, teams end being indirectly rated against the rating of their opponent. A case of being able to eat your cake and have it too.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Just a quick summary for those who may not have caught the original thread. I have attempted to incorporate the following improvements to the official ICC rankings scheme:

1) bonus for away wins/draws
2) penalties for home losses/draws
3) rating teams' batting and bowling performances against the specific bowling and batting strength of the opposition.
4) the margin of win/defeat in matches as well as the overall series scoreline have an effect on the ratings.

 

[Slog]

Thanks for doing this.

Just out of curiosity. Why did you not include the 7-8 months of 2015 which you did I think in your previous attempt.

Was just wondering how Pakistan's carry on of form from end of 2014 to now (1-0 away BD, 2-1 away SL) reflect in the rankings.

I would think India might drop a bit lower because they would have taken a SL side down in the rankings and drew away to BD (albeit one test)

Prolly SA's away BD series draw will hurt a lot and Australia might end up keeping their top spot and the 3-2 Ashes lost would have had no negative impact on their ranking considering its an away series agaisnt a top 4 ranked Eng side.

Interesting nonetheless

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Thanks for doing this.

Just out of curiosity. Why did you not include the 7-8 months of 2015 which you did I think in your previous attempt.

Was just wondering how Pakistan's carry on of form from end of 2014 to now (1-0 away BD, 2-1 away SL) reflect in the rankings.

I would think India might drop a bit lower because they would have taken a SL side down in the rankings and drew away to BD (albeit one test)

Prolly SA's away BD series draw will hurt a lot and Australia might end up keeping their top spot and the 3-2 Ashes lost would have had no negative impact on their ranking considering its an away series agaisnt a top 4 ranked Eng side.

Interesting nonetheless

Too lazy and was a bit impatient to see the results myself. Felt 2 years is statistically significant enough.

But yes you are correct. PAK would likely rise, but not necessarily so, but most likely they would since their rating is so low to begin with. India would definitely fall, as would SA due to their rained out draws in BD. SL would also fall due to their home losses to PAK and IND.

Interestingly, you can win a series and still lose points, if you don't win by the same average margin as you are used to. This willl affect higher ranked sides more...ie very tough to maintain a rating of 6+ for extended periords of time. On the flip side, lower ranked sides can lose a series and still gain points, albeit not many, but significant when you are a Zimbabwe or Bangladesh, where even a fraction of a point is a big deal. Lower ranked sides just need to show improvement from their baseline average in order to gain points.

In short it is a system that tends to pull a team's rating towards some middling value, whatever that value is. Based on this data that middling value is somewhere around 2.

 

[Bilal7]

Seeing South Africa at #3, Pakistan at #6 and Australia and India occupying the top two spots makes this list look very inaccurate.

 

[Mamoon]

England and New Zealand are the top 2 Test teams at the moment in my opinion, with South Africa at number 3.

Very little to separate between Australia, Pakistan and India, with Sri Lanka right down there with West Indies and ahead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

This likely to be the case for the next 2-3 years now.

 

[Slog]

2. India | 7-5-3 | 4.533 | ICC rank 5th
Destroyed Australia 4-0 at home. Beat South Africa at home 1-0, lost to England 3-1 in England. .

Did you make a mistake here?

India did not beat SA 1-0,

Also would be interesting to see how they correlate with ICC rankings at END OF 2014 which is what these rankings show

 

[Slog]

^ill dig that up tomorrow

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Did you make a mistake here?

India did not beat SA 1-0,

Also would be interesting to see how they correlate with ICC rankings at END OF 2014 which is what these rankings show

If its a mistake its in my recollection and not in the calculations. My calculations are almost certainly fine since I have OCD and compulsively check things ad nauseum.

But I think they did beat SA at home 1-0. SA have 3 losses in the last 2 years, with one being to Australia...who else would have beaten them? I could be wrong though.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Seeing South Africa at #3, Pakistan at #6 and Australia and India occupying the top two spots makes this list look very inaccurate.

Its not perfect. But Australia did beat SA in SA and to me that is justification for having Aus marginally above SA. Of course, if my formula had SA ahead of AUS, I wouldn't complain either given their awesome win-loss ratio, but SA has mostly beaten really weak teams (at the time) like PAK and NZ at home to boost their early ratings.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, India and Australia are two of the better sides in that ranking period (2013-2014). Yes, SA are the best, but if they were that great they ought to beat Australia at home, no? Sure it could be a one-off blip, but a rankings formula can only take the results as they happen and not how they might happen or should have happened.

 

[Mamoon]

If its a mistake its in my recollection and not in the calculations. My calculations are almost certainly fine since I have OCD and compulsively check things ad nauseum.

But I think they did beat SA at home 1-0. SA have 3 losses in the last 2 years, with one being to Australia...who else would have beaten them? I could be wrong though.

They lost two to Australia at home last year, lost the series 2-1.

The other loss was vs. Pakistan in 2013 in the UAE.

India haven't beaten SA in the last 3 years.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

England and New Zealand are the top 2 Test teams at the moment in my opinion, with South Africa at number 3.

Very little to separate between Australia, Pakistan and India, with Sri Lanka right down there with West Indies and ahead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

This likely to be the case for the next 2-3 years now.

I think all this kind of proves how there is great deal of parity in world cricket right now. No clear #1 team. I agree England and NZ are looking really good. But neither is near an ATG type team as they are lacking at least one key ingredient (a class spinner).

England only beat Aus 3-2 in the Ashes recently, despite AUS being battered with injuries and retirements. On top of that, the 2 losses were by massive margins. At home. England are in no way CLEARLY better than Australia.

I think NZ are the most well rounded side at the moment - actually I think Bangladesh has the potential to be the most well rounded side in the next 4-5 years (yes, yes I'm being serious) - but would NZ be expected to come in and beat India in India or Pak in UAE? I don't think so. Sure its possible, but not likely. A clear number 1 team, in my opinion, should be expected to have a decent shot at beating any team in any condition (Aussies of late 90s, early 2000s, even India from about 2008-2010). None of the current teams has that right at the moment.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

They lost two to Australia at home last year, lost the series 2-1.

The other loss was vs. Pakistan in 2013 in the UAE.

India haven't beaten SA in the last 3 years.

That sounds right. My mistake. But the rankings are fine, just my memory is shoddy.

 

[Abdullah719]

If its a mistake its in my recollection and not in the calculations. My calculations are almost certainly fine since I have OCD and compulsively check things ad nauseum.

But I think they did beat SA at home 1-0. SA have 3 losses in the last 2 years, with one being to Australia...who else would have beaten them? I could be wrong though.

2 losses to Australia and one to Pakistan in UAE.

 

[Mamoon]

I think all this kind of proves how there is great deal of parity in world cricket right now. No clear #1 team. I agree England and NZ are looking really good. But neither is near an ATG type team as they are lacking at least one key ingredient (a class spinner).

England only beat Aus 3-2 in the Ashes recently, despite AUS being battered with injuries and retirements. On top of that, the 2 losses were by massive margins. At home. England are in no way CLEARLY better than Australia.

I think NZ are the most well rounded side at the moment - actually I think Bangladesh has the potential to be the most well rounded side in the next 4-5 years (yes, yes I'm being serious) - but would NZ be expected to come in and beat India in India or Pak in UAE? I don't think so. Sure its possible, but not likely. A clear number 1 team, in my opinion, should be expected to have a decent shot at beating any team in any condition (Aussies of late 90s, early 2000s, even India from about 2008-2010). None of the current teams has that right at the moment.

I think they will do better in the UAE and India (have done so already), and have a decent chance of drawing with SA in SA as well.

 

[Bilal7]

Its not perfect. But Australia did beat SA in SA and to me that is justification for having Aus marginally above SA. Of course, if my formula had SA ahead of AUS, I wouldn't complain either given their awesome win-loss ratio, but SA has mostly beaten really weak teams (at the time) like PAK and NZ at home to boost their early ratings.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, India and Australia are two of the better sides in that ranking period (2013-2014). Yes, SA are the best, but if they were that great they ought to beat Australia at home, no? Sure it could be a one-off blip, but a rankings formula can only take the results as they happen and not how they might happen or should have happened.

I don't know, my gut feeling just doesn't view that as right. Despite what people might think, South Africa have been the #1 side in the world ever since they beat England 2:0 in England, to receive the mace. One series defeat to Australia, a team that they have beaten in Australia, in consecutive series, should not change that.

I feel that along with statistics, the input of cricketing experts and former players should also be taken into account, when devising these rankings. Just so that Bangladesh don't suddenly climb three or four places by drawing series against South Africa and India with the help of rain, before beating an Australian side that is in a massive rebuilding phase.

 

[Bilal7]

I think they will do better in the UAE and India (have done so already), and have a decent chance of drawing with SA in SA as well.

This poster was predicting the apocalypse of Pakistan cricket before their glorious series wins over Australia (who were going to win 2:0, by the way) and Sri Lanka (who again, were predicted to win).

Now, Mamoon will tell you that the Indian blind cricket team will do better against Pakistan than minnows like Australia and Sri Lanka did.

 

[Mamoon]

This poster was predicting the apocalypse of Pakistan cricket before their glorious series wins over Australia (who were going to win 2:0, by the way) and Sri Lanka (who again, were predicted to win).

Now, Mamoon will tell you that the Indian blind cricket team will do better against Pakistan than minnows like Australia and Sri Lanka did.

England are better players of spin than Australia. So are new Zealand and South Africa.

Both teams played well in the UAE and drew 1-1. England are not as good though, and we should still win the series but they should not surrender without a fight like Australia.

I thought Australia would win 1-0 or draw 0-0, not a 2-0 whitewash.

 

[Bilal7]

England are better players of spin than Australia. So are new Zealand and South Africa.

Both teams played well in the UAE and drew 1-1. England are not as good though, and we should still win the series but they should not surrender without a fight like Australia.

I thought Australia would win 1-0 or draw 0-0, not a 2-0 whitewash.

England are going to rely heavily on Cook, one of their heroes from the 2:1 victory in India and the only remaining one. Their other batsmen are untested against quality spin, which they should encounter if Babar or even Ajmal partners Yasir Shah.

Other than that, their bowling attack is weaker than Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, which is going to make it incredibly hard to bowl Pakistan out twice.

 

[ChachaCricket]

1) SA
2) NZ
3) Australia
4) Pakistan
5) England
6) India
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I don't know, my gut feeling just doesn't view that as right. Despite what people might think, South Africa have been the #1 side in the world ever since they beat England 2:0 in England, to receive the mace. One series defeat to Australia, a team that they have beaten in Australia, in consecutive series, should not change that.

I feel that along with statistics, the input of cricketing experts and former players should also be taken into account, when devising these rankings. Just so that Bangladesh don't suddenly climb three or four places by drawing series against South Africa and India with the help of rain, before beating an Australian side that is in a massive rebuilding phase.

Any rankings system will have its flaws. Its like DRS, it won't ever be perfect, but the BCCI's position of "its not perfect, so we'll stick with umpires and their howlers" is idiotic. Similarly, my system is attempting to correct for flaws within the current ICC rankings. I think its an OK...obviously far from perfect, but I think its better than the official one we have now.

As far as Bangladesh "climbing 3 or 4 places" on the backs of draws against India/SA and a hypothetical win vs Australia. I'm pretty sure even a 2-0 thrashing by an innings in both games won't take BD to the top. The current table is as follows:

1. Pakistan | 3-1-1 | 3.483
Have won two series on the road albeit against weak Bangladesh and Sri Lanka sides but thats why they are only marginally at the top.

2. Australia | 4-3-0 | 3.270
All four of their wins have been by massive margins as have their three losses, but they haven't yet enjoyed home field advantage.

3. India | 2-1-1 | 2.814
Unlucky to not have swept Sri Lanka 3-0. Maybe get DRS next time???

4. England | 5-4-1 | 1.866
Won the Ashes and are a contender, but also failed to win a series in the Caribbean.

5. New Zealand | 1-1-0 | 1.577
A very well balanced side that should move further up the rankings in the years to come.

6. South Africa | 0-0-2 | 0.668
Had the misfortune of touring Bangladesh during the monsoon but were also guilty of being too rusty to dominate in the 10 sessions of cricket on offer.

7. Sri Lanka | 2-4-0 | 0.538
The future looks grim unless at least a couple batsmen start supporting Matthews. The bowling looks decent...if they can all stay healthy.

8. Bangladesh | 0-1-4 | 0.514
Lot of potential to really turn things around. Very young side brimming with talent.

9. West Indies | 1-3-1 | 0.458
This team is really going nowhere fast.

10. Zimbabwe | 0-0-0 | ----
Not scheduled to play Tests till 2016. Williams and Chatara are their only class players remaining with Taylor's departure. A few others can play (Masakadza, Chakabva) but can they be consistent enough?

If you look at that table, Bangladesh have a realistic shot at getting to 6th from 8th. New Zealand are too far ahead. For Bangladesh to jump past NZ, they'd have to earn a series record of 7+ against Australia, and only a handful of [the best] teams have managed to do that across a series so far since 2013.

On top of that, you can't expect South Africa to remain at 6th for very long.

My formula also measures how a team does in a drawn match...so its possible to draw and earn/lose considerable points depending on how you did in that particular match.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

One further point, why should South Africa with a record of 0-0-2 be ranked ahead of Pakistan who are 3-1-1? The only reason is because of SA's past reputation as being one of the best if not the best side in the last 2-3 years.

But reputations have no business in the objective world of a rankings formula. If South Africa are best - and I'm not saying they aren't - then they can win games and prove it in the months to come. Right now, since the world cup, Pakistan are the best team in Test cricket.

 

[Bilal7]

One further point, why should South Africa with a record of 0-0-2 be ranked ahead of Pakistan who are 3-1-1? The only reason is because of SA's past reputation as being one of the best if not the best side in the last 2-3 years.

But reputations have no business in the objective world of a rankings formula. If South Africa are best - and I'm not saying they aren't - then they can win games and prove it in the months to come. Right now, since the world cup, Pakistan are the best team in Test cricket.

This is the problem. No cricket fan worth their salt will say that Pakistan are a better test side than South Africa, any ranking system that attempts to portray the cricketing hierarchy as such, will never be seen as legitimate.

I do appreciate your effort and nominate you for POTW but I must say that I can't accept this system as legitimate. In terms of public perception, the current rankings of test teams would be something like this:

1) South Africa
2) Pakistan
3) New Zealand
3) England
5) India
6) Australia
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

Maybe it's just me but the above rankings reflect reality a lot better than yours. Once again, no offense.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

This is the problem. No cricket fan worth their salt will say that Pakistan are a better test side than South Africa, any ranking system that attempts to portray the cricketing hierarchy as such, will never be seen as legitimate.

I do appreciate your effort and nominate you for POTW but I must say that I can't accept this system as legitimate. In terms of public perception, the current rankings of test teams would be something like this:

1) South Africa
2) Pakistan
3) New Zealand
3) England
5) India
6) Australia
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

Maybe it's just me but the above rankings reflect reality a lot better than yours. Once again, no offense.

No offense taken. My system is far from perfect...further than I had hoped or thought, but I'll be the first to admit some of the results baffle me too.

That being said, the idea behind it is sound I feel.

You have Pakistan right behind SA. SA are missing two huge players in Graeme Smith and Jaques Kallis who were essential parts of them getting to be #1. Its reasonable to expect SA to slip to some degree.

I guess my bottom line is the numbers don't lie. There might be some design flaw in my formulas, but the numbers say what they say.

But even 2 years which is what the OP covers is too short a time span. All teams haven't toured all other teams and all conditions in 2 years time. India have played a overseas a lot recently. If they play at home, their perception will change as it will for all other teams.

At any rate, I will update the thread periodically as I will on BC and we can see what happens in the coming years.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

It also comes down to the simple question of do we trust our gut more or numbers more? I would say I'm 50-50. Thus I'm siding with my formula, and trying to find any justification for it, that I can find.

 

[Buffet]

I think they will do better in the UAE and India (have done so already), and have a decent chance of drawing with SA in SA as well.

What happened to Eng when they visited WI. Eng couldn't win even against WI. So it's not just about what happens in Asia. Aus won in WI.

 

[Buffet]

This is the problem. No cricket fan worth their salt will say that Pakistan are a better test side than South Africa, any ranking system that attempts to portray the cricketing hierarchy as such, will never be seen as legitimate.

I do appreciate your effort and nominate you for POTW but I must say that I can't accept this system as legitimate. In terms of public perception, the current rankings of test teams would be something like this:

1) South Africa
2) Pakistan
3) New Zealand
3) England
5) India
6) Australia
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

Maybe it's just me but the above rankings reflect reality a lot better than yours. Once again, no offense.

As long as we are talking about 'a set of fans on PP'

 

[Buffet]

It also comes down to the simple question of do we trust our gut more or numbers more? I would say I'm 50-50. Thus I'm siding with my formula, and trying to find any justification for it, that I can find.

I think any decent ranking system will look mostly right and match with your gut as long as we are taking a larger sample size. Otherwise, you will get some weird rankings which will not look right due to scheduling in short period.

SA/India lost points in BD series due to rain and it did impact them in ICC ranking. It may impact them even in your system if you are taking a short time span, but if you go for a longer time span then impact of 1-2 odd series will be less where result was not a true reflection of teams.

SA should appear in top in any ranking system unless we take too short a period where some teams happen to mainly play at home and very little away.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

A longer time span should be taken. ICC takes 4 years for its ranking as most teams tour home and away in a 4 year cycle.


Sent from my SM-G925I

 

[Torborg]

It's hard to take seriously any ranking system that places Australia above South Africa. A real-time list, as of today, IMO looks something like:

1) South Africa...daylight....
2) New Zealand
3) Pakistan
=4) India/Australia
6) England
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

 

[Shutdown Corner]

It's hard to take seriously any ranking system that places Australia above South Africa. A real-time list, as of today, IMO looks something like:

1) South Africa...daylight....
2) New Zealand
3) Pakistan
=4) India/Australia
6) England
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

SA - yes I'll agree, because they can be expected to win anywhere.
NZ - My favorite team, but they have to prove they can win anywhere which is a prerequiste to being ranked #1 subjectively.
PAK - would struggle outside Asia
IND - powerhouse at home, but near minnow status outside Asia
AUS - however weak they are, only SA can bash opponents when on song like the Aussies
ENG - middling side, not weak but not very strong either
SL - will struggle to win even at home now that Sanga and Jaya aren't there
WI - will probably fall below BD soon
BD - yet to win their first true Test
ZIM - all their talent plays elsewhere

 

[Gilly]

This is the problem. No cricket fan worth their salt will say that Pakistan are a better test side than South Africa, any ranking system that attempts to portray the cricketing hierarchy as such, will never be seen as legitimate.

I do appreciate your effort and nominate you for POTW but I must say that I can't accept this system as legitimate. In terms of public perception, the current rankings of test teams would be something like this:

1) South Africa
2) Pakistan
3) New Zealand
3) England
5) India
6) Australia
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

Maybe it's just me but the above rankings reflect reality a lot better than yours. Once again, no offense.

I cant believe you have put Australia above Sri Lanka and West Indies, there is a flaw in your system.

 

[Torborg]

SA - yes I'll agree, because they can be expected to win anywhere.
NZ - My favorite team, but they have to prove they can win anywhere which is a prerequiste to being ranked #1 subjectively.
PAK - would struggle outside Asia
IND - powerhouse at home, but near minnow status outside Asia
AUS - however weak they are, only SA can bash opponents when on song like the Aussies
ENG - middling side, not weak but not very strong either
SL - will struggle to win even at home now that Sanga and Jaya aren't there
WI - will probably fall below BD soon
BD - yet to win their first true Test
ZIM - all their talent plays elsewhere

Are you taking into account the recent retirement list of Australia's test team? I can see NZ beating the Aussies later this year. More than likely, Bangladesh will win on their turning wickets too! Australia have been overrated for awhile now, with little to show other than MJ inspired wins over England and SA.

Other than overrating the Aussies and England, I think your list is good.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

Absoulte sham. The OP. Thats why we have ICC rankings in place and not the one the OP has.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

Also he claims Pakistan were ranked 8th. When on earth was Pakistan ranked 8th in tests?

 

[Aman]

Are you taking into account the recent retirement list of Australia's test team? I can see NZ beating the Aussies later this year. More than likely, Bangladesh will win on their turning wickets too! Australia have been overrated for awhile now, with little to show other than MJ inspired wins over England and SA.

Other than overrating the Aussies and England, I think your list is good.

Well I can't, the pitches won't suit are bowlers and I get the feeling our players are intimidated by playing Aus (not the team but the name and history behind Australian cricket - we rarely play Aus and most of these guys grew up watching Aus teams of the past dominate). Despite Starc's heroics we should have really hammered you in the match at Eden Park, clearly our players were nervous. The same thing happened in the Final although that may have just been the occasion getting to them.

 

[Slog]

Also he claims Pakistan were ranked 8th. When on earth was Pakistan ranked 8th in tests?

He did say 2 series prior meaning prior to Aus series

And rankings are from 2013 in this so Pakistan's good results of 2012 get wiped out.

Pakistan had a torrid 2013 and 2014 (till the Oct Australia series.)

Lost series to SL, Drew series to SL, Lost 3-0 to SA, Drew 1-1 against ZImbabwe facepalm. Pak did not win a single series for almost 2 years.

 

[Mamoon]

What happened to Eng when they visited WI. Eng couldn't win even against WI. So it's not just about what happens in Asia. Aus won in WI.

England did poorly in WI but performances against India and Pakistan away from home for non-Asian teams certainly hold more significance than performing in WI who are minnows in Tests.

Australia won in WI but they will swap it for a series win in India and even a series win in the UAE. I do feel that players' motivation level drops in a neutral venue like the UAE and performing in Pakistan is more significant, but still it is more important than playing WI and Bangladesh etc.

If England do better than Australia in Asia, they do deserve to be ranked higher than Australia in my view.

 

[Mamoon]

England are going to rely heavily on Cook, one of their heroes from the 2:1 victory in India and the only remaining one. Their other batsmen are untested against quality spin, which they should encounter if Babar or even Ajmal partners Yasir Shah.

Other than that, their bowling attack is weaker than Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, which is going to make it incredibly hard to bowl Pakistan out twice.

Root is a top player and should do well. His performance on debut in India showed his ability to handle spin. He is a world class batter.

One advantage England have over Australia is that they are better at playing defensive and attritional cricket; Australia are great when it comes to attack but they are pretty ordinary when they are out of their comfort zones.

I would back England to fare better than Australia in Asia any time and they have done so in the past. They lost 3-0 in the UAE but they performed much better than Australia did last October, not to forget series win in India.

Their bowling attack is relatively a little weaker but Lyon was awful. It remains to be seen how Moeen and Rashid bowl against us, I am a little uncomfortable at our history against leg-spinners. We often give them cheap wickets.

 

[Cena]

2. India | 7-5-3 | 4.533 | ICC rank 5th
Destroyed Australia 4-0 at home. Beat South Africa at home 1-0, lost to England 3-1 in England.

india lost to Australia earlier this year.

And the only overseas Test series india won is against West Indies and recently against Sri Lanka.

 

[Aman]

The fact NZ are 1 or 2 Test losses away from being ranked lower than Bangladesh gives a indication of how good this purposed system is.

 

[Slog]

The fact NZ are 1 or 2 Test losses away from being ranked lower than Bangladesh gives a indication of how good this purposed system is.

NZ at end of 2014 was a fairly poor side with the 1-1 draw against Pak only notable result.

The only big series win I remember was against India but is discounted because it was a close home win against a very poorly ranked India side.

Im sure if he included more results ie win over SL and draw in Eng there might be some improvement.

In either case NZ in Tests have shown potential but not hard results on a consistent basis so far and rankings (generally not this one) are not done on how good a side may look

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION] bro, how difficult would it be for you to incorporate 2015 to these resultsi n the OP. Then we can compare them with ICC rankings

Because in OP you have put ICC rankings for Aug 2015, whereas the rankings you came up with are as of Dec 2014.

It seems people are not understanding that this is as of Dec 2014

 

[Aman]

NZ at end of 2014 was a fairly poor side with the 1-1 draw against Pak only notable result.

The only big series win I remember was against India but is discounted because it was a close home win against a very poorly ranked India side.

Why end the system at 2014 - what's the logic in removing 9 months of the most recent cricket in trying to determine the worlds best Test side?

It's not rocket science, the current system in a way is as good as it can get, all it needs is to be near perfect is to add a greater weight to victories away from home and lessen the weight of home victories. W/L records mean little, I can't even remember the last time Bangladesh won a Test against a top 8 side yet they somehow have a W/L record of greater than 1? What's stopping teams from facing weaker sides such as SL, WI and Bangladesh and boosting their W/L record to move to number 1. I've been a critic of the current system, but I'd accept it as over a system which on first sight seems easier to exploit.

Over the period that's been used, we played SA (lost away 0-2), England (lost away 0-2) (Drew at home 0-0), Bangladesh (Drew away 0-0), WI (Beat away 2-1), India (Beat at home 1-0), Pakistan (Drew away 1-1) and SL (Beat at home 2-0). It's not a great record but neither is it the record of a 7th ranked side.

 

[Stallion__]

Appreciate the effort [MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION]

The rankings, as they are now do sound fair if we notice the consideration period that has been taken into account.

I would like you to describe the methodology in detail in one post and show its application on any one of the team step by step as an example to clear the confusions people have about your system. I am particularly interested to see the way you have accommodated home and away record.

I do feel, that your method can really be an accurate and reliable one (with some small modifications), specially the fact that this system would take a top team to perform extremely well to maintain its position.

If you still have time and energy, then you can go for calculating the rankings for the same period (4 year) as ICC's so that would make its comparison easier with ICC's ranking system. And do show the results after the end of every year so that we can notice the impact of yearly results on the team's rankings (Only if you are willing to do so, no binding).

 

[TalhaSyed]

Here's a picture of ICC officials deciding which team will be ranked 5th in the ODI rankings....

 

[ihsri aha]

and he avoided India down under

 

[Bilal7]

I cant believe you have put Australia above Sri Lanka and West Indies, there is a flaw in your system.

Well, Sri Lanka lost two series in a row, at home. Australia haven't had any such misfortune yet so they are the better team.

As long as we are talking about 'a set of fans on PP'

Yes, by perception I am generally talking about the forum that you and I spend hours on. I can't really speak for the billion other cricket fans that do not feature on Pakpassion but my guess is just as good as yours, in that regards.

 

[gazza619]

West indies cant be above pakistan in test cricket. Error in your workings mate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trogger]

Current test rankings are easy.

SA are number 1 and the the rest just change places depending on who is playing at home next.

2nd place right now just means you are the least smelly turd in the bowl but at the end of the day you're still a turd.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Root is a top player and should do well. His performance on debut in India showed his ability to handle spin. He is a world class batter.

One advantage England have over Australia is that they are better at playing defensive and attritional cricket; Australia are great when it comes to attack but they are pretty ordinary when they are out of their comfort zones.

I would back England to fare better than Australia in Asia any time and they have done so in the past. They lost 3-0 in the UAE but they performed much better than Australia did last October, not to forget series win in India.

Their bowling attack is relatively a little weaker but Lyon was awful. It remains to be seen how Moeen and Rashid bowl against us, I am a little uncomfortable at our history against leg-spinners. We often give them cheap wickets.

I am expecting draws against england. They have a good defensive game and wont get out trying to hit themselves out of a hole. Unless Yasir bowls exceptionally well in the first match and gets into the mind of the english batsman they will be slow boring matches. I remember last time when they played in UAE they lost more wickets expecting turn when it wasn't there.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

You don't need no system to know which team lies where.

SA for now are clear no.1 based on their last 2-3 years. Now they are without Smith and Kallis, so it will be interesting to see how they cope away.

New Zealand look like a complete side that can compete away (which is good enough given other sides get humiliated away).

India-Aus-Pak - are in the same boat. Do well in similar conditions but hopeless in foreign conditions.

SL/WI - In shambles, don't see them recovering anytime soon.

Bangladesh - If they continue to develop, could easily surpass SL and WI and become a top 6 side in 2 years.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

India home domination is bull stat as they rarely host Pak or SL they just host western sides that can't play spin. Forget Pakistan SL has not toured India in Tests since 2009. The western sides play each other so can lose at home unlike india who just host teams they are sure they can beat and later their players can say we don't loose at home either.

 

[jusarrived]

India home domination is bull stat as they rarely host Pak or SL they just host western sides that can't play spin. Forget Pakistan SL has not toured India in Tests since 2009. The western sides play each other so can lose at home unlike india who just host teams they are sure they can beat and later their players can say we don't loose at home either.

SL has never won a test in India , let alone a series ?

 

[jusarrived]

This is the problem. No cricket fan worth their salt will say that Pakistan are a better test side than South Africa, any ranking system that attempts to portray the cricketing hierarchy as such, will never be seen as legitimate.

I do appreciate your effort and nominate you for POTW but I must say that I can't accept this system as legitimate. In terms of public perception, the current rankings of test teams would be something like this:

1) South Africa
2) Pakistan
3) New Zealand
3) England
5) India
6) Australia
7) Sri Lanka
8) West Indies
9) Bangladesh

Maybe it's just me but the above rankings reflect reality a lot better than yours. Once again, no offense.

Pakistan is not a Top 4 test side . which ever way you look at it . You lost to a Zim side recently ?

 

[Slog]

Pakistan is not a Top 4 test side . which ever way you look at it . You lost to a Zim side recently ?

tht was more than 2 years ago.

Won 2-0 against Aus. 2-1 against SL. 1-0 against Bang where Ind and SA drew despite losing many overs like the other 2 sides.

 

[Bilal7]

Pakistan is not a Top 4 test side . which ever way you look at it . You lost to a Zim side recently ?

Pakistan is a top four side, any which way you look at it. Recently, we whitewashed Australia and beat Sri Lanka, in Sri Lanka.

 

[Mamoon]

I am expecting draws against england. They have a good defensive game and wont get out trying to hit themselves out of a hole. Unless Yasir bowls exceptionally well in the first match and gets into the mind of the english batsman they will be slow boring matches. I remember last time when they played in UAE they lost more wickets expecting turn when it wasn't there.

England are another quality batsman short. Root is great and Cook is not in top form but there is no better defensive opener than him and he has shown glimpses of regaining his touch.

Bell's poor form is hurting England big time; they should select James Taylor in the squad who is a quality batsman and can provide them with some much needed depth.

Ballance is good but he does not look very convincing against spin.

 

[Buffet]

Current test rankings are easy.

SA are number 1 and the the rest just change places depending on who is playing at home next.

2nd place right now just means you are the least smelly turd in the bowl but at the end of the day you're still a turd.

Spot on here. Rest of the discussion is academic.

 

[soso_killer]

Lol, in what world would India be ahead of SA again? Just won their 1st series away since 2011. Where/when is the next away win coming from?
Australia #1? It would hardly be a surprise if they get turned over in Bangladesh this year, they'll have a hard time over there.
SA may well be on a downward spiral, and yes they'll lose a series or two in their near future, but I still expect them to be competitive. Thus I think armchair expects are over exaggerating their decline.
NZ is the only side that scares me, they seem capable & competitive enough to compete home and away. They just need to believe and adapt (to conditions, can't expect to play the same brand of cricket in different conditions. Respect the opposition, and play 'boring' cricket were applicable. Can't just attack all the time)

 

[Shutdown Corner]

[MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION] bro, how difficult would it be for you to incorporate 2015 to these resultsi n the OP. Then we can compare them with ICC rankings

Because in OP you have put ICC rankings for Aug 2015, whereas the rankings you came up with are as of Dec 2014.

It seems people are not understanding that this is as of Dec 2014

Yeah I have misled people with that. It wont be very difficult to incorporate 2015 since I have the source data already. So I'll do that and post in this thread in a couple hours inshAllah.

Appreciate the effort [MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION]

The rankings, as they are now do sound fair if we notice the consideration period that has been taken into account.

I would like you to describe the methodology in detail in one post and show its application on any one of the team step by step as an example to clear the confusions people have about your system. I am particularly interested to see the way you have accommodated home and away record.

I do feel, that your method can really be an accurate and reliable one (with some small modifications), specially the fact that this system would take a top team to perform extremely well to maintain its position.

If you still have time and energy, then you can go for calculating the rankings for the same period (4 year) as ICC's so that would make its comparison easier with ICC's ranking system. And do show the results after the end of every year so that we can notice the impact of yearly results on the team's rankings (Only if you are willing to do so, no binding).

Thanks for your words of encouragement. 4 years data will be a bit tedious, but as I told Slog bhai, I can update 2015 to give us data from Jan 1, 2013 to present. That is almost 3 years of data.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Why end the system at 2014 - what's the logic in removing 9 months of the most recent cricket in trying to determine the worlds best Test side?

The data in the OP is only for illustrative purposes. My real rankings table is from April 2015 onwards. The reason being the end of a World Cup serves as a terrific natural "boundary" between seasons for both Test and ODI cricket.

It's not rocket science, the current system in a way is as good as it can get, all it needs is to be near perfect is to add a greater weight to victories away from home and lessen the weight of home victories. W/L records mean little, I can't even remember the last time Bangladesh won a Test against a top 8 side yet they somehow have a W/L record of greater than 1? What's stopping teams from facing weaker sides such as SL, WI and Bangladesh and boosting their W/L record to move to number 1. I've been a critic of the current system, but I'd accept it as over a system which on first sight seems easier to exploit.

These are things I have attempted to account for:

- home/away
- margin of defeat/victory
- batting and bowling strength accounted for separately and then turned into a composite for each team

Over the period that's been used, we played SA (lost away 0-2), England (lost away 0-2) (Drew at home 0-0), Bangladesh (Drew away 0-0), WI (Beat away 2-1), India (Beat at home 1-0), Pakistan (Drew away 1-1) and SL (Beat at home 2-0). It's not a great record but neither is it the record of a 7th ranked side.

Agreed. But perhaps the margins of victory have been considerably less than margins of defeat???

For example, imagine 2 teams who have played the same opponents in the same conditions (home and away). Both have the same 5-5 record. Team A's average win margin is 175 runs and average loss margin is 200 runs. Team B's average win margin is 125 runs and average loss margin is 200 runs. Team A would have a slightly higher rating, which I think is fair.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Updated Test Rankings (from January 1, 2013 to September 10, 2015)

1. Australia | 13-13-4 | 4.146

2. South Africa | 12-3-5 | 4.069

3. India | 9-8-6 | 3.640

4. Pakistan | 9-10-3 | 2.466

5. England | 13-11-8 | 2.132

6. New Zealand | 9-7-8 | 1.994

7. West Indies | 6-11-3 | 1.476

8. Sri Lanka | 8-8-5 | 1.358

9. Bangladesh | 4-6-8 | 1.152

10. Zimbabwe | 2-8-0 | 0.310

____________________

I think this looks pretty good. I anticipate more lively discussions. A few interesting notes follow:

The system assumes all 10 teams are equal on the start date (Jan 1, 2013). Thereafter all teams are rated according to their respective batting and bowling abilities.

I can justify Australia being #1 for 3 reasons:

• they are only marginally ahead of SA so not a "true #1"
• they beat SA 2-1 in SA in the most recent encounter
• when AUS win, they absolutely dismember the opposition like few other teams

Interestingly, during New Zealand's recent tour of England (drawn 1-1), both teams actually lost points slightly because neither could outplay the opposition according to the average margin coming into the match. This was after giving NZ a sight bonus for not losing an away series. I think that is fair.

I do believe NZ are an awesome side, however, I won't rate them #2 as many others have done, because they have yet to prove that. NZ certainly has that potential. 6th place is almost certainly a bit harsh, but they aren't far from Pakistan at #4, so one good season could easily bump them up that high.

And finally if some of the rankings still seem a bit off, please consider that a number of teams are rebuilding. Australia totally, West Indies have been doing God knows what for the past 20 years, Sri Lanka are rebuilding, Pakistan make weird selections/omissions all the time, and India are still trying to find their feet. Only England and New Zealand and to a large extent South Africa have settled, established sides. Bangladesh are on the up and Zimbabwe are constantly fielding their 2nd string side.

Hope to see what PPers think!

 

[Aman]

Lol, in what world would India be ahead of SA again? Just won their 1st series away since 2011. Where/when is the next away win coming from?
Australia #1? It would hardly be a surprise if they get turned over in Bangladesh this year, they'll have a hard time over there.
SA may well be on a downward spiral, and yes they'll lose a series or two in their near future, but I still expect them to be competitive. Thus I think armchair expects are over exaggerating their decline.
NZ is the only side that scares me, they seem capable & competitive enough to compete home and away. They just need to believe and adapt (to conditions, can't expect to play the same brand of cricket in different conditions. Respect the opposition, and play 'boring' cricket were applicable. Can't just attack all the time)

The side we have right now is definitely capable of winning series away and hopefully maintaining a top 3 ranking for the next few years, all they require is better belief in themselves. McCullum also needs to better balance between attack and defense, a big part of the blame should fall on him for the Lords defeat, there was no point in continuing to attack when there was literally nothing there for the bowlers - it was the time to dry up runs and hold out till the second new ball.

I was disappointed by the way we lost that Test at Lords (England played well to get back in the match but there is no way we should have lost that match with the positions we found ourselves in), we had the match won twice but still found a way to lose it, if any Aus side were in the same position they would finished the match with a day or two to spare. Aus may not have the best players in the world, but they have that ruthless mentality which any champion side has that allows them to crush teams whenever they get a sniff.

 

[sivaji]

England and New Zealand are the top 2 Test teams at the moment in my opinion, with South Africa at number 3.

Very little to separate between Australia, Pakistan and India, with Sri Lanka right down there with West Indies and ahead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

This likely to be the case for the next 2-3 years now.

haha lol wut england better than SA. They are NOT. They lose far too many.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The side we have right now is definitely capable of winning series away and hopefully maintaining a top 3 ranking for the next few years, all they require is better belief in themselves. McCullum also needs to better balance between attack and defense, a big part of the blame should fall on him for the Lords defeat, there was no point in continuing to attack when there was literally nothing there for the bowlers - it was the time to dry up runs and hold out till the second new ball.

With most Test teams being in flux, I can definitely see NZ cracking the top 3 and staying there for a while. I would surprised if they don't pull it off. Williamson, Boult, Southee are all 26 or younger. Taylor, Guptill, Watling, and Neesham make a really strong batting lineup. The only thing missing is a top quality spinner to step into Vettori's' shoes without which winning in the SC (even BD and SL) will be tough. Craig and Sodhi will get ample opportunities.

Aus may not have the best players in the world, but they have that ruthless mentality which any champion side has that allows them to crush teams whenever they get a sniff.

This is why I can justify AUS being #1. They beat the team everyone knows to be #1 (SA) in their den 2-1. And when they win, they really just annhilate the opposition. They are, as you said, ruthless.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

With most Test teams being in flux, I can definitely see NZ cracking the top 3 and staying there for a while. I would surprised if they don't pull it off. Williamson, Boult, Southee are all 26 or younger. Taylor, Guptill, Watling, and Neesham make a really strong batting lineup. The only thing missing is a top quality spinner to step into Vettori's' shoes without which winning in the SC (even BD and SL) will be tough. Craig and Sodhi will get ample opportunities.



This is why I can justify AUS being #1. They beat the team everyone knows to be #1 (SA) in their den 2-1. And when they win, they really just annhilate the opposition. They are, as you said, ruthless.

It also shows why ICC rankings are better than your rankings despite no away points. And better at showing which team is currently in form compared to having been better 2 years ago. Unless we get a standard series system where all teams play home and away against each other giving teams extra points for away matches does not show a true picture.

 

[soso_killer]

The side we have right now is definitely capable of winning series away and hopefully maintaining a top 3 ranking for the next few years, all they require is better belief in themselves. McCullum also needs to better balance between attack and defense, a big part of the blame should fall on him for the Lords defeat, there was no point in continuing to attack when there was literally nothing there for the bowlers - it was the time to dry up runs and hold out till the second new ball.

I was disappointed by the way we lost that Test at Lords (England played well to get back in the match but there is no way we should have lost that match with the positions we found ourselves in), we had the match won twice but still found a way to lose it, if any Aus side were in the same position they would finished the match with a day or two to spare. Aus may not have the best players in the world, but they have that ruthless mentality which any champion side has that allows them to crush teams whenever they get a sniff.

yep they know how to win.
Was very disappointed with that defeat myself.
There's attacking, and then there is arrogance. McCullum had to be careful of not trying to hard to emulate Australias ultra aggressive approach, they've been doing for years and it's the only way they know how to play.
NZ cricket needs identity, what brand of cricket do they want play? Adapt first or be the copy-cat neighbors going gang-ho.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

It also shows why ICC rankings are better than your rankings despite no away points. And better at showing which team is currently in form compared to having been better 2 years ago. Unless we get a standard series system where all teams play home and away against each other giving teams extra points for away matches does not show a true picture.

Maybe I'm biased towards my own rankings, but I don't think they are that far off to be honest.

South Africa are very nearly #1 and will be once this new-look Aussie side plays a few games. India, as weak as they are away, will thrash almost any team at home which makes them better than most teams. The way my gut would rank teams:

1 South Africa - except them to slip a little post Kallis/Smith
2 Australia - better than India and Pakistan
3 India - just a tad better than Pakistan atm
4 Pakistan - great in Asia, mediocre elsewhere

Unless and until a team dominates all other teams, most of the time, home and away, I won't say they are a undisputed #1. As some have pointed out, W/L ratios are nice but don't present the total picture.

4t New Zealand - perfect balance except for a spinner...could easily move into the top 3
6 England - like India and Pakistan, only good at home
7 Sri Lanka
8 West Indies
9 Bangladesh
10 Zimbabwe

Versus the way my rankings actually has them:

1. Australia | 13-13-4 | 4.146

2. South Africa | 12-3-5 | 4.069

3. India | 9-8-6 | 3.640

4. Pakistan | 9-10-3 | 2.466

5. England | 13-11-8 | 2.132

6. New Zealand | 9-7-8 | 1.994

7. West Indies | 6-11-3 | 1.476

8. Sri Lanka | 8-8-5 | 1.358

9. Bangladesh | 4-6-8 | 1.152

10. Zimbabwe | 2-8-0 | 0.310

I don't see a huge difference. Do you?

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Aus lost to Pakistan and now England will probably loose to NZ as well.
Ind unbeatable at home is not true either Eng beat them on their last tour. SA should beat them as well they don't play Pakistan another team that I think can beat India at home.
The current Icc ranking are correct that SA are way above the rest where a win or loss can change position between the next 4-5. Eng, Aus, Pak and Ind are hard to beat on their own turf and not much between these sides.



Sent from my SM-G925I

 

[Shutdown Corner]

OK so I have some updated data to input here. Keep in mind this is only for matches played from April 1, 2015 to present (completed series only).

Test Rankings | Points | Official ICC Rank

1) India | 5.549 | 1st
2) Australia | 4.302 | 2nd
3) New Zealand | 3.708 | 5th
4) South Africa | 2.950 | 3rd
5) Sri Lanka | 2.127 | 7th
6) Pakistan | 1.758 | 6th
7) England | 1.488 | 4th
8) Bangladesh | 0.536 | 9th
9) West Indies | 0.305 | 8th
10) Zimbabwe | 0.080 | 10th

Average difference with official ICC rankings = 1.0 ordinal rank difference
Average difference in OP data was 1.4...combining them gives an average rank difference of 1.2.

I don't think thats that bad. Obviously the question is up to you to decide which seems better.

ODI Rankings | Points | Official ICC Rank

1) India | 9.216 | 3rd
2) South Africa | 5.149 | 2nd
3) New Zealand | 4.291 | 4th
4) Australia | 4.126 | 1st
5) Bangladesh | 4.074 | 7th
6) England | 3.435 | 5th
7) Pakistan | 2.713 | 8th
8) Sri Lanka | 2.031 | 6th
9) Afghanistan | 1.178 | 10th
10) West Indies | 0.810 | 9th
11) Ireland | 0.434 | 12th
12) Zimbabwe | 0.342 | 11th

Average rank difference = 1.333 ordinal rank difference

 

[Statsman]

OK so I have some updated data to input here. Keep in mind this is only for matches played from April 1, 2015 to present (completed series only).

Test Rankings | Points | Official ICC Rank

1) India | 5.549 | 1st
2) Australia | 4.302 | 2nd
3) New Zealand | 3.708 | 5th
4) South Africa | 2.950 | 3rd
5) Sri Lanka | 2.127 | 7th
6) Pakistan | 1.758 | 6th
7) England | 1.488 | 4th
8) Bangladesh | 0.536 | 9th
9) West Indies | 0.305 | 8th
10) Zimbabwe | 0.080 | 10th

Average difference with official ICC rankings = 1.0 ordinal rank difference
Average difference in OP data was 1.4...combining them gives an average rank difference of 1.2.

I don't think thats that bad. Obviously the question is up to you to decide which seems better.

ODI Rankings | Points | Official ICC Rank

1) India | 9.216 | 3rd
2) South Africa | 5.149 | 2nd
3) New Zealand | 4.291 | 4th
4) Australia | 4.126 | 1st
5) Bangladesh | 4.074 | 7th
6) England | 3.435 | 5th
7) Pakistan | 2.713 | 8th
8) Sri Lanka | 2.031 | 6th
9) Afghanistan | 1.178 | 10th
10) West Indies | 0.810 | 9th
11) Ireland | 0.434 | 12th
12) Zimbabwe | 0.342 | 11th

Average rank difference = 1.333 ordinal rank difference

India twice as many points as Aussies in ODIs? In what world?

 

[street cricketer]

I love this rankings system. [MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION].

 

[Shutdown Corner]

India twice as many points as Aussies in ODIs? In what world?

India's rank is inflated because they absolutely butchered Zimbabwe (they lost only 6 wickets in the entire series and still won by massive margins). Also, India haven't played too many ODIs in overseas conditions. Bangladesh has the opposite effect...inflated ranking due to playing 15 of their 18 ODIs at home.