The Minnow bashers

[Days of Grace]

I have summer break at my school in Japan at the moment, so I'd thought I'd once more play around with my ratings. I have not changed the formula, but instead, I have taken away the matches against "minnows" from a batsmen's/bowler's rating.

First, I defined what a minnow was. A minnow is, IMO, a team that has not yet beaten a non-minnow team in a test series of at least 3 matches. Your test status as a minnow means that you are also a minnow in ODIs, to make it simpler.

Minnows in the history of cricket:
South Africa 1889-1902
West Indies 1928-1933
New Zealand 1930-1969
India 1932-1960
Pakistan 1952-1958
Sri Lanka 1982-1985
Zimbabwe 1992-
Bangladesh 2000-



From this, I got to work. Notice the difference in ratings from the original versions and the versions where matches against minnows have been taken out of consideration:

Top 30 Test Batsmen (Original)

1 Bradman 1414
2 Hobbs 924
3 Ponting 901
4 Tendulkar 882
5 Hammond 853
6 Kallis 849
7 Sobers 845
8 Headley 843
9 Hayden 840
10 Hutton 839
11 Lara 835
12 Sutcliffe 834
13 Gavaskar 832
14 Pollock 824
15 Barrington 818
16 Mohammad Yousuf 807
17 Weekes 802
18 Dravid 798
19 Hussey 794
20 Chappell 787
21 Jackson 786
22 Walcott 786
23 S. Waugh 774
24 Richards 764
25 Javed Miandad 761
26 Inzamam-Ul-Haq 757
27 Compton 755
28 Border 754
29 Nourse 750
30 Jayawardene 738

Top 30 Test Batsmen (vs. non-minnows)

1 Bradman 1359
2 Hobbs 901
3 Ponting 884
4 Headley 867
5 Sutcliffe 855
6 Pollock 854
7 Hutton 847
8 Tendulkar 826
9 Gavaskar 822
10 Lara 820
11 Kallis 793
12 Hayden 788
13 Jackson 786
14 Chappell 786
15 Hammond 785
16 Hussey 779
17 Sobers 778
18 Javed Miandad 777
19 Barrington 776
20 Richards 764
21 Nourse 759
22 Border 753
23 Dravid 750
24 S. Waugh 736
25 Mohammad Yousuf 736
26 Boycott 718
27 Inzamam-Ul-Haq 716
28 Compton 708
29 Langer 706
30 Chanderpaul 703

Notice the amount of change within the top 10. Sobers' battering of a weak Pakistan team in the mid-1950s drastically affects his rating. Sutcliffe and Hutton's averages actually improve And Yousuf is shown up for the minnow-basher he really is. Hammond must have made merry against India in the 1930s as well.


Top 30 Test Bowlers (Original)

1 Muralitharan 1248
2 Barnes 996
3 Hadlee 926
4 Warne 914
5 McGrath 912
6 Marshall 886
7 Ambrose 859
8 Lillee 822
9 O'Reilly 817
10 Grimmett 815
11 Trueman 804
12 Imran Khan 793
13 Donald 786
14 Kumble 781
15 Davidson 780
16 Wasim Akram 769
17 Waqar Younis 766
18 Garner 764
19 Walsh 747
20 Lohmann 743
21 Blythe 731
22 Laker 720
23 S.M. Pollock 715
24 Bedser 698
25 Turner 698
26 Steyn 684
27 Wardle 678
28 Holding 677
29 Adcock 655
30 Tayfield 644

Top 30 Test Bowlers (vs. non-minnows)
1 Muralitharan 1022
2 Barnes 996
3 McGrath 910
4 Warne 905
5 Marshall 886
6 Hadlee 870
7 Lillee 823
8 Ambrose 819
9 Donald 774
10 Grimmett 767
11 Garner 764
12 Kumble 759
13 Walsh 744
14 Imran Khan 739
15 Wasim Akram 738
16 Blythe 731
17 Davidson 720
18 O'Reilly 716
19 S.M. Pollock 702
20 Trueman 699
21 Turner 698
22 Laker 691
23 Holding 677
24 Lohmann 672
25 Waqar Younis 648
26 Steyn 646
27 Lindwall 624
28 Botham 623
29 Peel 619
30 Roberts 613

So, Murali, as predicted, loses a huge amount of points. Hadlee drops behind McGrath, Warne and Marshall. Trueman is the biggest surprise. As is Walsh, who actually loses little of his overall rating

Which ratings list (original or non-minnow) is better as a judge of the greatest ever Test cricketers?

One-Day International lists to follow.

 

[fredfertang]

Could you provide a link to where you set out how the formula works?

 

[Days of Grace]

Top 20 ODI batsmen (original)

1 Tendulkar 1010
2 Ponting 900
3 Richards 882
4 Ganguly 840
5 Jayasuriya 835
6 Kallis 835
7 Bevan 833
8 Gilchrist 833
9 Hussey 833
10 Lara 832
11 Pietersen 826
12 Zaheer Abbas 826
13 Mohammad Yousuf 825
14 Saeed Anwar 823
15 Dhoni 823
16 Waugh 810
17 Hayden 801
18 Gibbs 792
19 Gayle 789
20 Smith 784

Top 20 ODI batsmen (vs. non-minnows)

1 Tendulkar 938
2 Richards 886
3 Ponting 882
4 Hussey 843
5 Pietersen 830
6 Bevan 829
7 Gilchrist 816
8 Kallis 805
9 Lara 803
10 Zaheer Abbas 798
11 Dhoni 796
12 Jayasuriya 792
13 Hayden 792
14 Saeed Anwar 781
15 Haynes 774
16 Ganguly 769
17 Symonds 764
18 Jones 764
19 Waugh 752
20 Dravid 752

Once again, Yousuf drops out of contention. And Ganguly has a giant fall from grace as well.


Top 20 ODI bowlers (original)

1 Garner 952
2 Muralitharan 945
3 Wasim Akram 926
4 Waqar Younis 916
5 McGrath 881
6 Saqlain Mushtaq 866
7 Bond 860
8 Pollock 857
9 Lee 849
10 Lillee 824
11 Donald 815
12 Hadlee 811
13 Holding 811
14 Ambrose 801
15 Roberts 783
16 Willis 758
17 Ntini 738
18 Bracken 731
19 Shoaib Akhtar 730
20 Warne 729

Top 20 ODI bowlers (vs. non-minnows)

1 Waqar Younis 897
2 Garner 888
3 Lillee 861
4 Lee 856
5 Wasim Akram 854
6 McGrath 840
7 Holding 807
8 Bond 802
9 Pollock 798
10 Muralitharan 790
11 Ambrose 771
12 Roberts 771
13 Saqlain Mushtaq 768
14 Hadlee 752
15 Donald 748
16 Bracken 739
17 Warne 714
18 Rackemann 706
19 Willis 700
20 Shoaib Akhtar 697

Murali falls from no.2 to no.10
Waqar was a gun ODI bowler, he actually improves his strike-rate against the best nations, and has 26 4 wickets or more bags in just 233 games. Phenomenal striker.

 

[Dissector]

Trueman wouldn't be a surprise to many Indian fans; he absolutely destroyed us in two series in the 50's which obviously would have helped his career record.

Interesting to note that in tests while Murali does lose a lot of points he still remains no.1 and by quite a distance over any modern bowler.

 

[Days of Grace]

Could you provide a link to where you set out how the formula works?

Here you go. Gives you the formula for the Test Match ratings lower down the page.

http://www.forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=34376

Here is a link to the ODI formula. Just scroll down the page.
http://www.forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=34377

 

[BoyBrumby]

First, I defined what a minnow was. A minnow is, IMO, a team that has not yet beaten a non-minnow team in a test series of at least 3 matches. Your test status as a minnow means that you are also a minnow in ODIs, to make it simpler.

Minnows in the history of cricket:
South Africa 1889-1902
West Indies 1928-1933
New Zealand 1930-1969
India 1932-1960
Pakistan 1952-1958
Sri Lanka 1982-1985
Zimbabwe 1992-
Bangladesh 2000-

The Zimbas won a three test series in Pakistan 1-0 in 98/99.

 

[Dissector]

Yes, Zim is an unusual case. They were clearly better than minnows for some years when the Flower brothers were playing and returned to minnow status again afterwards.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah I'd say that from around 1996 to 2001, Zimbabwe couldn't really be classed as minnows.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, Zim is an unusual case. They were clearly better than minnows for some years when the Flower brothers were playing and returned to minnow status again afterwards.

Grant Flower must be a lucky man. Always included due to the talent of his brother. If Andy Flower wasnt his brother then Grant Flower would be a nobody. The difference between the 2 was that much.

And Zim have always been a minnow. They got better to a point and then declined massively but at no point did they have the talent or depth to compete with the better nations on a consistent basis.

 

[Days of Grace]

The Zimbas won a three test series in Pakistan 1-0 in 98/99.

But, really, it was a 2 match series, because the 3rd test was abandoned without a ball being bowled.

Anyway, back to the ratings. The test batsman who suffers a MASSIVE drop is Everton Weekes, who drops down to a rating of 536, compared to his original rating of 802. The other 'W', Walcott, also drops from 786 to 664

 

[Athlai]

Would be interesting to see who the greatest batsman are of all time just against minnow teams. Would it still be the greats or would we see the likes of Hayden reach number one? No shame against being the greatest player against minnows alone. Just suggests you're a bit of a dickhead.

 

[Ikki]

LOL, Lillee goes from 10th to 3rd against non-minnows (ODI).

 

[Days of Grace]

Would be interesting to see who the greatest batsman are of all time just against minnow teams. Would it still be the greats or would we see the likes of Hayden reach number one? No shame against being the greatest player against minnows alone. Just suggests you're a bit of a dickhead.

I think Everton Weekes would take that title. With Mohammad Yousuf and Wally Hammond not far behind. Tendulkar has been a bit of a minnow basher over the past few years.

 

[Ikki]

New Zealand you consider minnows in the 60s. TBF, not much difference with India AFAIK.

 

[Richard]

I defined what a minnow was. A minnow is, IMO, a team that has not yet beaten a non-minnow team in a test series of at least 3 matches. Your test status as a minnow means that you are also a minnow in ODIs, to make it simpler.

Minnows in the history of cricket:
South Africa 1889-1902
West Indies 1928-1933
New Zealand 1930-1969
India 1932-1960
Pakistan 1952-1958
Sri Lanka 1982-1985
Zimbabwe 1992-
Bangladesh 2000-

Disagree with that TBH. I don't like the term "minnow" anyway - "substandard side" is better. For mine, West Indies, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe until 2003 were never substandard.

The only substandard teams in Test history for mine are:
South Africa 1888/89-1901/02
New Zealand 1929/30-1958/59
Zimbabwe 2003-
Bangladesh 2000/01-

It's not possible to put an exact numerical definition on that. But these teams were clearly way, way below the Test-class teams - the others in their early days were merely bottom of the pile, the way West Indies have been in the last decade or so and England and Australia were in the second half of the 1980s.

If you can compete - and these teams all did - then you're worthy of Test status IMO. However, the SAfricans, Kiwis, Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis of the periods named did not. If I had my way, I'd strip all matches involving those teams of Test status. And Test cricket would be so much better for it.

 

[Days of Grace]

Why 1958/59 for New Zealand?

 

[Richard]

I've always said New Zealand's series where they finally demonstrated they were up to Test cricket was the 2-2 draw in South Africa in 1961/62.

From then on they were no longer pushovers.

 

[Beleg]

umm, Pakistani team of the 1950's were not minnows by any stretch of imagination.

 

[Days of Grace]

Care to explain?

 

[Beleg]

^

during the time period you specified, pakistan won series against NZ, Australia and WI. They won test matches against India (losing the series 2 - 1) and England (oval 54 - series drawn).

If anything, the pakistani sides during the 60's were inferior to the ones we fielded in the 50's.