Does Australia deserve to be ranked No. 1 in ODIs?

Rajesh, Your views have pleased me. Especially as they come from an internationally recognised cricket statistician. Thank you.

Dear Kersi, You are the first to point out the discrepancies in the system. Well done! I fully agree with you with regard to the points raised by you. Kind regards. Rajesh

Kersi, Clearly the rankings are calculated from performance over a period of time, not the most recent performance. In that case Australia deserve the number one ranking because, well, they ARE ranked number one. Whether they are playing like a number one team right now is a different argument and, no doubt, this current level of performance will be reflected in the rankings a bit further down the track. Right now, probably all we can say is that we have the measure of Bangladesh - even if, as is the way of ODIs, we cannot bowl them out! However, it is up to the rest of the cricketing nations to perform to the level required to acquire the ranking - if they care about it at all. In this professional age I'm sure there is some monetary motive to be ranked as high as possible but I suspect, in reality, the fans are more concerned than the players. Unless, of course, prolonged positioning at the top, a la Australia, becomes an issue of pride among the players and therefore a motivation. We shall see. The bottom line is, Australia currently has the ranking and the rest have not. Time will tell when, and if, that changes.

Homer, doubtful India can get to number #1 in the ODIs by winning against the West Indies and England. Owing to their ranking difference, they'll need to win almost every game just to maintain their ranking. Australia is also likely to be ranked about 131 when the rankings roll over in late August. There is no way India will reach that level. India were thoroughly deserving of #1 in the test by the by, but the current gap is way more than it ought to be, and has more to do with playing a lot against South Africa and Australia, than having consistently beaten those two teams.

Well said. And the group stage of this year's world cup was the best part of it. Numerous close games and the top 4 placings in each group being decided in the last few games.

Dave, if that is the case then the ratings are very poorly constructed. It is absolutely NOT a league. In a league, all contests are equal, but in this ranking system, a team who has won more recently ends up with more points.

Tennis and Golf are not quite the right comparison. It is more like the NRL or the AFL. The ranking s are important because it is like a premiership, the teams are playing for a trophy and prize money.

Kersi, The ranking system does have its place, just as it does in most other sports. In tennis, it's instrumental in helping determine the draw for majors. In golf, it's instrumental in determining the order & pairing of players out onto the course in majors. In cricket, the ranking system is especially required for allocating teams to pools at the world cup, to ensure each pool is more or less balanced, & that the best teams don't knock each other out too early. And in the professional world of modern sport, there's financial rewards commensurate with your ranking.....

from 01/01/2010 Inida have played 25 games and won 17 and lost 7. In the same period Australia has played 42 won 29 and lost 11. The ranking reflect this. The rankings work perfectally well.

Nobility has very little to do with it Nathan :) When we became the #1 Test team in the world, there was a lot of carping about how the rankings were flawed and questions were raised about our merit and our and whether the ranking was deserved. India plays the West Indies and England next. If we win those series, odds are that we will become the #1 ODI side in the world. That should take care of the naysayers and those suggesting the BCCI tampered with the rankings system. And if we dont win, we deserve to fall down the rankings. Simple as that Cheers,

Ryan, If the ranking system in ODIs is irrelevant, why have it? As a scientist and statistician, I want logic and balance. And when something does not make sense, I speak out and ask questions. Cricketers themselves may not care (as long as they are paid well) but historians do. The point system is faulty and about time ICC corrects it. Or scrap the system. Russ, thanks for your support. On current form, Australia CAN NOT be ranked no.1. Yes, certainly from 1995 to 2008. What a fantastic record! Perhaps in 2009. But not in 2010-11. I do hope that under Michael Clarke Australia bounces back and rightfully regain their supremacy in Tests and ODIs. But they have to find young bowlers who can shatter stumps with their speed and bamboozle batsmen with their spin.

Not to worry Kersi! Australia has accumulated all those points over years and because they were so good at one time there was a yawning gap in points which will take some time to make up. Now that the stronger teams have closed that gap I am sure over the next couple of years it will become an insurmuontable uphill task for the future Australian team to make up.......and when they eventually do will you ask the same question?

Thats right, you are on top of the premiership because of points gained by results. It doesnt matter who is the best team this week.

India beat Australia in one game last October (the other two games were rained out) that doesn’t make you number 1. It is a premiership table. you have to win consistently. I don’t think the system is flawed. http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_316C4ECFB1FDC31284D768163CA1CBCD_1295336216354_278.pdf

No Adam, the ICC table is up to date and is updated after every game http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/match_zone/odi_predictor.php

Kersi, India beat them in 1 match in that 'series' win. Why should the World Cup carry double points? It doesn't in any other sport that I am aware of. Should Sri Lanka have been ranked no 1 in ODI's because they won in 1996? Should New Zealand always be ranked in the top 4 because they've made the semi's three times running? And lets not even start on a team like the All Blacks in Union. This argument is purely based on the fact that the previous winners - and a team that had won three times - were no 1 during that period for all but the odd week here and there. That could be seen as a luxurious co-incidence as it doesn't happen that often in sport plus the Aussies were monstrously good most of the time in that period. They never had home advantage for any of those wins. I don't think the Aussies are the best team, and they are not long for the no 1 ranking, but the point is until someone gets more points than them, then they are no 1.

I don't think India (or Australia) care about the world rankings, do they? Test Matches are different, as there is no actual Test Tournament, so the world ranking means more. But in the limited overs formats, the World Cups are what matters. I'm sure if you asked the Indian players about the rankings, they probably wouldn't even know!

Oh the irony. Ireland ranked ahead of Zimbabwe a 'test' playing nation. Yet Ireland wont even be turning up for the next cup. Well done ICC.

Ben, I think you've missed Kersi's point. The question is really whether the ratings system is accurate and reflective of reality. Even were we to accept that Australia have good claims to be no. 1, there is no good reason to suppose they have an 8 (and more) point margin over the other contenders (or for that matter, India being 11 points better in the test arena). The ICC ratings have a lot of quirks in their construction, and it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether those quirks make them not just quirky but misleading.

Yes, Australia do. Why? Because we have the most points. End of. If we're debating who is the best on paper... well, we should not but I don't believe India is good enough either. India are a supreme batting team (albeit, often on flat tracks at home but, then again, what one-day track is not flat these days?). India's bowling, however, is not that of a number 1 team.