Are the PWC (Batting and Bowling) ratings accurate in your opinion?

[marc71178]

Ignoring the All-rounder as there isn't a real way of sorting it at the moment.

 

[Blewy]

Yeah i think so, There is no real doubt that Matt Hayden has been the standout batsman over the past 2 seasons, and Glenn McGrath has been easily the best bowler....

 

[age_master]

i agree they are accurate enough

 

[Eclipse]

Yeah I would agree with them for the most part there are times when they are not perfect but its very hard to make a perfect rating system.

 

[nehrafan]

I think its flawed, though i don't think any rating can be perfect!

 

[Eclipse]

I dont think I would argue with the current top 5 batsman and bowlers.

 

[vandemataram]

The top 4-5 batsmen and bowlers rating is fine, rest is all screwed up.

 

[Simon]

they are accurate, there are plenty of systems that are going around, but these are the most accurate ones by far.

 

[marc71178]

To those that say it's screwed up outside the top 5, what do you base this on - surely it's going to wrong for all if it's wrong for some?

Also, interesting how the vote is close, yet the comments all tend to support it - are some people just voting without commenting?

 

[Neil Pickup]

(Or people multiple voting...)

It's the best available.

 

[Bazza]

Some people say it isn't great but there's nothing better. Personally I think they are very good and accurate. The weightings ensure present form is taken into account, as well as overall records and history. They're not infallible but never will be, so the PwC are by far the best ratings around and pretty close to spot on if you ask me. The AR needs looking at, but as we've seen recently, an AR is difficult enough to define by itself, so what do you expect....

 

[Rik]

For All Rounders shouldn't they just pick the players with the best 2 ratings and show both ratings instead of making an all-rounder rating by mixing the 2 together?

 

[marc71178]

But how do you determine best 2 ratings?

is someone with 600 in each better or worse than someone 800 and 300 or 800 and 400?

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by marc71178
But how do you determine best 2 ratings?

is someone with 600 in each better or worse than someone 800 and 300 or 800 and 400?

Well you don't allow someone who is blatently better at bowling in like Warne, he is not an all-rounder just a great bowler. Anyway you have to find a problem with something I say don't you Marc?

 

[marc71178]

I just didn't understand how you would determine it from looking at the ratings!

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by marc71178
I just didn't understand how you would determine it from looking at the ratings!

What I was meaning was ithey could show both ratings as well. I mean if Warne is 4th in the bowling and 89th in the batting...then people will understand that he is not really an all-rounder. I wasn't suggesting they used it as a method of working who should be in the List. But they've got to work out a system so people who are great bowlers and average batsmen can't get into it just by being a superb bowler. It's sorta taking away the whole point of the all-rounder ratings. I would, however, put someone like Streak in, as he can bat and bowl well.

 

[Gotchya]

I dont know...but to me they just dont look right :ticking: a feeling thats all, maybe because their aren't enough Pakistani's in there ? all in all though i think its better then most we have today.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Pakistan don't have many up there because they a) haven't played much lately and b) have had a few shockers of late

The A/R rating shows the total dearth of any quality A/Rs in Tests today...