What's new

Overall figures for win/loss records in ODIs over the last two years

zim have played 15 odi matches with the afghanistan in last two years :maqsood

sl have played too many home series thats in last two years
Ah yes,Zimbabwe has played a lot of games against other minnows as well e.g scotland,netherlands etc
 
banglades are below zim :hafeez2though they have played less matches

If you are trying to get under skin, try to do it properly, otherwise posters will call you troll.

You set KPI of W/L ratio, then sorted with number of wins, which is a function of matches played.

Do the same with matches against top 9 teams & sort it with W/L ratio to see the real picture. Afghans have played many matches against IRL & ZIM, hence their ratio is between NZ & AUS.
 
If you are trying to get under skin, try to do it properly, otherwise posters will call you troll.

You set KPI of W/L ratio, then sorted with number of wins, which is a function of matches played.

Do the same with matches against top 9 teams & sort it with W/L ratio to see the real picture. Afghans have played many matches against IRL & ZIM, hence their ratio is between NZ & AUS.

i have stated the obvious that bd have played less matches and zim have won more whether they played

against kenya or ireland i don,t care the title also say win/loss not NRR
 
i have stated the obvious that bd have played less matches and zim have won more whether they played

against kenya or ireland i don,t care the title also say win/loss not NRR

No, you have to rephrase the title then.

Put it as teams with number of wins, it's fine. You can't say overall figure to of W/L in last 2 years & then sort teams with different criteria.

What you have done is a laughing stalk - basic lack of understanding of any KPI & its significance & how to present any data (not to mention failed troll effort to put BD at bottom).

Read it how it sounds -

Batsmen in Test history in order of batting average - then sort it on total runs; then try to troll around that Bradman is below Atherton & Fleming in the ranks of Test batting average.

Your list is fine, but if it was possible, I would have suggested you to delete the 2nd post - it exposed you.
 
Last edited:
No, you have to rephrase the title then.

Put it as teams with number of wins, it's fine. You can't say overall figure to of W/L in last 2 years & then sort teams with different criteria.

What you have done is a laughing stalk - basic lack of understanding of any KPI & its significance & how to present any data (not to mention failed troll effort).

Read it how it sounds -

Batsmen in Test history in order of batting average - then sort it on total runs; then try to troll around that Bradman is below Atherton & Fleming in the ranks of Test batting average.

Your list is fine, but if it was possible, I would have suggested you to delete the 2nd post - it exposed you.

i am your huge admirer+fan but have tell you once some time you have no idea what you are saying

don,t judge some one with his attention

if the thread was invalid it would have been deleted by mods
 
i am your huge admirer+fan but have tell you once some time you have no idea what you are saying

don,t judge some one with his attention

if the thread was invalid it would have been deleted by mods

Then keep it,for everyone to read :)

Your wish, I just tried to help.

//
 
I agree with [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION], this table should be sorted with Win-Loss ratio as teams haven't played same number of matches to be compared through wins. Otherwise you shouldn't rank them them as it clearly favours the team with most matches.

BTW, Where is West Indies?
 
Here is W/L for the last 2 years. WI is in bottom.

last2.jpg
 
Basically even with just 5 Million population and with virtually zero interest in cricket, NZ is still a monster in Cricket.

I would say AF Milne, Southee, Boult>Amir, Hasan, Junaid Khan.
 

Thanks, I actually requested after running the quarry myself.

Still the result is a bit mis-leading, because of Poms playing 9 ODIs against Azhar's PAK & SAF clean sweeping an under strength Aussie side.

Overall, PAK's result swings most because of 4-0 at the end & 0-3 at the start - by picking start & end time, you can bring miracles :(, which is statistical manipulation.

Overall, India's record is most surprising - probably because of that 3-2 home loss to SAF & 2-3 win against NZ.
 
Basically even with just 5 Million population and with virtually zero interest in cricket, NZ is still a monster in Cricket.

I would say AF Milne, Southee, Boult>Amir, Hasan, Junaid Khan.

NZ is on low side for sure, but absolute comparison based on population is futile. Pakistan has a huge population, but not many can earn their living by playing cricket. That stops most to take cricket as profession.
 
Thanks, I actually requested after running the quarry myself.

Still the result is a bit mis-leading, because of Poms playing 9 ODIs against Azhar's PAK & SAF clean sweeping an under strength Aussie side.

Overall, PAK's result swings most because of 4-0 at the end & 0-3 at the start - by picking start & end time, you can bring miracles :(, which is statistical manipulation.

Overall, India's record is most surprising - probably because of that 3-2 home loss to SAF & 2-3 win against NZ.

Short periods like 1-2 years will always going to present a bit misleading picture. I think 4-5 years normally balances it out, but then teams can differ a lot in longer periods.
 
Short periods like 1-2 years will always going to present a bit misleading picture. I think 4-5 years normally balances it out, but then teams can differ a lot in longer periods.

One better way could be to look at last 50 matches for every team - but that's also misleading.

I rather go by ICC ranking which actually covers most factors - only change I would have brought in is differentiation for Home, Away & Neutral results and putting more weights for ICC events. Apart from PAK, most teams, these days don't pick available first choice XI for bilateral.
 
One better way could be to look at last 50 matches for every team - but that's also misleading.

I rather go by ICC ranking which actually covers most factors - only change I would have brought in is differentiation for Home, Away & Neutral results and putting more weights for ICC events. Apart from PAK, most teams, these days don't pick available first choice XI for bilateral.

I agree that ICC ranking is a decent proxy despite it flaws.
 
What surprises me the most, is Paks lowest score compared to others
 
Bump

Overall win ratio from 26 OCT 2015 to 26 Oct 2017(Last 2 years) i included only top 9 team

FireShot Capture 016 - Team records I On_ - http___stats.espncricinfo.com_ci_engine_stats_index..jpg
 
Last edited:
Currently Pakistan is playing good cricket than these records shows. Limit it to 1 year its going in Pakistan's favor.
 
Currently Pakistan is playing good cricket than these records shows. Limit it to 1 year its going in Pakistan's favor.

Matches played in 2017 (till now)


[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]NR [/td][td]W/L [/td][td]Ave [/td][td]RPO [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]20 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]3.75 [/td][td]44.87 [/td][td]6.38 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]25 [/td][td]18 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]49.48 [/td][td]5.89 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]19 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2.166 [/td][td]45.62 [/td][td]6 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]18 [/td][td]12 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]40.99 [/td][td]5.36 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Afghanistan [/td][td]13 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1.4 [/td][td]25.83 [/td][td]4.75 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]U.A.E. [/td][td]7 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1.333 [/td][td]27.5 [/td][td]4.68 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]New Zealand [/td][td]16 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1.142 [/td][td]33.81 [/td][td]5.49 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hong Kong [/td][td]2 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]29.23 [/td][td]4.07 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Zimbabwe [/td][td]12 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]25.88 [/td][td]5.35 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]P.N.G. [/td][td]5 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0.666 [/td][td]22.58 [/td][td]4.32 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]15 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]0.625 [/td][td]33.95 [/td][td]5.79 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bangladesh [/td][td]14 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0.571 [/td][td]34.62 [/td][td]5.35 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ireland [/td][td]13 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0.5 [/td][td]26.2 [/td][td]4.99 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Scotland [/td][td]6 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0.5 [/td][td]24.45 [/td][td]4.71 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]19 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0.23 [/td][td]25.96 [/td][td]4.83 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sri Lanka [/td][td]26 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]21 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]0.19 [/td][td]27.49 [/td][td]5.06 [/td][/tr]
[/table]
 
Back
Top