Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: The stupidity of the PWC all rounder ratings:

  1. #1
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,905

    The stupidity of the PWC all rounder ratings:

    1st Kallis - Fair enough, he's at 4 for batting and 6 for bowling

    2nd Pollock - OK - he's 42 for batting, but 3 for bowling

    3rd Cairns - 29 for batting and 12 for bowling

    4th is Shane Warne - now I reckon this must be the first time he's been described as an all-rounder when people haven't been discussing his weight! - for the record, he's 83rd for batting and 4th for bowling!
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  2. #2
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,315
    What so you think the allrounder ratings are the only stupid and meaningless ones? I've been saying the same for years about the batting and bowling ones..............
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  3. #3
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,905
    I think the batsman and bowlers are fairly accurate to be honest.

  4. #4
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    25,599
    The all rounder rankings work just like the batting and bowling ones, if a players performs to a standard much better than his average he will go up, the better he performs the more points he gets, Warney scored 57 runs in the first test, compare that to his test average of 16 its obvious he would go up.
    Graeme Smith did the same with his batting, he went from the 80's to top 20 after his 200.


  5. #5
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,079
    I have no problems with Warne being classed as an allrounder. He is an awesome bowler and has a couple of good scores with the bat beside his name.. Including a 99 against NZ

  6. #6
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,905
    No they're not based on his average ata ll - they're based on conditions, opponents and other scores in the match - hence Gooch has the highest rated Innings of all time!

  7. #7
    International 12th Man Bazza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hants, England
    Posts
    1,710
    Aren't they calculated by multiplying the batting and bowling ratings together and then dividing by 1000 or something? So for example someone rated 700 for batting and 700 bowling is better than being 900 in one and 500 for the other. Hence being a more balanced all rounder is favoured. I guess there just aren't many at the moment (as we've discussed in another thread).

    Overall I think the PWC ratings are very good and far more accurate than any other attempt to date.
    My house is burned down but I can see the sky.

  8. #8
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
    Aren't they calculated by multiplying the batting and bowling ratings together and then dividing by 1000 or something? So for example someone rated 700 for batting and 700 bowling is better than being 900 in one and 500 for the other. Hence being a more balanced all rounder is favoured. I guess there just aren't many at the moment (as we've discussed in another thread).

    Overall I think the PWC ratings are very good and far more accurate than any other attempt to date.
    I remember Jayasuria was in the All-Rounder's list for a while but then he really was chipping in with useful wickets and was in form with the bat. He should not be batting down the order, his place is opening and has been all his career.
    "Age is just a stupid number"

    20...that's a rather big number :(:(:(

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,881
    I think this actually hits on the abject lack of all rounders in World Cricket...
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  10. #10
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,905
    A point I've been stressing for quite some while now.

    At the last check I made, Darren Gough was England's number 1 all rounder.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,315
    Maybe with the amount of cricket played these days, there are much fewer people who can actually bat AND bowl well on a consistent basis and maintain the energy to do so without getting burnt out, injured etc.

  12. #12
    International Captain masterblaster's Avatar
    Netblazer3D Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,065
    We should see Sanjay Bangar and Ajit Agarkar up there soon!!

    Self Elected Vice-President of AAAS
    (Ajit Agarkar Appreciation Society)


    "Uniting Ajit Agarkar Fans World Wide"

    Always Live Life With: Intensity, Integrity and Intelligence

  13. #13
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,870
    There is really an abject lack of quality all-rounders in modern cricket. When we think of how many there were in just the previous generation of players(Botham, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil, Clive Rice), there is no one who comes close currently. In fact Kallis is the only one who is eligible for that definition right now. Cairns could have been a top-notch all-rounder but for his frequent injuries and consequent time-offs.
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    very very close friend of mine is an Arab Christian and he speaks Arabic too and the visible hidden filth shows the mentality which may never change .....
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    AAooouchh !!!!!
    I still remember that zipper accident of mine when I was in kindergarten ..... (Thing is OK I repeat thing is OK now )!!!

  14. #14
    International Captain masterblaster's Avatar
    Netblazer3D Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,065
    Yes your right Anil, we are not. But all rounders of the 90's and now the 2000's have all been useful Utility Cricketers. You think of Robin Singh, Abdur Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood, Shahid Afridi, Sanath Jayasuriya, Lance Klusener, Ajit Agarkar and Sanjay Bangar have all been classed as Utility Cricketers, but im not sure why a decent all rounder isnt coming up through the ranks.

    Jacques Kallis is certainly the real deal in terms of an all rounder, Shaun Pollock and Chris Cairns are as close as they get, Symonds, Harvey and Lee were all utility cricketers which never became great, and Shane Watson has talent so you never know.

  15. #15
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,905
    I think TC hit the nail on the head.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •