Cricket 24x7 - All the cricket

Breaking/Brief news

    January 15, 2009

    ICC's "best ever" rankings

    Yesterday, the ICC announced that Matthew Hayden was ranked 10th in the all-time 'best ever rating' list. I thought the announcement was rather unwarranted, except perhaps as a retirement present, for there wasn't really any other reason to make this announcement. Maybe visits to the ICC's website were dwindling. Perhaps Google AdSense wasn't giving them enough revenue.

    Anyone could have visited the player rankings site and found out which batsmen or bowlers had the highest ratings. Any "all-time" list that doesn't include Sachin Tendulkar is bound to be viewed as casus belli by India's news-hungry media & clueless 'fans'. Thankfully, the BCCI hasn't reacted so far. Following the 'outrage', the ICC put out a clarification.

    The original media release said "Such outstanding ratings can only be achieved by players who display consistent excellence over a prolonged period of time". The clarification said "The rankings give an indication of how players peaked during their careers but do not give a full picture of those players' level of consistency or longevity in the game" I'm fairly sure the two statements are contradictory when they refer to the correlation between the ranking & longevity.

    Let's set the record straight - the 'best ever' ranking is a value for the peak performance of a player. It doesn't imply that is his career mean or median. All it provides is a rating, a value at a point in time (say after a test series). Based on the ICC's all-time list, it seems like ratings of 900 and above are very difficult for people to achieve (Tests: 25 batsmen, 19 bowlers & ODIs: 8 batsmen, 5 bowlers). It's the sort of rating you get from having multiple brilliant performances in the time gap between the ratings getting updated.

    Sample this: Don Bradman had test scores of 132, 127*, 201 & 57* to help him get the all-time high rating of 961. Joel Garner had ODI bowling performances of 3/29, 2/26, 0/6, 2/16 & 4/10 (3/29 in 10 overs being his costliest effort) to help him get to a #1 rating of 940. Syd Barnes had test bowling performances of 3/26, 5/102, 7/56 & 7/88 for a #1 rating of 932 (and never played test cricket again!). Viv Richards had ODI scores of 51(50), 80*(39), 53(57) & 66(39) to get a #1 rating of 935.

    With a huge "We told you so" smirk on my face, let me point out that nearly 2.5 years ago, just after the ICC Player Rankings site was launched, we wrote
    To determine the 'best ever' batsmen and bowlers, the site uses the highest rating at a given point in time. Wouldn't it have been better, and a fairer judgement of who the best really is/was, if the players' ratings had been averaged over their career? If Sunil Gavaskar is ahead of Lara, Miandad, Haynes & Tendulkar in the all-time one-day batting list, Peter May and Matthew Hayden are ahead of Richards, Gavaskar & Lara in the all-time test batting list and Tony Lock is ahead of Warne, Lindwall and Trueman in the test bowling list and Ewen Chatfield is ahead of Kumble, Vaas & Wasim in one-dayers, then David Lloyd's backside is indeed a fire engine.
    Just sample these to get an idea of how moronic this 'best ever' ranking is: Botham is a "better" test bowler than Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Donald, Lillee, Gibbs, Holding, Kumble, Akram, etc. Gary Kirsten is a "better" ODI batsman than de Silva, Mark Waugh, Ganguly, Jayasuriya, Gilchrist, Ponting, Azhar, Inzamam, Symonds, Sehwag, etc. Maninder is a "better" ODI bowler than Akram, Bond, Bracken, Saqlain, Kumble, Warne, Imran, etc. Botham is a "better" test batsman than Zaheer Abbas, de Silva, Thorpe, Mark Waugh, Langer, etc.

    Just take the entire ranking with a large bucket-ful of salt. May the farce be with you!

    Labels: , , ,


    Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 PM |
    Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - Blog Feed | | ]

    5 sledge(s):

    At last, got some insight. Was trying to figure out the rationale(?) behind such a farcical ranking. Indeed, ICC are full of jokers!

    By Blogger Shovon Chakraborty (17-Jan-2009, 12:34:00 PM)  

    Actually, in my opinion Shovon, the jokers aren't in the ICC. The jokers are in the lot who're reading far too much into this rating! Of course, the ICC is to blame for putting out an unnecessary media release in the first place.

    By Blogger Jagadish (18-Jan-2009, 11:01:00 PM)  

    The ratings released by ICC is insane!! They should have never attempted something like this.. As a matter of fact it is still working for them.. It has gained widespread attention.. Everyone is talking about it.. Not positively, but at least people are talking about it!!

    By Blogger Ravindran (24-Jan-2009, 9:15:00 AM)  

    I am suprised that Zidane does not come within top 10. Any ICC rating without him is just farcial.

    By Blogger மணிகண்டன் (29-Jan-2009, 1:59:00 AM)  

    Hello dear blogging friend,

    Cricket with balls has now moved, true story.

    We are now at cricketwithballs.com, so if you could update our address in your blogroll that would be great.

    Ofcourse if you already had us down as .com, never mind.

    Cheers.

    By Anonymous jrod (29-Jan-2009, 6:27:00 AM)  


    We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.

    Post a Comment

    Links to ICC's "best ever" rankings

    Technorati

    Bloglines

    Blogger search:

    Create a Link


    Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
    All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
    All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.

    Powered by Blogger Locations of visitors to this page
    HOME
    RSS Feed - RSS Feed


    Contact us
    cricket24x7 at gmail dot com
    cricket24x7 at yahoo dot com

    How Cricket 24x7 started


    The squad
    India to play 3 tests in New Zealand
    Hayden announces retirement
    Exclusive: ICC to appoint Ricky Ponting to umpires...
    Breaking news: Pietersen and Moores quit as Englan...
    ICC ratings in 2008 - the gainers and the losers
    South Africa do what was unthinkable a year ago
    Sehwag's achievement and a test team missing in ac...
    Morons running and ruining the game
    Bizarre decision-making from India at Mohali
    YAPTC - India will not tour Pakistan in 2009



    RHS navbar photo source - Tc7

    Partnership between


    Creative Commons License
    Cricket 24x7 - All the cricket by V Ganesh & S Jagadish is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.