Should performances against weaker teams have less weight compared to against stronger teams?

[MenInG]

We know that Pakistan winning 3-0 against Windies will bring about a marginal change in the overall pecking order of ranked teams because of the rank of the Windies.

What I don't understand is why Younis Khan's performances against a lowly ranked team such as WI can propel him past likes of Amla and Root?

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Since when has anything the ICC done, designed or made use of ever made sense

 

[Dios]

If not it really should. Also the pitches should be taken into account. Getting runs in low scoring affairs should hold more weight than making hay on roads. Tamim should get a big bump in the rankings.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

A lot of things are indeed taken into account for rankings.

For a batsman, the factors are:

Runs scored
Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion)
The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings)
Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus)
The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)

For a bowler, the factors are:

Wickets taken and runs conceded
Ratings of the batsmen dismissed (at present, the wicket of Kumar Sangakkara is worth more than that of Makhaya Ntini – but if Ntini's rating improves, the value of his wicket will increase accordingly)
The level of run-scoring in the match; bowling figures of 3-50 in a high-scoring match will boost a bowler’s rating more than the same figures in a low-scoring match
Heavy workload; bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets;
The result. Bowlers who take a lot of wickets in a victory receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams
Bowlers who do not bowl in a high-scoring innings are penalized.

The players’ ratings are calculated by combining their weighted performance in the latest match with their previous rating. This new ‘weighted average’ is then converted into points. Recent performances have more impact on a player’s rating than those earlier in his career, but all his performances are taken into account. A great player who has had a lean run of form will still have a respectable rating.

Players who miss a Test match for their country, for whatever reason, lose one per cent of their points.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/player-rankings/about

----

ICC rankings are not as lulloo as we think they are.

May not be perfect but they take a LOT into account when it comes to player rankings.

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

Beter to go back to the time when there were no rankings, will keep everyone happy.

 

[MenInG]

A lot of things are indeed taken into account for rankings.

For a batsman, the factors are:

Runs scored
Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion)
The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings)
Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus)
The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)

For a bowler, the factors are:

Wickets taken and runs conceded
Ratings of the batsmen dismissed (at present, the wicket of Kumar Sangakkara is worth more than that of Makhaya Ntini – but if Ntini's rating improves, the value of his wicket will increase accordingly)
The level of run-scoring in the match; bowling figures of 3-50 in a high-scoring match will boost a bowler’s rating more than the same figures in a low-scoring match
Heavy workload; bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets;
The result. Bowlers who take a lot of wickets in a victory receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams
Bowlers who do not bowl in a high-scoring innings are penalized.

The players’ ratings are calculated by combining their weighted performance in the latest match with their previous rating. This new ‘weighted average’ is then converted into points. Recent performances have more impact on a player’s rating than those earlier in his career, but all his performances are taken into account. A great player who has had a lean run of form will still have a respectable rating.

Players who miss a Test match for their country, for whatever reason, lose one per cent of their points.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/player-rankings/about

----

ICC rankings are not as lulloo as we think they are.

May not be perfect but they take a LOT into account when it comes to player rankings.

Somehow don't believe that Younis Khan's 100 against West Indies was good enough to vault past Amla and Root

 

[Red Devil]

Somehow don't believe that Younis Khan's 100 against West Indies was good enough to vault past Amla and Root

Perhaps Root's recent failures had something to do with it.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Somehow don't believe that Younis Khan's 100 against West Indies was good enough to vault past Amla and Root

He may have been very close to them in points and this 100 have made him jump the hoop. That's fair enough. Ranking is just about current performance and even that is based on the teams you face.

As for rankings, there will be anomalies in it.

Axar Patel is number 9 bowler in ODIs and even Indians are stumped by that. Mishra is number 15 or something when it reality he should be ranked far higher than Axar.

Its just that Axar Patel is economical which gets a bit too much weightage in rankings. Same reason why Hafeez could be in top 5 bowler rankings before ban.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

One way player rankings can be more accurate is if all teams are put through a proper test and ODI cycle and rankings are calculated based on that cycle.

Focus being on cycle instead of years.

 

[hadi123]

Bump. Some players criticizing the likes of Zaman, Imam-ul-Haq for scoring against this Zimbabwe team. I think they should have less weight because there is a huge gulf in quality of international cricket between the best and worst teams.

 

[Darkrai]

Jealousy is a terrible thing. I'm not saying these guys will perform against top sides but to attack them for scoring runs is just ridiculous when everyone has done the same in the past and continues to do so yet somehow it's only brought up when Pakistan does it. How lame.

 

[Mamoon]

Jealousy is a terrible thing. I'm not saying these guys will perform against top sides but to attack them for scoring runs is just ridiculous when everyone has done the same in the past and continues to do so yet somehow it's only brought up when Pakistan does it. How lame.

Yes, people are jealous to see Pakistan pile up the runs against a bunch of Zimbabweans

 

[Rayyman]

Yes, people are jealous to see Pakistan pile up the runs against a bunch of Zimbabweans

Stop it. That's not nice.

 

[Darkrai]

Yes, people are jealous to see Pakistan pile up the runs against a bunch of Zimbabweans

Indeed they are. The behavior on twitter is rather pathetic.

 

[Titan24]

Indeed they are. The behavior on twitter is rather pathetic.

It must be mostly from Indians. What have they done? Lost the series against Eng, they atleast deserve to be jealous.

 

[Buffet]

Bump. Some players criticizing the likes of Zaman, Imam-ul-Haq for scoring against this Zimbabwe team. I think they should have less weight because there is a huge gulf in quality of international cricket between the best and worst teams.

Why anyone should criticize scoring runs against this Zim team? Good players will score runs and they will score more if opposition is weak. I don't get the reason for criticism.

Now as far as weight goes, it's given less weight by pretty much everyone and even in ranking calculations. Now it won't take account of Zim playing without their 7-8 front line players, but it does take account of team playing top ranked or bottom ranked team.

Unnecessary ado over nothing and criticism is weird to hear.

 

[jnaveen1980]

These days "weak" "strong" is relative. South africa is supposed to be relatively strong. Look how they perform. I am sure BD would have put up a better fight in srilanka. Australia was massacred by England in the one dayers.

 

[Itachi]

It must be mostly from Indians. What have they done? Lost the series against Eng, they atleast deserve to be jealous.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This behavior stems from the same behavior that Pakistani fans did when india was accused of doing the same. No smoke without a fire.

 

[silentkiller187]

I agree, Englands performance against India needs a lot less weight

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Isn't that already the case? I mean whenever I judge batsman I particularly use three specific filters:

(1) Away from Home
(2) Alien Conditions (Non-Home Conditions)
(3) Higher Ranked Teams (Top 6/7 preferably)