Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 88

Thread: ICC's top 20 all-time list

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,850

    ICC's top 20 all-time list

    Hayden greater than Sachin: ICC

    15 Jan 2009, 0008 hrs IST, TNN
    Print EMail Discuss Share Save Comment Text:

    NEW DELHI: Donald Bradman - the unquestioned supreme deity of batting - said Sachin Tendulkar reminded him of himself more than anybody before or Matthew Hayden and Sachin Tendulkar walk towards the pavilion during the lunch break on the fifth and final day of their third Test in New Delhi on November 2, 2008. (Reuters Photo)
    since. You might think Sachin can, thus, safely consider the No. 2 slot in a list of all-time greats his for the taking. But you would be wrong, or so says the ICC. Sachin isn’t even in the top 20 Test batsmen, according to new ICC "best ever" ratings.

    So who are the "greats" who elbowed Sachin out? Among those ahead of his No. 26 rank are Kumar Sangakkara at joint sixth, Matthew Hayden (joint 10th), Mike Hussey and Neil Harvey (joint 17th), Kevin Pietersen (No. 24) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul, one slot above the Indian maestro.

    The only Indian in the top 20 is Sunil Gavaskar, who only just gets in ahead of West Indian George Headley. How about The Wall? Rahul Dravid stands not so tall at No. 30.

    "Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period," the ICC website explains, which makes it slightly difficult to understand why none of the top four run-getters in Tests - Sachin, Brian Lara, Alan Border and Steve Waugh - figures among the ICC’s top 20 Test batsmen. In Sachin’s case, we can only conclude that the ICC believes 12,429 runs and 41 tons are not excellent enough. Or perhaps 19 years is not a prolonged enough period.

    Hayden greater than Sachin: ICC*-*News*-*News*-*Cricket on Times of India

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,179
    Always nice to see an article written from the neutral perspective without obvious bias
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  3. #3
    International Debutant Evermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,250
    I don't know which is stupider - the rankings or that article. It's from the Ben Dorries school of journalism.

  4. #4
    International Coach biased indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    office
    Posts
    11,012
    That is not actually a ranking list its based on the peak ranking each player has achvied a player in his purpule patch might achive that any day
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    RIP Craigos


  5. #5
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Evermind View Post
    I don't know which is stupider - the rankings or that article. It's from the Ben Dorries school of journalism.
    Or the person who posts it here. You can always rely on Cevno to find an anti-Indian conspiracy in whatever's occurring...

    Obviously ranking players who's careers are still in motion can be a risking proposition. If Pietersen for instance stays at his current level for another decade, he'll have a legitimate case to be ranked ahead of Sachin (not a cast-iron case, but one worth discussing). In the meantime however, you take this for what it is - an interesting statistical analysis, but certainly not definitive.

    Where did Lara finish out of interest?
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  6. #6
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,947
    Ignoring the allegations and counter allegations of bias, it is plainly obvious this is a ridiculous method of ranking batsmen all time. All it does is rank them according to one single critereon - the highest peak ever achieved by a batsman in his career. As long as you cash in big time once in your career when in form, it doesn't matter if you were mediocre before and after.

    Nothing illustrates the ridiculousness of this system more than the realisation that it implies that Bradman was only 1.66% better than the second best batsman of all time. Heck, it even implies that Bradman was only 6% better than the 20th best batsman of alltime Guess who this 20th ranked batsman is? Sunil Gavaskar. The 20th ranked Gavaskar is not only an impressive 94% as good as Bradman was, he's also 14 places below the legendary skull cap wearing quickie bashing Kumar Sangakkara.
    Last edited by G.I.Joe; 15-01-2009 at 03:23 AM.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    It's not a ridiculous method - it simply measures one quite relevant dimension of greatness - how you stand compared to your direct peers. If you take the time to read more than the headline of the article, you can appreciate that and make use of an interesting measurement.

  8. #8
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    It's not a ridiculous method - it simply measures one quite relevant dimension of greatness - how you stand compared to your direct peers. If you take the time to read more than the headline of the article, you can appreciate that and make use of an interesting measurement.
    What it does is rate your peaks relative to those of your peers. A batsman is however more than just his absolute peaks. It is at best one critereon contributing to a batsman's greatness, but is no more a definitive measurement of greatness than a list of alltime century makers is.

  9. #9
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,518
    Why is this receiving so much attention now? These ICC "best ever" ratings aren't new at all, they've been available for viewing on the website for years and I can remember a number of debates about them on this very forum - I even instigated one when Ponting hit 942, the equal third highest rating ever, a couple of years ago.

    Look through the hype and the lazy journalism people.
    Last edited by The Sean; 15-01-2009 at 03:48 AM.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos

  10. #10
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    It's not a ridiculous method - it simply measures one quite relevant dimension of greatness - how you stand compared to your direct peers. If you take the time to read more than the headline of the article, you can appreciate that and make use of an interesting measurement.
    But they deceive ignorant people by calling it a 'All-time (or best-ever) ranking for batting in tests'...They should have called it a 'Ranking of test batsmen based on how much more they achieved in their peaks compared to their peers' or something like that, though that heading wouldn't have fetched that much attention I am sure.

    This ranking (the all-time one, not the current players one which is decent to an extent) is as stupid as a ranking based on averages only where batsmen are arranged in order of their averages, or even more stupid perhaps.
    "I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
    - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)

  11. #11
    State Captain krkode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,781
    I guess it's a good measure of direct comparison to your peers. Perhaps it's fair to say that in 2001 Hayden was greater than Tendulkar, in 2002 it was someone else, in 2004-2005 maybe it was Kallis, in 2005-2007 Yusuf, in 2006-2008 Chanderpaul, etc. etc. (Probably not accurate, I just made those up.)

    Mohammad Yusuf, Chanderpaul, Kallis, Hussey, Sangakkara, Hayden, etc. have all experienced career "peaks" so to speak where their form was just ungodly good compared to the rest of their career. And naturally this corresponded with a high spot on the ICC test ranking during their blitz form. It's an interesting statistic but the article's "punch line" is obviously meant to be provocative.

    Tendulkar, on the other hand, has averaged 50+ since 1994 when he was just 29-games old. For some perspective, that's before any of the players I mentioned before even made their debut. And has maintained said average for 15 years and only made it better. Now that's something, IMO.

    I guess it goes to say that the truly great batsmen don't peak.

  12. #12
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post

    Where did Lara finish out of interest?
    Lara's peak rating was 911, putting him a couple of places above Sachin but also not in the top 20. And out of interest Wally Hammond is actually one spot BELOW Tendulkar with a peak of 897.

    The link for anyone who wants it is:

    Reliance Mobile ICC Player Rankings
    Last edited by The Sean; 15-01-2009 at 04:04 AM.

  13. #13
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just under your skin
    Posts
    5,829
    Now this is best ever rankings a player has ever got. This list does not talk about the troughs of their careers. The average points during the career would have been a better rating
    Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)

  14. #14
    International Coach biased indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    office
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    It's not a ridiculous method - it simply measures one quite relevant dimension of greatness - how you stand compared to your direct peers. If you take the time to read more than the headline of the article, you can appreciate that and make use of an interesting measurement.
    if you follow the same thing underwood is better bowler than warne at some point of time in there career

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by biased indian View Post
    if you follow the same thing underwood is better bowler than warne at some point of time in there career
    But who is actually saying that this is the definitive measurement of greatness? I don't think even the article's authors are seriously suggesting that...

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. All time Australia XI vs all time West Indies XI
    By MARSHALLED in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-10-2005, 06:27 PM
  2. The List
    By Loony BoB in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 25-05-2004, 02:22 PM
  3. The ICC's stance on sledging
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-10-2003, 04:35 PM

Posting Permissions

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