ICC Team Rankings
ICC Test Ranking
| TEAM | MATCHES | POINTS | RATING | |
| 1 | South Africa | 25 | 3002 | 120 |
| 2 | England | 36 | 4195 | 117 |
| 3 | Australia | 34 | 3952 | 116 |
| 4 | Pakistan | 29 | 3148 | 109 |
| 5 | India | 29 | 3004 | 104 |
| 6 | Sri Lanka | 29 | 2834 | 98 |
| 7 | West Indies | 28 | 2509 | 90 |
| 8 | New Zealand | 21 | 1670 | 80 |
| 9 | Bangladesh | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Developed by Cricket Super News | Last Updated: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 | |||
Zimbabwe is currently unranked, as it has played insufficient matches. It has 167 points and a rating of 42.
ICC ODI Ranking
| TEAM | MATCHES | POINTS | RATING | |
| 1 | England | 23 | 2779 | 121 |
| 2 | South Africa | 16 | 1926 | 120 |
| 3 | India | 30 | 3598 | 120 |
| 4 | Australia | 27 | 3009 | 111 |
| 5 | Sri Lanka | 32 | 3470 | 108 |
| 6 | Pakistan | 27 | 2846 | 105 |
| 7 | West Indies | 20 | 1879 | 94 |
| 8 | New Zealand | 17 | 1258 | 74 |
| 9 | Bangladesh | 16 | 1134 | 71 |
| 10 | Zimbabwe | 14 | 700 | 50 |
| 11 | Ireland | 6 | 207 | 35 |
| 12 | Netherlands | 4 | 63 | 16 |
| 13 | Kenya | 4 | 45 | 11 |
| Developed by Cricket Super News | Last Updated: Sat, Sep 1, 2012 | |||
ICC T20 Ranking
| TEAM | MATCHES | QFY MATCHES | POINTS | RATING | |
| 1 | South Africa | 6 | 11 | 777 | 130 |
| 2 | England | 7 | 13 | 904 | 129 |
| 3 | Sri Lanka | 5 | 8 | 593 | 119 |
| 4 | India | 5 | 8 | 553 | 111 |
| 5 | West Indies | 6 | 10 | 663 | 111 |
| 6 | Pakistan | 9 | 17 | 983 | 109 |
| 7 | New Zealand | 7 | 12 | 708 | 101 |
| 8 | Bangladesh | 5 | 8 | 476 | 95 |
| 9 | Australia | 6 | 11 | 560 | 93 |
| 10 | Ireland | 7 | 11 | 615 | 88 |
| 11 | Zimbabwe | 5 | 8 | 234 | 47 |
| Developed by Cricket Super News | Last Updated: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 | ||||
Note: Only teams who have completed at least eight T20 international matches since 1st August between two and three years ago will have their rating above converted into a ranking on the main table.
The * symbol after matches denotes the number of weighted matches, rather than qualification matches.
Published by Unknown
on 09:45.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
