MRF Tyres ICC Player Rankings

The MRF Tyres ICC Player Rankings are a sophisticated moving average. Players are rated on a scale of 0 to 1000 points. If a player’s performance is improving on his past record, his points increase; if his performance is declining his points will go down.

The value of each player’s performance within a match is calculated using an algorithm, a series of calculations (all pre-programmed) based on various circumstances in the match.

All of the calculations are carried out using pre-programmed formulae, using the information published in a Test match scorecard. There is no human intervention in this calculation process, and no subjective assessment is made.

For the Men's MRF Tyres ICC Player Rankings click here and for the Women's MRF Tyres ICC Player Rankings click here.

For a batsman, the factors are:
• 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 a bowler, the factors are:
• Wickets taken and runs conceded
• Ratings of the batsmen dismissed (at present, the wicket of Steven Smith is worth more than that of Matthew Wade – but if Wade’s batting 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.

The players’ ratings are calculated by combining their weighted performance in the latest match with their previous rating. This new ‘weighted average’ is then converted into points. Recent performances have more impact on a player’s rating than those earlier in his career, but all his performances are taken into account. A great player who has had a lean run of form will still have a respectable rating. Players who miss a Test match for their country, for whatever reason, lose one per cent of their points.

New players start at zero points, and need to establish themselves before they get full ratings. There is a scale for calculating qualifications. For example, a batsman who has played 10 Test innings gets 70 per cent of his rating (i.e. his rating will be between 0 and 700 points). He doesn’t get 100 per cent until he has played 40 Test innings. A bowler who has taken 30 wickets also gets 70 per cent of his full rating. He doesn’t get 100 per cent until he has taken 100 Test wickets. This means that successful new players can enter the top 30 after just a few Tests, but are unlikely to reach the world top five until they have many Test matches under their belts.

The principles behind the ODI and T20I 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. An ODI bowler who bowls 10 overs 0-10 is likely to see his rating improve significantly, even though he hasn’t taken a wicket. For a T20 bowler, economy is even more important, and 4 overs 0-10 would get significant credit.
• Players lose only a half per cent (½%) of their points for missing an ODI match for their country. They lose 2% of their points for missing a T20.

The Women’s ODI and T20 Rankings operate in the same way as the men’s equivalent. However, statistically there are some differences between men’s and women’s cricket, so there are some adaptations for the women’s version. The average scores in women's matches tend to be lower than in men's so the points scales were adjusted so as not to favour bowlers, and there are fewer women play ODIs in a given year than men, so there are typically more men bunched within a few points of each other in the table than in the women's equivalent.

Still slightly confused about how the MRF Tyres ICC Player Rankings work? Hopefully your question can be answered below, if not, please feel free to submit your question to us using the Contact Us page.

Think of the MRF Tyres ICC Rankings as a system for identifying the players who could be selected for an ICC World XI if it was picked today. Take a look at the latest top tens, and you should find that most of the players at the top would be candidates for your current World XI. The rankings have often been described as a measure of form, but this is a simplification. A form ranking would only look at what a player has done in (say) the last year, whereas our rankings take into account a player's entire career - though they put more emphasis on what he or she has done recently.

We use ‘rankings’ to refer to the positions of players in the tables, and ‘ratings’ to refer to their points.

Players have to have appeared in a match within the qualifying period to appear in the lists (normally 12-15 months for Tests, 9 -12 months for T20s and ODIs). For example, Parthiv Patel lost his place in the Indian Test side in 2008 and disappeared from the lists in 2009. But he retained a rating which slowly diminished as he missed matches. He was then picked again 2016 and returned to the rankings. If a player confirms his retirement he is also removed from the list. So, for example, MS Dhoni retired from Tests in 2014 and was removed from the Test rankings - but he remained in the ODI tables. Players are in the rankings as soon as they complete a match. However, we only publish the top 100 players (at most), so it can take several matches for a player to break into that.

Our normal practice is to update the Test rankings after each Test match (usually within 12 hours) and ODI ratings at the end of each ODI series. We generally don’t publish Test rankings if another Test match is currently in progress. However, if there are lots of overlapping Test matches running into each other we try to be more flexible so that the rankings on the website don't get too out of date.

If a batsman does not bat, his rating is unchanged. We don't want the ratings to punish a player when he hasn't done anything wrong (and it would be tough if, for example, rain wiped out an innings causing all the team to lose points). The situation with bowlers is slightly different. If the opposition are bowled out for less than 150, then a bowler who has not bowled is not penalised (conditions obviously suited the other bowlers, and his services weren't needed). But if the opposition makes a big total, then bowlers who don’t bowl in the innings lose points.

Ratings points have a meaning in the same way as traditional averages do. Over 900 points is a supreme achievement. Few players get there, and even fewer stay there for long. 750 plus is normally enough to put a player in the world top ten. 500 plus is a good, solid rating.

The challenge is to find a fair way of rating a keeper. You can't just rate him on catches and stumpings taken, since these are highly dependent on the bowler creating these chances (how many chances did Warne create for Healy, for example?) No accurate details are kept historically on missed chances, and in any case what is a missed chance? So, as with other fielding skills, we won't attempt to produce a rating since we aren't convinced it would be credible.

Nobody does. There is a common misconception that there is an expert panel that sits down to assess the pitch in each match. In fact, all the Ratings calculations are based purely on the information in the scorecard (as you would find published online or in a newspaper). If both teams score 500 in each innings, the computer rates this as a high-scoring match in which run-making was relatively easy, and therefore downgrades the value of runs scored. If both teams score 150, this indicates that runs were at a premium and a player gets greater credit for scoring well in this game.

We have devised an all-rounder index that gives a good indication of who the best all-rounders in the world are in Test and One Day cricket. To obtain the index, simply take the player's batting and bowling points, multiply them together and divide by 1000. So a player with 800 batting and 0 bowling gets an index of zero (because he can't bowl and therefore isn't an all-rounder!), 600 batting/200 bowling gets a rating of 120, and 400 batting/400 bowling points gets a rating of 160. An index of 300 plus is world class. There are far more all-rounders in T20s and ODIs than Tests, but the same names tend to appear high in both lists. Incidentally, this index does omit one important all-rounder skill, namely fielding. There is no satisfactory way of rating fielding skills statistically at present.

Because the ratings take account of the opposition strength, there shouldn't be any obvious advantage to playing against any particular team. Of course that's not to say that certain individuals do seem to play better against certain opposition or on certain types of pitch.

We have compiled a list of "best-ever ratings" which are effectively snapshots of greatness, as they capture a player when he or she was at the peak of their form. When it comes to judging a player's greatness over his career, it's necessary to look at their entire graph rather than the peak. It's not so much how high a player gets as how long they stay there. If you think of a player's rating graph as being the shape of a mountain, then the greats will have graphs shaped more like Kilimanjaro than the Matterhorn. Hence Tendulkar would be deemed greater than Clyde Walcott despite the latter's higher peak. One way of assessing a player would be to calculate an 'average rating' over his career though of course this could penalize a player whose long career included a slow start. So it's over to you to make your own judgment by comparing graphs, or by other more subjective means.

A batter gets a rating as soon as they complete a match. If they score 50 runs, the computer will rate them as a "50" type player, but will then reduce the points displayed by about 60%, to err on the low side - players need to establish themselves before being ranked alongside experienced 50-type players. With each innings he plays, the new player points reduction reduces until, after 20 innings, the computer displays 100% of the points that the batsman has earned.

At the end of a match, the scorecard is entered onto our computer. The computer performs a number of checks on the data to ensure that there are no errors (for example the number of runs + extras has to be the same as the total!) and then the new ratings are calculated.

A player who misses a game for his country is treated exactly the same whatever the reason (injury, poor form etc). In Tests, the player loses 1% of his points for each match missed. In ODIs players lose ½ % of their points for missing a match. Because T20s are more sporadic, players who miss a T20 lose 2% of their points for missing matches.

We don't try to mix apples and pears, though the points scales are similar for the three forms of cricket, so it would not be completely unreasonable to add together a player's points for all forms of the game to get a grand total.