Rate this Entry

5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

Glinn's international rankings system

Glinn Mgraw November 20, 2009
Updated November 20, 2009 at 07:06 AM by Glinn Mgraw

Tags cricket, glinn, icc, international cricket, rankings, ratings

---

Following on from Kirby's excellent blog on the ICC rankings system, I decided to have a go at making something better.

For tests, each match will have five points for a victory, two points for a tie or draw, and no points for losing.

Winning, drawing or tieing away from home gives an extra point.

Therefore, from the recent Ashes series, Australia would gain twelve points, and England would gain fourteen.

However, that is not all, as it would hardly be fair for the lower ranked teams when they beat higher ranked teams.

The points per match are multiplied firstly by a number that is the reverse of the opposition's current ranking. For example, were England to beat Australia in England, they would get five points multiplied by six points, as Australia is ranked fourth out of nine.

This number is then multiplied by the reverse of the year that the game was in, as the rankings cover four years. Therefore, were England to beat Australia in England in 2009, they would get five points multiplied by six points multiplied by four points. Were it in 2006, the last multiplier would only be one point. This weighting gives greater points for teams doing well currently, rather than four years ago. Got it? Good.

Finally, the final amount of points is divided by the amount of games played.

Therefore, under this points system, the rankings are as follows (the second multipliers are current rankings, so South Africa is nine, and Bangladesh is one. Once the initial rankings are done, that table can be used for the multipliers instead):

Australia:

vs England (England, 2009): 240
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2009): 432
vs South Africa (Australia, 2008/09): 180
vs New Zealand (Australia, 2008): 90
vs India (India, 2008): 126
vs West Indies (West Indies, 2008): 90
vs India (Australia, 2007/08): 217
vs Sri Lanka (Australia 2007): 160
vs England (Australia, 2006/07): 150
vs Bangladesh (Bangladesh, 2006): 12
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2006): 162
vs South Africa (Australia, 2006 - 1 match only, other matches were in 2005): 45

Total: 1904
Matches played: 37
Rating: 51
Ranking: 1st

Bangladesh:

vs West Indies (West Indies, 2009): 48
vs Sri Lanka (Bangladesh, 2008/09): 0
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2008): 0
vs New Zealand (Bangladesh, 2008): 18
vs South Africa (Bangladesh, 2008): 0
vs New Zealand (New Zealand, 2008): 0
vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2007): 0
vs India (Bangladesh, 2007): 28
vs Australia (Bangladesh, 2006): 0
vs Sri Lanka (Bangladesh, 2006): 0

Total: 94
Matches played: 21
Rating: 4
Ranking: 9th

England:

vs Australia (England, 2009): 336
vs West Indies (England, 2009): 40
vs West Indies (West Indies, 2009): 96
vs India (India, 2008): 63
vs South Africa (England, 2008): 54
vs New Zealand (England, 2008): 108
vs New Zealand (New Zealand, 2008): 108
vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2007): 96
vs India (England, 2007): 56
vs West Indies (England, 2007): 68
vs Australia (Australia, 2006/07): 0
vs Pakistan (England, 2006): 68
vs Sri Lanka (England, 2006): 56
vs India (India, 2006): 56

Total: 1205
Matches played: 49
Rating: 25
Ranking: 6th

India:

vs New Zealand (New Zealand, 2009): 144
vs England (India, 2008): 105
vs Australia (India, 2008): 252
vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2008): 144
vs South Africa (India, 2008): 189
vs Australia (Australia, 2007/08): 162
vs Pakistan (India, 2007): 72
vs England (England, 2007): 120
vs Bangladesh (Bangladesh, 2007): 18
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2006/07): 54
vs West Indies (West Indies, 2006): 30
vs England (India, 2006): 35
vs Pakistan (Pakistan, 2006): 24

Total: 1349
Matches: 40
Rating: 34
Ranking: 2nd

New Zealand:

vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2009): 0
vs India (New Zealand, 2009): 112
vs West Indies (New Zealand, 2008): 24
vs Australia (Australia, 2008): 0
vs Bangladesh (Bangladesh, 2008): 27
vs England (England, 2008): 45
vs England (New Zealand, 2008): 75
vs Bangladesh (New Zealand, 2008): 30
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2007): 0
vs Sri Lanka (New Zealand, 2006): 40
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2006): 27
vs West Indies (New Zealand, 2006): 24

Total: 404
Matches played: 29
Rating: 14
Ranking: 8th

Pakistan:

vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2009): 96
vs Sri Lanka (Pakistan, 2009): 144
vs India (India, 2007): 84
vs South Africa (Pakistan, 2007): 36
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2007): 108
vs West Indies (Pakistan, 2006): 24
vs England (England, 2006): 15
vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2006): 77
vs India (Pakistan, 2006): 63

Total: 647
Matches played: 25
Rating: 26
Ranking: 5th

South Africa

vs Australia (South Africa, 2009): 120
vs Australia (Australia, 2008/09): 180
vs Bangladesh (South Africa, 2008): 30
vs England (England, 2008): 225
vs India (India, 2008): 194
vs Bangladesh (Bangladesh, 2008): 36
vs West Indies (South Africa, 2007/08): 60
vs New Zealand (South Africa, 2007): 60
vs Pakistan (Pakistan, 2007): 72
vs Pakistan (South Africa, 2007): 80
vs India (South Africa, 2006/07): 105
vs Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka, 2006): 0
vs New Zealand (South Africa, 2006): 36
vs Australia (South Africa, 2006): 0
vs Australia (Australia, 2006 - 1 match only, other matches were in 2005): 0

Total: 1198
Matches played: 39
Rating: 31
Ranking: 3rd

Sri Lanka:

vs New Zealand (Sri Lanka, 2009): 120
vs Pakistan (Sri Lanka, 2009): 192
vs Pakistan (Pakistan, 2009): 96
vs Bangladesh (Bangladesh, 2008/09): 42
vs India (Sri Lanka, 2008): 210
vs West Indies (West Indies, 2008): 36
vs England (Sri Lanka, 2007): 90
vs Australia (Australia, 2007): 0
vs Bangladesh (Sri Lanka, 2007): 30
vs New Zealand (New Zealand, 2006): 18
vs South Africa (Sri Lanka, 2006): 90
vs England (England, 2006): 45
vs Pakistan (Sri Lanka, 2006): 8
vs Bangladesh (Bangladesh, 2006): 12

Total: 989
Matches played: 33
Rating: 30
Ranking: 4th

West Indies:

vs Bangladesh (West Indies, 2009): 0
vs England (England, 2009): 0
vs England (West Indies, 2009): 260
vs New Zealand (New Zealand, 2008): 54
vs Australia (West Indies, 2008): 36
vs Sri Lanka (West Indies, 2008): 120
vs South Africa (South Africa, 2007/08): 108
vs England (England, 2007): 30
vs Pakistan (Pakistan, 2006): 12
vs India (West Indies, 2006): 42
vs New Zealand (New Zealand, 2006): 9

Total: 671
Matches played: 33
Rating: 20
Ranking: 7th

So, then:

Australia
India
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
England
West Indies
New Zealand
Bangladesh

It is not perfect by any means. Australia's margin is quite big over India due to two things: a) there are still remnants left over from the Warne/McGrath etc. era, and b) they are fourth, so their achievements against Sri Lanka and South Africa at the moment are scaled too high. In general however, it is good.

This system would work, but teams consistently playing against the lower teams would find themselves dropping down the "ladder" fairly quickly - this system does not like people playing against those well below them.

In general, I find this system to be good, but it could do with some tweaks nonetheless. It's still better than what the ICC has put up.

I may do ODIs at some point in the future, but it's doubtful - there's too many of them!

Posted in Cricket

Views 1588 Comments 24

Comments

Glad to see I've inspired you Glinn The idea looks pretty good- you've accounted for recent matches and weighting- but perhaps the only critique I can find is that for the weighting, you've used the current ICC rankings. Of course, to rectify this and creating a new baseline set of rankings starting at 2006 would mean hours and hours of complicated mathematical formulae, and an overflowing waste paper basket, but I doubt anyone could be bothered with that. Yours still craps all over the ICC's one.

kirby November 20, 2009

Yep, I agree, but there's not too much more I could do. Ideally I'd be weighting them depending on their ICC ranking at the time of each match, but that would take far too long to do. And you get the general idea. Besides, after four years there would be no trace of the ICC rankings.

Glinn Mgraw November 20, 2009

Yeh nice system.

Fisha November 20, 2009

Brilliant job, but anything would be better than what we have now.

dazza 1990 November 20, 2009

very good system, i hope you continue this little exercise over the next year (using your rankings as the multiplier) to see how it compares.

FlukeLuke November 22, 2009

how the hell did australia win the 20 20 agenst all stars on sunday 7:30

horto99 November 22, 2009

im ticked of ant you by

horto99 November 22, 2009

hi mum i will do it laeter i promes

horto99 November 22, 2009

wtf hi mum i will do it laeter i promes

snoopdog12 November 22, 2009

Man... You either love cricket more than I do (never thaught that was possible untill now) Or you have waaay too much spare time... but still i admire you prowess and outrageous system... it would be good for teams at the top of the rankings having a hard time staying at the top. It would get all teams playing much better cricket. Your my idol!

Australia-4-life November 23, 2009

Haha, probably a little from column A, and a little from column B.

Glinn Mgraw November 23, 2009

What a load of bollocks. Funny how all of a sudden Aussies are bleating about the rankings now theyre not top.

Arrric November 23, 2009

a) Not bleating. b) Are you suggesting that when we were on top of the flawed ranking system that we didn't deserve to be there? c) The ICC system has always been flawed - like many things the ICC do.

Glinn Mgraw November 23, 2009

a) I'll take your word for it. But did you and the other fella bring this up when you were top? b) No but it seems you are, as you've just rubbished the system. I do believe you are not currently the best test side which is reflected in the present ranking system. Whether you should be 4th is debatable. c) I'm undecided on the system. But I'll agree with you on the ICC.

Arrric November 23, 2009

a) No, because this blog didn't exist then. b) No, I did not. b2) I believe that Australia and South Africa are the best two (not always in that order), and that India is third.

Glinn Mgraw November 24, 2009

a) You and your mate were writing blogs on here when you were still top. It just seems very convenient timing don't you think? b) Well I certainly didn't so I have no idea why you brought that up. b2) I'd say its SA, India, with Aus 3rd. In the last year you've lost to us (eng), SA & India. The loss to us being the one that dragged you down. We're supposed to be rubbish remember?

Arrric November 24, 2009

a) At the very, very end of our time on top this blog started. It isn't about where we are, it's about the fact that it is clearly flawed! b) It made sense to me when I first wrote it. b2) We haven't played India since mid 2008? But if you're going to go that far, then in the past "year" you've lost to the West Indies, South Africa and India. Sounds pretty rubbish to me.

Glinn Mgraw November 25, 2009

nice system

jackos guns 7 December 1, 2009

Well, the problem with this is, the countries that don't get enough matches, automatically slide down the rankings list. Say, no one really wants to play the Windies at the moment, and when they are at they're best they could be 4th or 5th. But if somehow all the countries in the world got the same amount of matches; this would be the best ranking system.

Ducks December 30, 2009

Er, no they don't. There's a reason I divide by the amount of matches they play.

Glinn Mgraw December 30, 2009

Leave a comment

Trackbacks