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: hayden, icc, rankings, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC ratings in 2008 - the gainers and the losers

While the way the ICC rankings work will be as much an unknown commodity as the Duckworth-Lewis tables, they are a reasonable pointer to the way a team performed across a slightly larger time period - say a year.

Using the test and odi rankings list for 2008, I charted out the performances of the top 7 teams (Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa & Sri Lanka). The results are interesting.

See the test ratings graph below. New Zealand & Australia are the biggest losers in terms of rating points (nearly 13% down for New Zealand & 8% for Australia) in December compared to January. South Africa (8.3%) is the biggest gainer, obviously because of their performances away, in India, England and Australia.

Pakistan (6.4%) is a gainer despite not playing a single test during the year! Go figure! Ignoring Pakistan's gain, India (6.3%) were the 2nd biggest story of the year, and (again) deservedly so since they beat Australia and England.



From the odi ratings graph below, India are the biggest gainers (8%) followed by Pakistan (4.6%). How is it that South Africa are #2 despite actually falling in rankings significantly (5.6%)? I'd say its because positions 2-7 are much more clustered together now (December) compared with at the start of the year. The other teams were neglibibly positive or negative in the rating change.



The combined ratings (a simple addition of the test & odi ratings) in the graph below indicates that if you take tests and odis as a whole, India are the team of the year (14.5% increase) while New Zealand's dip (13%) is a major cause for concern. Australia had a nearly 4% dip while Pakistan's numbers are artificially boosted by the test rating.

Labels: icc, rankings, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:11 am | Sledge/Read 11 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

South Africa do what was unthinkable a year ago

The inevitable happened. India've kept huffing & puffing at Australia for the better part of the last decade, and eventually the house fell, not to India but to South Africa, who became the first team in nearly 16 years to win a test series in Australia.

In fact, South Africa are the first non-Indian team to have defeated Australia 2 tests in a row in the last 18 years. The West Indians in 1993 & 1999 and the East Indians in 1998 & 2001 were the only sides to have done it.

South Africa have played brilliantly and it has been a total team effort - its tough to pick the top performers from Steyn, Smith, Duminy, de Villiers, Kallis & Amla. Essentially though, Australia's weakness against good quality swing bowling has been shown up yet again. It was the case in 2003/4 against India, 2005 against England, 2007/8 against India, 2008/9 against India and now against South Africa. Maybe its something to do with the batting technique or just the attacking instinct. Australia better get its act together on countering swing bowling, because now that the formula is out there, more teams will use it hoping for success, sometimes without having the quality of resources.

I have no sympathy for Australia though. The side and the cricketing establishment have been in denial mode ever since the defeat in India, and especially after thrashing New Zealand. Over rate problems? Let's blame the sightscreens and talk of maintaining the spirit of the game when a series was at stake. Lee's "performances"? Let's blame his breakup. Hayden in terrible form? Let's talk of poor umpiring decisions & run outs (as if he wasn't responsible for the runouts!). No spinners? Let's say they're young & inexperienced when they've had 15 years to groom someone to take over from Warne.

The first thing Australia's selectors need to do is to drop Hayden. His batting has been hopeless. It's not just that - he doesn't even look like he wants to be out there batting! In fact he wants to get off the strike so often - maybe thats what's got him run out twice in the last few tests! I've always thought he was over-rated. Among the top run-getters since 1 Jan 1990, only 2 batsmen (Mark Waugh & Alec Stewart) have worse away batting averages. Hayden averages 42.7 outside Australia compared with 58.4 at home. It's quite obvious he's a home town bully. He doesn't deserve to be rated amongst the modern greats, let alone the all-time greats!

The second thing Australia's selectors need to do is to pick a new captain. I just think they have a hopeless moron as captain right now. Ponting's captaincy has been 'moronic' in my books right from the time he sent England (0-1 down) in on a superb batting wicket at Edgbaston in 2005 minutes after McGrath had been ruled out of the test (& possibly the series). His subsequent acts (Nagpur, for e.g.) merely confirmed the belief.

Despite South Africa's series win, in my opinion Australia are #1 until the time they actually lose home and away. India can't claim the #1 spot because after all, they didn't win in Australia. I'd say that the return series against South Africa & the 2009 Ashes will give a fair indication of whether Australia will remain #1 or not.

Think about it - despite losing Langer, Warne, McGrath & Gilchrist in the span of a year, they've more than managed to hold their own most of the time. I know that isn't a great benchmark for #1, but you do need to give weightage to the quality of personnel lost. India're bound to go down that road sometime in the next 2 years and we'll eagerly see if the batting holds up.

Labels: australia, india, rankings, south africa, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:45 pm | Sledge/Read 10 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

How does the ICC ODI ranking work?

Australia's ODI record since 1 Jan 2005: Played 102, Won 70, Lost 25.

South Africa's ODI record since 1 Jan 2005: Played 86, Won 60, Lost 22.

Take away wallopings of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the other minnows and Australia's record is played 92, won 61, lost 24 (win % of 66, loss % of 26) while South Africa's is played 78, won 53, lost 21 (win % of 68, loss % of 27).

Keep in mind though that both teams have lost to Bangladesh in this duration - Australia in England and South Africa at the 2007 World Cup.

Their record against each other: Australia have won 7 while South Africa have won 4. South Africa's moments of glory were bundling Australia out for 93 and chasing down 434 in the GODOAT to win the series 3-2. On the other hand, Australia forced South Africa into self-destruct mode when Kallis scored 48(63) when the required runrate was 8 an over during the league game of the 2007 World Cup and then larruped them in the semi final.

South Africa are now the #1 ODI side. Obviously Australia's losses in the 2007 and 2008 editions of the Commonwealth Bank Series did have an impact, but surely a World Cup win must count for something! But apparently not.

In fact, the ICC rankings site says

The weighting of 'matches' is reduced over time so does not reflect the full number of matches played in the rating period

So, Australia's wins in 2007 should have a higher weightage comopared to South Africa's wins in 2006! Which is why, will someone please explain how the ICC ODI ranking system works?

Labels: australia, icc, rankings, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:30 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England pose questions galore

England's victory in the CBA series was, if nothing else, utterly bizarre. Their best batsmen and their best bowler in the series both went home. Their revenant captain came, saw, scored little, masterminded an excellent win, and returned to the ranks of the mortally wounded. Their full-time stand-in captain, known for explosive batting and expected to be a leader long on inspiration, short on nous, led the team to three consecutive wins against the side that had trounced him and his team 5-0 in the Tests. Even more, these wins weren't explosive, outstanding, once-in-a-lifetime efforts - they were workmanlike. Or, to be more generous, professional.

Where did this come from? Aside from going some way to proving Matthew Hoggard right in his debate with Jagadish, this has been a victory for sensible (perhaps boring) cricket, as well as a victory for shambolic preparation. Without Pietersen, England have been reduced to two hitters: Mal Loye, who runs very few singles; and Andrew Flintoff, who has often come in to situations where he could not risk his wicket. England could struggle on small grounds with this approach, especially if Vaughan returns to join Bell and Joyce at the top of the order. If Sri Lanka brought pinch-hitting to the world in 1996, England might well end up with the batting equivalent of Dibbly, Dobbly, and Wobbly. Even despite this result, I'm struggling to see England making the semi-finals of the World Cup.

And that's just the England team. With the World Cup on the horizon, what has happened to Australia? They have the class players, of that there is no doubt. Ricky Ponting continues to be an unspeakably brilliant batsman. But, in an ironic twist, their side is packed with bowlers who have failed to make an impression in the county game. Shaun Tait was by far the worst, with the ludicrous figure of 18-0-176-0 from 2 games for Durham in 2004. Brad Hogg, Shane Watson, and Cameron White have all put in excellent batting performances and mediocre bowling performances in the past few seasons for their counties.

From the outside looking in, there isn't too much of a problem with Australia. They are still the best fielding side in the world, bar none. (South Africa are good, but drop too many catches.) Their batting line up is, if not clearly the best, certainly not clearly not the best. Their bowling has been average, but there isn't a whole lot wrong with a pace attack of Lee, McGrath, and Clark. The problem is the back-up. I like Brad Hogg and I think he should play, but it seems that if he plays, Shane Watson plays. Despite a decent record, I simply do not rate Watson's bowling. He doesn't obtain much movement, and he just looks hittable. With his injury record, he seems unlikely to ever be able to make himself a fixture in the side. Unfortunately for Australia, neither Hilfenhaus nor Tait can bat. Michael Clarke is a good spin option, but Australia's only other batting all-rounder who bowls seam-up appears to be Symonds.

Finally, South Africa are in with a very real chance of being the top-ranked side going in to the World Cup. They need to beat Pakistan and hope New Zealand beat Australia to knock the Aussies off the top for the first time since the rankings were introduced.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, england, rankings

Thus spake Geoff @ 3:57 pm | Sledge/Read 8 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England maintain lead despite losing

You'd think a 5-0 series loss would seriously damage a team's ranking, especially when their closest rivals won a home series 2-0 and narrowly lost an away series 2-1. Not a bit of it - England only lost one ranking point on their nearest challengers, Pakistan, over the winter.

Team	Current	November 2006	Difference
Australia	135	130	+5
England	114	119	-5
Pakistan	108	112	-4
India	107	111	-4
Sri Lanka	102	103	-1
South Africa	102	94	+8
New Zealand	93	92	+1
West Indies	72	72	0
Zimbabwe	28	28	0
Bangladesh	2	2	0

Labels: england, icc, pakistan, rankings

Thus spake Geoff @ 5:58 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

New ICC rankings site

The ICC and LG, official sponsor of the ICC ratings since last January, have revamped the rankings site and it also has a new URL - www.lgiccrankings.com.

At least now the ICC uses its own domain, rather than some unknown strange domains like I pointed out last October.

It is interesting playing around with the 'Date specific' and 'Best ever' rankings. The top 3 test batsmen as of the day I was born were Alvin Kallicharan, Gundappa Viswanath and Glenn Turner. The top three bowlers were Dennis Lillee, Andy Roberts and Derek Underwood. The top three one-day batsmen were Keith Fletcher, Dennis Amiss and Ian Chappell. The top three one-day bowlers were Max Walker, Bernard Julien and Chris Old.

There is a lot of inconsistency in the results which you might see as well. I got Viv Richards as the top test bowler a couple of times. Some re-querying got me saner answers. This is, to me, a fairly crappy but fun tool to fool around with. Go ahead, play with it and tell us who the top three were when you were born!

Update: 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.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:30 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

LG to sponsor ICC ratings and rankings

LG, the consumer electronics giant, and not the popular Madras brand for asafoetida, has acquired the rights to associate itself with the ICC Test, ODI championships and player rankings. The player rankings have been taken over from PWC. The top LG ICC batsman is LG Dravid while the top LG ICC bowler is LG McGrath. The function was attended by LG Gavaskar. The most famous player sponsored by LG is Lawrence George Rowe.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:31 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

One can now trust PwC Ratings as McGrath is back on top and not the world's "best" bowler.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Ganesh @ 9:38 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The Chennai innings of 155 takes Virender Sehwag to third place in the latest PwC ratings.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:53 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Rahul Dravid is now the #1 Test batsman according to the PWC Ratings, without having played a Test for over 3 months now.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:18 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

For all those who cared nothing about the ICC ratings, here's one more reason.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Ganesh @ 9:03 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hayden's twin tons at Cairns draws him closer to the top spot in the PwC test batting ratings.

Labels: rankings

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:54 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]