ICC Player Rankings

[Arthur Crabtree]

We hardly hear mention of Broad's heel anymore. Maybe its healed.

They used to say it would always be a problem and would just be managed. But true, it's not been mentioned for about a couple of years.

[backfootpunch]

there is clearly something very wrong with the bowling calculations

how can mitchell starc average 19 with the ball and only have 650 points

his record matches up with anyone in the history of the game, surely it should be 800+

[dan08]

there is clearly something very wrong with the bowling calculations

how can mitchell starc average 19 with the ball and only have 650 points

his record matches up with anyone in the history of the game, surely it should be 800+

Was thinking the same thing. Miles better than Shakib.

[GarlicJam]

there is clearly something very wrong with the bowling calculations

how can mitchell starc average 19 with the ball and only have 650 points

his record matches up with anyone in the history of the game, surely it should be 800+

Ithink it might be that he has missed so many games. It is virtue of his excellent form prior, that he is still so highly ranked.

Without doubt, he is the number one, but the rankings need some sort of metric to go on.

[Slipstream]

It depends on the batsmen you get out not your average. A bowler will get more points getting batsmen who are in the top 10.
Broad shot up to number 1 getting Amla or de Villers out 7 times

[Dr Cricket]

Rankings are imo pointless, be it team ones or individual.

The individual ones are not that bad really since they do take into account the opposition, the conditions and the result of the game.
If it does have one flaw is that because of the lower scores/More victories in Test matches the current batsman will be ranked higher than Tendulkar, Ponting, lara etc.

but that only when you compare players from different era, in terms of comparing them from the same period the player ranking is actually quite good.

The team rankings are a joke though.

[Dr Cricket]

The player rankings are actually very complicated to work out.
Basically the player has to play every game possible to get the highest possible ranking.
Has to take top players out and then contribute in a winning cause.
if you play in a losing team the rankings also suffer a bit.
T20 rankings are the least accurate with the Test rankings being the most accurate with odi in the middle.
http://www.icc-cricket.com/player-rankings/about
they explained all the scoring here.
for test

Runs scored
Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion)
The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings)
Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus)
The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)

for bowling
Wickets taken and runs conceded
Ratings of the batsmen dismissed (at present, the wicket of Kumar Sangakkara is worth more than that of Makhaya Ntini – but if Ntini's rating improves, the value of his wicket will increase accordingly)
The level of run-scoring in the match; bowling figures of 3-50 in a high-scoring match will boost a bowler’s rating more than the same figures in a low-scoring match
Heavy workload; bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets;
The result. Bowlers who take a lot of wickets in a victory receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams
Bowlers who do not bowl in a high-scoring innings are penalized.

Players who miss a Test match for their country, for whatever reason, lose one per cent of their points.

one day batting
The principles behind the ODI Ratings are similar to those for the Test Ratings, with the following important differences:

Batsmen gain significant credit for rapid scoring. They only get a small amount of credit for being not out (because a not out batsman is, by definition, batting at the end of the innings when the value of his wicket is low)
Bowlers gain significant credit for economy. A bowler who bowls 10 overs 0-10 is likely to see his rating improve significantly, even though he hasn’t taken a wicket.
Players lose only a half per cent (½%) of their points for missing a match for their country.All ODI matches are considered equal, except for ICC Cricket World Cup matches, where good performances gain extra credit.Big scores or wicket hauls against very weak nations get much less credit than the same performances against the main ODI countries.

don't really see anything wrong with it barring missing games can be deadly for the bowlers.