Latest Cricket Rankings

What a crock of shit!!!

1.Australia
2.S.A ?
3.Pakistan ?
4.Sri Lanka
5.India
6.West Indies
7.NZ,oops...the telstra clear black caps
8.England

not that this means too much but shouldnt the rankings be determinned by the recent WC??

Is this one day rankings?

oops! yeah it is harvey.....

How do they work that out?

good question... that looks pretty rough, but i think it goes on the last 2 years performances or something like that, which is why teams like SA and pakistan are so high up, because other than aussie they have been smashing everyone... especially us...

Yeah thats pretty much how it is SMF but I think that after a WC the rankings should start then from where you finished in the WC,otherwise WHY have it?
India came second but they arent considered the 2nd best,a team that was OUTSIDE the top 6 is number2 ??
go figure!

pretty badgerish

Kenya should be in the top 8

how can we be behind India we smoked them 5-2?

http://www-nz.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/ICCODIC/

Those are the official ICC ratings, based on the last three years. It makes no sense for Kenya to be in the top 8 based on 3 wins, (two of which were against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). They are, however, above Bangladesh now.

I don't think there's any sport that bases it's ratings solely on the world cup, simply because it's a one off event (eg. Sth Korea definitely aren't #4 in the world at Soccer).

Lots of people have trouble with the ICC ratings, but I think the fact that they're based over such a long time period (which makes senes in cricket) it's easy to forget the recent results.

NZ has always played badly overseas, especially in ODIs. I think we've won about 3 or 4 series overseas ever (including against Zimbabwe). If you look at the link above, you can also see there's not much between #8 and #3

yeah, and also, we even lost to the zimbos in a home series last time tehy were here... when heath streak robbed us...

but zimbabwe are in some serious cricketing trouble for the future, with all their good players pretty much gone, and political turmoil limiting the amount of home tours they're going to get...

you guys will find our test rankings to be much higher, and justifiably so - we have a good test record over the past 3 years or so

I think NZ was ranked number 3 in test matches a while ago. Dunno what it is now.

http://www-nz.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/ICCTC/

Still 3rd, but we could possibly lose it to SL if we lose the series there...

The ODI ratings take each game into account. The problem I have with that is that by getting to the later stages of a tournament your rating can suffer, eg. NZ losing 2-0 in the final of the tri series in aussie made our rating lower than if we had of missed out, same at the world cup.

Losing in sri lanka won't make any difference mutant as we lost there last time and the new result just replaces the old result and so no change.

Nicely said SMF - 'smashing every1'

Why base somthing like which team is best on the last two or three years for that matter. Cricket is a game where form is all important. What you did three years ago should have nothing to do with it. It should be based over the last 12 months or full season for each country and the world cup should be given greater weighting.

Because that way its based on a time period when most teams will have played all the other countries and not just 1 or 2. Why should Sri Lanka be rated at the bottom of the rankings cause they've just played Australia and Sri Lanka for instance.

I think you mean Australia and Sth Africa jah

But I agree.. cricket is a very changeable game. The conditions are so important. Also, small changes in fortune (especially in ODIs) can decide the game. The best teams are the ones who can win consistently over a long period of time, not just one flukey series win. eg. Pakistan completely fluked a win in the 92 world cup. At the time, they were definitely not the best team.

Jah: I think it could affect our ranking if we lose to Sri Lanka, because we lost 2-1 last time. If we lost 3-0, we could possibly go down.

WTF are West Indies doing ahead of us?

Points are allocated for series wins for test matches so 2-1 or 3-0 doesn't matter. For ODI its each match that counts.

doesn't it also account for home/away series as well? like you get more points for away series than home series?

No, but the latest home and away series against each country are what counts, as long as it wasn't too long ago.

It makes a mockery of the world Cup....

that's why you have it to see who is best in the World, final loser 2nd, semi losers 3rd,4th
etc,etc

I agree fitzy
as far as Im concerned your ranking is decided @ the WC.
why have a WC where you finish in a certain position?,they may as well be considered friendlys.
In between the WC's your ranking stays the same till the next one.

OK,say S.A kick arse the next two years,dicking Aussie and everyone else....by public opinion they would be the best but until theyve beaten everyone in the WC they maintain the ranking acheived in the previous WC.

Its like Rugby.... Aussie hold the WC,until we win the WC we cant be considered the best team,imo.

um...what?

so all the games in between the 4 yearly World Cup dont count towards the rankings?

yay....."friendly cricket" for four years

West Indies are disadvantaged by rain then, SA missing out by one run can mean they are up to 6 places below where they could have been, the ability to win the toss in a few games ups your world ranking, teams defaulting games mean they are now have crap ratings.

Almost no other sport bases ratings on performance at 1 event that happens every 4 years, why would cricket want to take such a retrograde step?

and seriously, it would be entirely stupid to base rankings on the WC...

i mean kenya finishing 3rd? no thanks... the world cup has no bearing on who is the best team imo... especially not after the debacle that went on in this world cup, niether zimbabwe or kenya should have been there, but according to you guys they shold be counted as a better team than SA, pakistan nad england - and that, ladies and gentleman, is bullshit...

sure, the best eam won it, but the rest of the tournament was pretty random...

yes the two defaults by new zealand & england basically ruined the tournament, teams like Sa got lelf stranded, england cut there own troats & the kenya default eventually cost NZ a semi spot.

It doesn't just come from defaults... as I said earlier, Pakistan won the world cup in 92, purely from a rained out game. (They got 1 point which got them into the semis from a game where they were all out for 60-odd).

The world cup is an advertisment for a sport, and earns the sport a lot of money. But - especially in a sport like cricket - it doesn't really indicate who's the best overall. Should India really be 2nd in the world? We thrashed them 5-2. Sure, they had a good tournament, but they're not consistent enough to warrent 2nd. And there's no way Kenya is 3rd or 4th...