• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ICC Rankings

ramkumar_gr

U19 Vice-Captain
honestbharani said:
not as much as we care about the real deal. :D
Till the time Bangladesh and Zim are part of the international setup, it is better we dont read much into these ratings. We will continue to see pretenders like Irfan Pathan find a place in the so called Top 10.
 

shaka

International Regular
Vettori is 5th in test allrounder rankings atm. Good stuff, obviously Flintoff is expected to lead both
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
ODI All-Rounders
1 Andrew Flintoff ROW 4425
2 Andrew Symonds AUS 3755
3 Shoaib Malik PAK 3632
4 Sanath Jayasuriya SL 3492
5 Shaun Pollock ROW 3474

Doesn't anyone care about ODIs :wacko:[/QUOTE]

Glad to see that Andrew Symonds is considered an allrounder by those that matter in world cricket circles, Expect to see Mr Watson in this list within next few years.(heres hoping anyway)
Well done Symo,number 2 with a bullet. :clap:
 
ramkumar_gr said:
May be you should have done that. Never mind. I was just referring to the flawed system
ICC follows for Players ranking. Irfan Pathan, if you exclude the Zimbabwe and bangladesh
series, is averaging in the high 40s and i really feel he does not deserve a place in the Indian Test team
let alone the ICC top 10
Indian team is honored to have a player like IKP in its rank & IKP truely deserve the number tenth slot on ICC ranking.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
shaka said:
Vettori is 5th in test allrounder rankings atm. Good stuff, obviously Flintoff is expected to lead both
Yes, but bizarrely, in spite of it being so obvious, this is the first time he's been number 1 in Tests ever!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
jlo33692 said:
Glad to see that Andrew Symonds is considered an allrounder by those that matter in world cricket circles
The same people who rate Sanath Jayasuriya as a Test all-rounder?

The All-rounder ratings are not the best formula yet (and I doubt that'll ever change because there's no way of ranking it)

Therefore a player with notional rankings of 700 in each would be beaten by someone with 900 and 545 - even though the 545 would put them way down the list in that aspect.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Natman20 said:
Youre basing all your thoughts of a good bowler on his overall average. We are talking about now not through out his entire career. And he does keep the runs down which makes him a pretty decent bowler. Hes also taken a few wickets lately but not like that of Warne
It was a half joking comment but actually i wasn't looking at his overall average, i was looking at the last 2 years - as Faaip said "If you average 40+ over the last two years, you can be considered a batsman." Can you be considered a bowler if you have taken 30wickets@57.7 in the last two years?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
FaaipDeOiad said:
McGrath's been comfortably the best bowler in the world since his return from injury, and has held a stranglehold on top spot. His average since he came back against Sri Lanka in mid 2004 is under 20, and against good opposition for the most part as well. Warne's made the move from outside the top 5 to second on the back of his Ashes series and a good Super Test.
If we check the recent performances would Warne be so behind compared to McGrath? I wouldnt go as far as saying McGrath is EASILY the best bowler in the world right now.

Warne is bowling superbly at the moment.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Is it just me, or would it be much, much simpler to rank an all rounder based on their lowest score?

1 Flintoff
2 Kallis
3 Vettori
4 Jayasuriya
5 Pollock
6 Razzaq
7 Blignaut
8 Boje
9 Giles
10 Afridi
11 Vaas
12 Streak
13 Gayle
14 Warne
15 Astle
16 Oram
17 Klusener
18 Hall
19 Chandana
20 W Hinds
21 Tendulkar
22 Styris
23 Samaraweera
24 Katich
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pratyush said:
If we check the recent performances would Warne be so behind compared to McGrath? I wouldnt go as far as saying McGrath is EASILY the best bowler in the world right now.

Warne is bowling superbly at the moment.
McGrath takes more wickets at a far lower average and takes a far higher proportion of higher -order players than Warne.

BTW, dont overrate Warne's Ashes performance. He bowled very well BUT Eng arent the strongest batting lineup and are particularly ordinary against spin.
 

simmy

International Regular
I wouldnt say that it was a weak batting line up?!?!?!

I would say that the top 3 are one of the best top 3 in the world. Bell is a concern but, the others in the top 6 (even Geraint I guess) would all get into most teams.
 

simmy

International Regular
I thougt that McGrath was stunningly overrated at times this summer.

His performance at Lords was helped massively with at least 3 very low bouncing deliveries. And apart from that innings, he ended up as a "trundler" as Slater called him.

I cant see how injury can affect his simple bowling action... also... if he wasnt 100% fit.. then dont play!

Warne quite honestly, was a one-man team at certain points, with bat and palpably with the ball. He was overshadowed by Flintoff to a certain extent but I honestly think that his series performance was the best I have ever seen.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
simmy said:
I thougt that McGrath was stunningly overrated at times this summer.

His performance at Lords was helped massively with at least 3 very low bouncing deliveries. And apart from that innings, he ended up as a "trundler" as Slater called him.

I cant see how injury can affect his simple bowling action... also... if he wasnt 100% fit.. then dont play!

Warne quite honestly, was a one-man team at certain points, with bat and palpably with the ball. He was overshadowed by Flintoff to a certain extent but I honestly think that his series performance was the best I have ever seen.
McGrath was fit for one test but played 3 because Aus had no back-up yet still finished with 20 wickets at 20.

Apart from Warne and Jones, he had the best figures of the summer.

Injury cant change an action? - he sustained an ankle injury that was supposed to keep him out for 4 - 6 weeks. He returned in 10 days because of others dismal form and naturally couldnt put weight on his ankle so had to use more "arm" in the delivery - hence the arm injury.

As much as I admire Warne and Murali, it is McGrath first by some distance..

BTW, check the stats. Aus can be beaten with only Warne but are virtually never beaten with only McGrath.
 
Last edited:

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
simmy said:
I thougt that McGrath was stunningly overrated at times this summer.

His performance at Lords was helped massively with at least 3 very low bouncing deliveries. And apart from that innings, he ended up as a "trundler" as Slater called him.

I cant see how injury can affect his simple bowling action... also... if he wasnt 100% fit.. then dont play!

Warne quite honestly, was a one-man team at certain points, with bat and palpably with the ball. He was overshadowed by Flintoff to a certain extent but I honestly think that his series performance was the best I have ever seen.
Haha yeah, those "very low bouncing deliveries" were what got batsmen out, when they seamed in a foot off the pitch and hit half-way up middle stump. Anyway, compare the way McGrath bowled at Lords or in the Super Test to the way be bowled in the 3rd and 5th tests of the Ashes. It wasn't the same bowler.
 

ramkumar_gr

U19 Vice-Captain
GladiatrsInBlue said:
Indian team is honored to have a player like IKP in its rank & IKP truely deserve the number tenth slot on ICC ranking.
But what do you feel about his bowling average (excluding zim and bangla tests).
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
simmy said:
I wouldnt say that it was a weak batting line up?!?!?!

I would say that the top 3 are one of the best top 3 in the world. Bell is a concern but, the others in the top 6 (even Geraint I guess) would all get into most teams.
Well...

Langer/Hayden/Ponting
Sehwag/Ghambir/Dravid
Smith/De Villiers/Kallis

They're surely better top 3s by a significant distance. England would probably be next, and then you throw in two inexperienced players at 4 and 5 and Flintoff and Jones... it's a good batting lineup but it wouldn't rank higher than fourth in the world. It was obviously England's bowlers and the failure of Australia's batsmen that won them the series. England batted well, but still didn't dominate with the bat.
 

Top