ICC men's ODI team rankings
# ICC men's ODI team rankings

The ICC men's ODI team rankings (formerly known as the ICC ODI championship) is an international One Day International (ODI) cricket rankings system of the International Cricket Council (ICC). After every ODI match, the two teams involved receive points based on a mathematical formula. Each team's points total is divided by their total number of matches played to give a rating, and all the teams are ranked in a table in order of rating.

By analogy to cricket batting averages, the points for winning an ODI match are always greater than the team's rating, increasing the rating, and the points for losing an ODI match are always less than the rating, reducing the rating. A drawn match between higher and lower rated teams will benefit the lower-rated team at the expense of the higher-rated team. An "average" team that wins as often as it loses while playing a mix of stronger and weaker teams should have a rating of 100.

As of 7 May 2023, Australia leads the ICC Men's ODI Team Rankings with a rating of 113 from 35 weighted matches, while the lowest rated team, Papua New Guinea, has a rating of 2 from 43 weighted matches.

Until 2013, the team ranked number one at the annual 1 April cut-off date received the ICC ODI Championship Shield and prize money. Up until the 2019 edition, the rankings were used to award direct qualification for the Cricket World Cup.

## Current rankings

ICC Men's ODI Team Rankingsvte :

| Rank | Team | Matches | Points | Rating |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| 1 | Australia | 23 | 2,714 | 118 |
| 2 | Pakistan | 20 | 2,316 | 116 |
| 3 | India | 33 | 3,807 | 115 |
| 4 | New Zealand | 27 | 2,806 | 104 |
| 5 | England | 24 | 2,426 | 101 |
| 6 | South Africa | 19 | 1,910 | 101 |
| 7 | Bangladesh | 27 | 2,520 | 93 |
| 8 | Afghanistan | 15 | 1,361 | 91 |
| 9 | Sri Lanka | 32 | 2,794 | 87 |
| 10 | West Indies | 35 | 2,312 | 66 |
| 11 | Zimbabwe | 30 | 1,641 | 55 |
| 12 | Scotland | 33 | 1,662 | 50 |
| 13 | Ireland | 24 | 1,052 | 44 |
| 14 | Netherlands | 28 | 1,044 | 37 |
| 15 | Nepal | 40 | 1,396 | 35 |
| 16 | Namibia | 28 | 813 | 29 |
| 17 | United States | 31 | 808 | 26 |
| 18 | Oman | 24 | 525 | 22 |
| 19 | United Arab Emirates | 41 | 617 | 14 |
| 20 | Papua New Guinea | 28 | 106 | 4 |
| Reference: ICC ODI rankings, Updated on 10 July 2023 |||||
| Matches is the number of matches played in the 12–24 months since the May before last, plus half the number in the 24 months before that. See points calculations for more details. |||||

## Associate rankings

In late 2005, the International Cricket Council ranked the top non-Test nations from 11–30 to complement the Test nations' rankings in the ICC Men's ODI Team Rankings. The ICC used the results from the 2005 ICC Trophy and WCQS Division 2 competition (i.e. the primary qualification mechanisms for the 2007 Cricket World Cup) to rank the nations.

These rankings were used to seed the initial stage of the global World Cricket League. Teams ranked 11–16 were placed into Division 1; teams 17–20 were placed into Division 2; teams 21–24 were placed into Division 3; the remaining teams were placed into the upper divisions of their respective regional qualifiers.

As of 19 April 2009 the top six associates gained one day status. Kenya and Ireland have both qualified to appear on the main rating table, Kenya from its existing status and Ireland for its two victories in the 2007 World Cup. Following their victory over Bangladesh in July 2010, the Netherlands joined the main table. Afghanistan, Canada and Scotland remain on the secondary table. In May 2009, the ICC added a rankings table for all associate members. This contained both global and regional placings. In June 2018, the four associates with ODI status were moved to the main ranking list.

## Historical rankings

The ICC provides ratings for the end of each month back to October 2002. This table lists the teams that have successively held the highest rating since that date, by whole month periods.

| Team | Start | End | Total months | Cumulative months | Highest rating |
| - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Australia | October 2002 | January 2007 | 52 | 52 | 140 |
| South Africa | February 2007 | February 2007 | 1 | 1 | 128 |
| Australia | March 2007 | February 2008 | 12 | 64 | 130 |
| South Africa | March 2008 | May 2008 | 3 | 4 | 127 |
| Australia | June 2008 | December 2008 | 7 | 71 | 131 |
| South Africa | January 2009 | August 2009 | 8 | 12 | 127 |
| Australia | September 2009 | August 2012 | 35 | 106 | 134 |
| England | August 2012 | January 2013 | 5 | 5 | 121 |
| India | January 2013 | January 2014 | 12 | 12 | 124 |
| Australia | January 2014 | September 2014 | 8 | 114 | 117 |
| India | September 2014 | October 2014 | 1 | 13 | 113 |
| Australia | October 2014 | October 2014 | 1 | 115 | 114 |
| South Africa | October 2014 | November 2014 | ½ | 13 | 115 |
| India | November 2014 | November 2014 | ½ | 14 | 117 |
| Australia | November 2014 | February 2017 | 26 | 141 | 129 |
| South Africa | February 2017 | February 2017 | 1 | 14 | 119 |
| Australia | March 2017 | March 2017 | 4 days | 141 | 118 |
| South Africa | March 2017 | September 2017 | 6 | 20 | 123 |
| India | September 2017 | September 2017 | 4 days | 14 | 120 |
| South Africa | September 2017 | September 2017 | 4 days | 20 | 119 |
| India | October 2017 | October 2017 | 17 days | 15 | 120 |
| South Africa | October 2017 | February 2018 | 4 | 24 | 120 |
| India | February 2018 | May 2018 | 3 | 18 | 123 |
| England | May 2018 | June 2019 | 14 | 19 | 127 |
| India | June 2019 | June 2019 | 5 days | 18 | 123 |
| England | June 2019 | May 2021 | 22 | 41 | 135 |
| New Zealand | May 2021 | September 2022 | 16 | 16 | 121 |
| England | September 2022 | November 2022 | 2 | 43 | 119 |
| New Zealand | November 2022 | January 2023 | 2 | 18 | 116 |
| England | January 2023 | January 2023 | 3 days | 43 | 113 |
| India | January 2023 | March 2023 | 2 | 20 | 115 |
| Australia | March 2023 | May 2023 | 2 | 143 | 115 |
| Pakistan | May 2023 | May 2023 | 2 days | | 113 |
| Australia | May 2023 | | | | 118 |

In 2011, the ICC applied its rating system to results since 1981, providing ratings for the end of each month back to 1981, further indicating Australia's historical dominance in ODI Cricket with the highest number of months ranked first (200 months). The table only begins from 1981 as, prior to this date, there is not enough data available due to the infrequency of matches and the small number of competing teams in the earlier periods.

The teams that have successively held the highest rating since January 1981 till September 2002, by whole month periods, are:

| Team | Start | End | Total months | Cumulative months |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| England | January 1981 | February 1981 | 2 | 2 |
| West Indies | June 1981 | November 1981 | 6 | 6 |
| England | December 1981 | December 1981 | 1 | 3 |
| West Indies | January 1982 | May 1987 | 65 | 71 |
| England | August 1987 | March 1988 | 8 | 11 |
| West Indies | April 1988 | May 1988 | 2 | 73 |
| England | August 1988 | May 1989 | 10 | 21 |
| West Indies | August 1989 | December 1989 | 5 | 78 |
| Australia | January 1990 | March 1990 | 3 | 3 |
| West Indies | April 1990 | April 1990 | 1 | 79 |
| Australia | May 1990 | May 1990 | 1 | 4 |
| West Indies | July 1990 | July 1990 | 1 | 80 |
| Australia | August 1990 | November 1990 | 4 | 8 |
| Pakistan | December 1990 | January 1991 | 2 | 2 |
| Australia | February 1991 | May 1991 | 4 | 12 |
| Pakistan | August 1991 | August 1991 | 1 | 3 |
| Australia | October 1991 | May 1992 | 8 | 20 |
| England | August 1992 | March 1993 | 8 | 29 |
| West Indies | April 1993 | April 1993 | 1 | 81 |
| Australia | May 1993 | July 1993 | 3 | 23 |
| West Indies | August 1993 | November 1994 | 16 | 97 |
| India | December 1994 | March 1995 | 4 | 4 |
| West Indies | April 1995 | May 1995 | 2 | 99 |
| India | August 1995 | October 1995 | 3 | 7 |
| England | November 1995 | December 1995 | 2 | 31 |
| Australia | January 1996 | April 1996 | 4 | 27 |
| South Africa | May 1996 | February 2000 | 46 | 46 |
| Australia | March 2000 | January 2002 | 23 | 50 |
| South Africa | February 2002 | February 2002 | 1 | 47 |
| Australia | March 2002 | September 2002 | 7 | 57 |
| Reference: Historical Rankings |||||

The summary of teams that have held the highest rating since 1981 till present by whole month periods, are:

| Team | Total months | Highest rating |
| - | - | - |
| Australia | 200 | 140 |
| West Indies | 99 | 141 |
| South Africa | 71 | 134 |
| England | 66 | 135 |
| India | 25 | 127 |
| New Zealand | 18 | 121 |
| Pakistan | 3 | 131 |
| Reference: Historical Rankings updated to 21 January 2023 |||

## ICC ODI championship (2002–2013)

The rankings system was formerly called the ICC ODI championship and, until 2013, the team at the top of the table at the start of each April was awarded the ICC ODI Championship Shield. Like a 2 euro coin, the shield features an inner circle of gold-coloured metal and is surrounded by a ring of silver-coloured metal. It was first presented in December 2002, when Australian captain Ricky Ponting received the award.

It was last presented in July 2013, when Indian captain MS Dhoni received the award.

| Year | Nation |
| - | - |
| 2002 | Australia |
| 2003 | Australia |
| 2004 | Australia |
| 2005 | Australia |
| 2006 | Australia |
| 2007 | Australia |
| 2008 | South Africa |
| 2009 | South Africa |
| 2010 | Australia |
| 2011 | Australia |
| 2012 | Australia |
| 2013 | India |

## Points calculations

### Time period

Each team scores points based on the results of their matches over the last 3−4 years − the matches played in the 12–24 months since the May before last, plus the matches played in the 24 months before that, for which the matches played and points earned both count half. For example:

| | May 2010 | May 2010 | May 2011 | May 2011 | May 2012 | May 2012 | May 2013 | May 2013 | May 2014 | May 2014 | May 2015 | May 2015 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Between May 2013 and April 2014: | | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 100% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 100% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 100% weighting | | | |
| Between May 2014 and April 2015: | | | | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 50% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 100% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 100% weighting | Results that were achieved during this period have 100% weighting |

Each May, the matches and points earned between 3 and 4 years ago are removed, and the matches and points earned between 1 and 2 years ago switch from 100% weighting to 50% weighting. For example, on 1 May 2014, the matches played between May 2010 and April 2011 were removed, and the matches played between May 2012 and April 2013 switched to 50% weighting (the matches from May 2011 to April 2012 would have already been at 50% following the previous rerating). This happens overnight, so can result in teams changing positions in the ranking table despite no one playing.

### Find the points earned from a match

Each time two teams play another match, the rankings table is updated as follows, based on the ratings of the teams immediately before they played. To determine the teams' new ratings after a particular match, first calculate the points earned from the match:

If the gap between the ratings of the two teams before the match was less than 40 points, then:

| Match result | Points earned |
| - | - |
| Win | Opponent's rating + 50 |
| Tie | Opponent's rating |
| Lose | Opponent's rating − 50 |

If the gap between the ratings of the two teams before the match was at least 40 points, then:

| Match result | Points earned |
| - | - |
| Stronger team wins | Own rating + 10 |
| Weaker team loses | Own rating − 10 |
| Stronger team ties | Own rating − 40 |
| Weaker team ties | Own rating + 40 |
| Stronger team loses | Own rating − 90 |
| Weaker team wins | Own rating + 90 |

* Each team's rating is equal to its total points scored divided by the total matches played. (Series are not significant in these calculations).
* Add the match points scored to the points already scored (in previous matches as reflected by the Table), add one to the number of matches played, and determine the new rating.
* Points earned by teams depend on the opponent's ratings, therefore this system needed to assign base ratings to teams when it started.

See also a detailed example at: ICC Men's T20I Team Rankings#Example

