How in the world is Akthar ranked 8th best in the world????

[susudear]

http://www.iccreliancerankings.com/

Bull ****.

Akthar is ranked presently 8th in the list of bowlers.

And to make it even sound ridiculous, he was ranked 9th in the last week.

Which means his rankings pushed up without him playing a single match in the entire year??

And here are the stats of his since 1-Jan-2004

60 wickets from 17 matches @ 30.18!! (Not one year, but a full 5 years!!!)

That puts him as the 20th best bowler (in terms of bowling average) for bowlers with 50+ wickets since 2004!!!

And last two years, he's taken just 13 wickets.

Is the ranking rewarding players for not playing????

Isn't it time ICC rankings were completely overhauled to avoid these types of anomalies??

Or am I missing something???

 

[weldone]

Or am I missing something???

This happened because Pakistan didn't play a single match in this whole year. This wouldn't have happened had Pakistan played some matches without Akhtar...Until then, his points will remain unchanged, and hence his ranking won't change much...

Actually ICC rankings work to an extent (it's not flawless though) in providing a decent picture through the current ratings...Although ICC"s overall ratings (the one involving players of all-time) absolutely sucks...

 

[Rant0r]

how odd, i personally don't rate him at all, the guy's an idiot, he has pace and that's all, no heart, no brains, no pride

 

[Rant0r]

This happened because Pakistan didn't play a single match in this whole year. This wouldn't have happened had Pakistan played some matches without Akhtar...Until then, his points will remain unchanged, and hence his ranking won't change much...

i spose that makes sense, if his team doesn't play, then his rating can't change, but others ratings can go down, pushing him up, i always thought the icc rankings were fairly sound.

 

[susudear]

Strange

This happened because Pakistan didn't play a single match in this whole year. This wouldn't have happened had Pakistan played some matches without Akhtar...Until then, his points will remain unchanged, and hence his ranking won't change much...

But then his ranking went UP by a point in the latest rankings!!

I find it a serious flaw in the rankings.

 

[weldone]

But then his ranking went UP by a point in the latest rankings!!

Really!!!

Edit: Ya that's possible ...Ranking can go up or down as long as Pakistan don't play (for example it can go up if the ones above him play poorly), but points can't...

 

[susudear]

Yeah

Really!!!

ICC Test bowling rankings as on 25-Dec-08 ----> He's ranked 9th

as on 26th Dec 08 ------> He's ranked 8th!

 

[jondavluc]

Well the rankings are based on his whole career up to date so it make sense that his score is up there and he will be rated their until someone beats his score or until he quits international cricket.

 

[weldone]

ICC Test bowling rankings as on 25-Dec-08 ----> He's ranked 9th

as on 26th Dec 08 ------> He's ranked 8th!

Ya that's possible ...Ranking can go up or down as long as Pakistan don't play (for example it can go up if the ones above him play poorly), but points can't...

 

[Rant0r]

i don't think it's on the entire career, i think it's only like on the last 12-24 months, much like the team rankings, correct me if i'm wrong

 

[weldone]

i don't think it's on the entire career, i think it's only like on the last 12-24 months, much like the team rankings, correct me if i'm wrong

Rankings are based on a mixture of form and the whole career...They do this by assigning more weights to the recent matches and less weights to the matches played a few years ago...In fact, the difference between these weights is so much that the rankings tilt more towards form than career.

 

[Rant0r]

http://www.iccreliancerankings.com/faq.php

the ratings don't allow for pitch conditions, interesting, so a hundred on a typical adelaide road is the same as runs on the greentop in brisbane, rightio

 

[Scaly piscine]

http://www.iccreliancerankings.com/faq.php

the ratings don't allow for pitch conditions, interesting, so a hundred on a typical adelaide road is the same as runs on the greentop in brisbane, rightio

Err no it's entirely based on the scorecard. A hundred in a high scoring match is worth a lot less than a hundred in a low scoring match. Likewise wickets in a high scoring match are worth more than wickets in a low scoring match. Also the ratings look at the strength of the opponents (ie how highly rated someone you got out is, or how highly rated the bowling is you're facing). So it is quite possible to get a high rating when averaging 30 with the ball and get a low one when averaging 25, there are lots of factors involved.

 

[Rant0r]

yeah but the pitch makes a huge difference, when the lawnmower broke down in the west indies and rain came in '95 and steve waugh made 60 something not out, he rated it better than the 200 he made later in the same series, this system doesn't allow for that.

 

[Matt79]

except that matches in difficult conditions or against gun attacks will almost certainly be lower scoring whereas on roads or against bad attacks they'll be higher scoring, so that is how the system factors this in.

 

[Rant0r]

yeah but a high scoring match might not mean the opposition were poo or that the pitch was flat, just that they played well.

it's the best system around though, not disputing that, but nowhere near perfect.

 

[Migara]

how odd, i personally don't rate him at all, the guy's an idiot, he has pace and that's all, no heart, no brains, no pride

But sadly better than any Indian fast (or medium pacer actually) bowler ever barring Kapil Dev.

 

[Rant0r]

including the current crop ? they have an unreal battery of fast bowlers at the moment

 

[Migara]

Wouldn't you want fit an firing Akthar (although seldom he's fit and hence firing) in your team? On his day, he has shown he can destroy the best. He destroyed Aussie batting line up few times and Indian few times, which are arguably the best in current era. He would have done the damn same thing if he was presented with Bradmans side or WIndies in early 80s. No Indian bowles was capable of such destruction single handedly as Akthar. And he has very few peers through a century of test cricket to match his deadliness on his day.

 

[Rant0r]

i would not have him in any first, second or third strength team no, he's an overrated waste of space