T20I Rankings

[Jo_Don]

What a crock of nonsense it is. SA is currently on 137 points, with England 14 points behind on 123. If England wins the next match tomorrow, they go to the top. Does anybody actually have an idea how they work? Even the ODI ranking isn't as aggressive. I wouldn't read too much into the Aussie's ranking due to how inaccurate it seems to be.

 

[Bullet Drive]

Isn't a big enough sample size. not many T20's are played.

 

[supersix]

Don't think maths is one of your strong points. These rankings are going to carry on fluctuating like this until more matches are played.

 

[LastLaugh_PK]

Why didn't ICC include the T20 matches from the very first match in the format. That way the rankings would have been a lot more stable and a minnow would be a minnow.

Most teams would be better than India though..

 

[LethalSami]

sample size too small
hence its jumping up and down like a headlesssss chicken

 

[Jo_Don]

Don't think maths is one of your strong points. These rankings are going to carry on fluctuating like this until more matches are played.

Refer to post #4. Historical rankings are available should they need to stabilize it, so why haven't they? And since maths isn't my strong point, maybe you could provide the algorithm that they use to calculate it, which is sort of what I asked for in the first place

 

[supersix]

Refer to post #4. Historical rankings are available should they need to stabilize it, so why haven't they? And since maths isn't my strong point, maybe you could provide the algorithm that they use to calculate it, which is sort of what I asked for in the first place

First i would need to hack into the ICC computer systems

 

[cricketworm]

Reason why there was no ranking from beginning because, not enough T20 matches were played. And still not enough International T20s are played ergo the jumping up and down. And margin of error is kept very small, means point allocations and deductions are still as high as ODi formats. So when formula has (number of matches won / number of total) X (level of team you won/loss against fraction), you will get an exaggerating change because less number of matches played in total.

I am guessing the formula but it has to be something like that.

 

[cricketworm]

Ok googled it found it from another forum.

To determine a team's rating after a particular series:
Find the series result
Award 1 point to a team for each win
Award 1/2 point to a team for each draw
Award 1 bonus point to the team winning the series
Award 1/2 bonus point to each team if the series is drawn
Convert the series result to actual ratings points
If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is less than 40 points, then the ratings points for each team equals:
(The team's own series result) multiplied by (50 points MORE than the opponent's rating) PLUS
(The opponent's series result) multiplied by (50 points LESS than the opponent's rating)
If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is more than or equal to 40 points, then the ratings points for the stronger team equals:
(The team's own series result) multiplied by (10 points MORE than the team's own rating) PLUS
(The opponent's series result) multiplied by (90 points LESS than the team's own rating)
If the gap between the ratings of the two teams at the commencement of the series is more than or equal to 40 points, then the ratings points for the weaker team equals:
(The team's own series result) multiplied by (90 points MORE than the team's own rating) PLUS
(The opponent's series result) multiplied by (10 points LESS than the team's own rating)
Add the ratings points scored by the team to the total ratings points already scored (in previous matches, as reflected by the Table)
Update the number of matches played by the team through adding one more than the number of games in the series (a two Test match series will result in the match count getting incremented by three)
Divide the new rating points with the updated number of matches to get the final rating.

This is the formula for Test, so expect similar formula for T20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship

 

[Green Leopard]

The T20 rankings will always be in this state of flux, because very few t20s are played outside the World t20 cup.

I think the rankings only go back for two years, with most teams having played under 10 games in this period. So every win will have massive points impact.

Compared to ODIs or Tests where teams play 20-30 games in the same period.

But rest assured, who ever wins the World T20 will be ranked numero uno.

 

[ecstatic_freak]

I'd not call it a fair system if it suggests that Ireland is on par with Australia.

 

[leatherface58]

I would say the team that wins the world cup is the true numero uno.
So 2007-2009 India
2009-2010 Pakistan
2010-present England

Of course YMMV.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

I'd not call it a fair system if it suggests that Ireland is on par with Australia.

Its a good system if Aus have such a problem with ranking they will play against Ireland. Top teams have to play Ire, Scot, Afg, etc to stay top in the rankings

 

[James]

England have done really well in this format, no surprise to see them up near the top.

 

[Savage]

Flaws in T20 rankings

Just recently,B Azam was ranked no 1 T20 batsmen.But here are his stats

Matches - 17

Runs - 577

Average - 48.08

Strike Rate - 122.50

Imo You can never be a great T20 batsmen if your strike rate is not more than 128(atleast).

 

[big_gamer007]

Tbh those are pretty good numbers.. If you can analyse all the 17 games he has played and analyse par score/condition he walked into bat in/bowling attack etc and then prove those are bad stats then you got a point otherwise on paper these are pretty good stats assuming out of those 17 matches 5-6 matches pitches were difficult/bowling was awesome/others around him played poorly etc..

So in 11-12 matches he might have played at more than 140+ strike rate which is pretty awesome.. Can you post all 17 innings?

 

[Savage]

Tbh those are pretty good numbers.. If you can analyse all the 17 games he has played and analyse par score/condition he walked into bat in/bowling attack etc and then prove those are bad stats then you got a point otherwise on paper these are pretty good stats assuming out of those 17 matches 5-6 matches pitches were difficult/bowling was awesome/others around him played poorly etc..

So in 11-12 matches he might have played at more than 140+ strike rate which is pretty awesome.. Can you post all 17 innings?

You raised a good point.

Here are his stats since 2017

Matches - 13

Average - 41.90

SR - 120.99

I can understand top 5 or 7 but no 1 rank is too much.