ICC ODI rankings no more than a joke

Sourav Ganguly has often been accused of uncalled-for outbursts, but most of the cricketing world will support his recent attack on the ICC's ranking system for one-day internationals. To most experts, it was clear that India deserved to move up from fifth position on the basis of their recent performances; third place, or perhaps even second, reckoned pundits. However, according to the ICC's official ODI table, India deserved no more than an eighth rank. Little wonder, then, that most people see these rankings as a joke.

The ICC's press release then even attempted to explain the bizarre rating: other teams benefitted from the fact that results of matches played between August 2000 and July 2001 had been dropped, while India paid the price for inconsistent performances over the last year.

The first reason is a valid one: England had only two wins from 14 games in the period mentioned, while West Indies and New Zealand had win percentages of less than 35. All three teams move up in the latest rankings, but at the expense of India, who have been punished for no fault of theirs. Over the last two years (August 2001-July 2003), India won 56.25% of their ODIs, with only Australia, South Africa and Pakistan having performed better. England won just 49% of their matches over that period, and yet ascended to third place on the basis of having performed even worse earlier. And if the argument is that matches in the last 12 months get twice the weightage of the ODIs in the earlier year, then England lose out there too - a win percent of 44, lower than all teams except the three minnows.

Another reason suggested for India's poor rating was the high number of matches they played against the minnows, and the few times they clashed against Australia. (Since the system takes into account the quality of opposition, a win against Bangladesh fetches fewer points than a win against South Africa.) While that's a valid point - India played 14 times against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Kenya, and only twice against Australia - it is ridiculous to penalise a team for it.

In fact, the methodology ensures that a win against any opponent improves the rating; conversely, a loss against any team brings down the rating. So, India's 11 wins in 14 ODIs against the minnows should still have ensured that their rating improved. Further, India achieved a 50% win record against the other teams over two years - better than all except Australia and South Africa. England, on the other hand, played seven times against Australia in this period, and lost all seven matches. Surely, their rating could not have benefitted from it.

Just 3 points separate six teams in the ODI standings. Here's how the six teams have performed:
ODIs in the last 2 years (August 2001-July 2003)

ODIs in the last 1 year (August 2002-July 2003)

Apart from not differentiating between home and away wins, the biggest drawback of this method is its failure to assign higher weightages for bigger matches. So, the importance factor of the World Cup final and a meaningless ODI between India and Zimbabwe is exactly the same. That's fine for a team like Australia, who win every match regardless of its importance. To differentiate between the rest of the teams, it's critical to factor in how they fare at the crunch.

The good news for India is that though they are ranked eighth, only three points separate them from third-ranked England. Assuming that the rest of the teams maintain their current points tally, India only need to beat New Zealand in the first match of the triangular series in October to move to fifth place. If India win their next match as well, against Australia, then they might displace England as the third-best ODI team. Given the credibility levels of the ratings, though, not many will actually care.

Click here for the ICC ODI table