ICC Rankings

[marc71178]

McGrath was fit for one test but played 3 because Aus had no back-up yet still finished with 20 wickets at 20.

Yes, but that was somewhat helped by what he himself called the worst 5fer of his career when England were trying to set a target at Old Trafford.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

Gibbs/De Villiers/Kallis and I'd agree with you. Smith got scared down the order by Hoggy's swing.

 

[marc71178]

In which case, can we remove the Australian's as well then, since Hayden was beaten by the English side

 

[Pratters]

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.

England of the past was pathetic against spin. The current English team - is it really as pathetic against spin? No.

He has been bowling superbly and it has not been just the Ashes. The bowling spells vs ROW were pretty good too and for all to see.

I dont understand how just because Mcgrath would average abit less than Warne during a period he could be declared 'easily the best bowler' above Warne.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gibbs/De Villiers/Kallis and I'd agree with you. Smith got scared down the order by Hoggy's swing.

He's still a better and more reliable batsman than Gibbs.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

He's still a better and more reliable batsman than Gibbs.

Maybe against West Indies and England anno 2003, but consistently as an opener? Yes, I know he averages 53 and Gibbs 47 at the moment, but I'm still more afraid of Gibbs at the crease. Maybe that just comes from following England too much, but I still think he's a player who doesn't quite justify the average, and he's more concerned with personal gain than the team's well-being (see decision to bat at 5 against England...and then sneakily regain the No. 1 position against poorer bowling in the West Indies, leaving Gibbs to bat around 5-6 where he hadn't batted in Tests for eight years).

Anyway, you can't count Kallis in the top three, because he hasn't batted at three since 2001 (and after that he's made 3878 runs @ 69.25!!) - the SA top three is more like Smith/de Villiers/Dippenaar, which is roughly even with Trescothick/Strauss/Vaughan. From four to seven, SA may be stronger, given Kallis.

 

[JASON]

The ranking changes after the super series has been announced.

McGrath and Warne are officially no. 1 and 2 bowlers with Warne attaining the highest rating of his career since 1995.

The player rankings:

Batting

1 Jacques Kallis ROW 894
2 Brian Lara ROW 855
2 Ricky Ponting AUS 855
4 Rahul Dravid ROW 851
5 Virender Sehwag ROW 835
6 Matthew Hayden AUS 803
7 Shivnarine Chanderpaul WI 789
8 Marcus Trescothick ENG 778
9 Inzamam-ul-Haq ROW 773
10 Andrew Strauss ENG 760

Bowling

1 Glenn McGrath AUS 881
2 Shane Warne AUS 874
3 Muttiah Muralitharan ROW 871
4 Andrew Flintoff ROW 793
5 Shaun Pollock ROW 787
6 Makhaya Ntini ROW 784
7 Chaminda Vaas SL 770
7 Shoaib Akhtar ROW 770
9 Matthew Hoggard ENG 762
10 Irfan Pathan IND 756

Murali drops to 3 in both after a long period (possibly 2-3 years in the Top2 spots for Tests and ODIs).
The fact that Warne took 1 wicket more in the Super Test against World XI who are notionally supposedly better opposition than Australia no doubt helped him get ahead of Murali .

What puzzles me though is the ODI rankings , where Brett Lee has risen to No 2 ahead of Murali !! This despite taking 5 wickets in the 3 ODIs and bowling far more economically than Lee.
Wonder how this rankings are worked ?
(Price Waterhouse ratings were said to be strange by lot of Subcontinental observers, these must be even more stranger at times . )

 

[social]

England of the past was pathetic against spin. The current English team - is it really as pathetic against spin? No.

He has been bowling superbly and it has not been just the Ashes. The bowling spells vs ROW were pretty good too and for all to see.

I dont understand how just because Mcgrath would average abit less than Warne during a period he could be declared 'easily the best bowler' above Warne.

OK "easily" is a bit over the top but

McGrath has been ranked the no. 1 bowler in the world for several years not just during the period in question.

Unlike the others, he rarely plays on a wicket that suits him yet averages substantially less than Warne. He also averages less than Murali despite the fact that the latter plays at least half his matches on wickets tailor-made for him.

Unlike Warne, he has rarely been dominated for consecutive innings let alone an entire series.

Unlike Murali, he is just as effective away from home.


For mine, McGrath is clearly the world's best bowler and has been for a relatively long time.

 

[marc71178]

The fact that Warne took 1 wicket more in the Super Test against World XI who are notionally supposedly better opposition than Australia no doubt helped him get ahead of Murali .

To be fair, they're a bit more than just supposedly better (as individuals)

What puzzles me though is the ODI rankings , where Brett Lee has risen to No 2 ahead of Murali !! This despite taking 5 wickets in the 3 ODIs and bowling far more economically than Lee.

In terms of the men he got though, they're not rated that highly, which probably had an effect.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Murali drops to 3 in both after a long period (possibly 2-3 years in the Top2 spots for Tests and ODIs).
The fact that Warne took 1 wicket more in the Super Test against World XI who are notionally supposedly better opposition than Australia no doubt helped him get ahead of Murali .

What puzzles me though is the ODI rankings , where Brett Lee has risen to No 2 ahead of Murali !! This despite taking 5 wickets in the 3 ODIs and bowling far more economically than Lee.
Wonder how this rankings are worked ?
(Price Waterhouse ratings were said to be strange by lot of Subcontinental observers, these must be even more stranger at times . )

Lee's been rising in the rankings for some time, though. He has 47 ODI wickets in 2005 so far, 10 clear of McGrath who is in second place, and well clear of Murali. I think you'll find it's the long-term buildup of Lee's rating that has seen him move ahead of Murali, not just the Super Series. And, for what it's worth, Lee took 7 wickets in the 3 Super Series ODIs, at an average of 15.43, with an economy rate of 4.41. This is compared to Murali's 5 wickets @ 24.40, with an economy rate of 4.07. Murali dismissed Katich (twice), Martyn, Ponting and Symonds, while Lee dismissed Dravid (twice), Sehwag, Lara, Kallis, Gayle and Vettori. It's not hard to see why Lee's rating for the series would have been marginally higher, nor why he would have been improving this year with 47 wickets @ 19 and an economy rate of 4.42.

 

[Jono]

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.

Whilst I agree with your overall point, Kallis doesn't bat 3 anymore. He hasn't for a long time now, and hence Trescothick/Strauss/Vaughan would rate better now IMO than Smith/De Villiers/Dippenaar.

England's top 3 than would rate third in the world, which ain't bad really.

 

[Pratters]

Maybe you can post hear neutralguy..

 

[neutralguy]

Maybe you can post hear neutralguy..

thank you pratush. Well india after their series levelling win has moved up in the ICC one-day rakings to 4th position.Only time wil tell whether theycan hold on to their rankings or go down again.