ICC's top 20 all-time list

[Cevno]

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

 

[Goughy]

Always nice to see an article written from the neutral perspective without obvious bias

 

[Evermind]

I don't know which is stupider - the rankings or that article. It's from the Ben Dorries school of journalism.

 

[biased indian]

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

 

[Matt79]

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?

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

 

[Matt79]

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.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

 

[The Sean]

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.

 

[weldone]

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.

 

[krkode]

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.

 

[The Sean]

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

 

[Migara]

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

 

[biased indian]

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

 

[Matt79]

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...

 

[biased indian]

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...

i am just putting a suggestion as sean said this thing was there for a long time

some body thought that they will say some thing about hayden as he retired might have mentioned it some where no problem for me as i don't care about it any way

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I do think it's quite an interesting list, you just have to read it in the right way.

It's not an overall ranking of the best batsmen, full stop, it's a ranking based on which batsmen have been most dominant for an extended period during their careers. It makes sense that people would be close to Bradman, because the remarkable thing about Bradman wasn't some hot streak where he scored a century every test for three years or something, it's that he was as good as anyone has ever been for a year or two for his whole career.

Also, the % based comparisons are a bit bogus, because the ranking system is based off your performances against other players who also have ratings. The further you get from the mean, the more you have to do for your rating to go up, so you can't really expect Bradman to get a rating of 1700 or whatever.

Someone like Yousuf had an amazing, extended period of dominance, greater than Tendulkar ever did, at least by this rating system. That's not the same as saying he's a better batsman though, and it's not really the ICC's claim as far anything I've read suggests.

Tendulkar's not the only great who suffers on this ranking system from having no amazing purple patch anyway. Warne is the same, had a career of sustained greatness without ever averaging 18 for a few seasons or anything like that, so he's lower than he would be in most estimations as well.

 

[The Sean]

It makes sense that people would be close to Bradman, because the remarkable thing about Bradman wasn't some hot streak where he scored a century every test for three years or something, it's that he was as good as anyone has ever been for a year or two for his whole career.

Also, the % based comparisons are a bit bogus, because the ranking system is based off your performances against other players who also have ratings. The further you get from the mean, the more you have to do for your rating to go up, so you can't really expect Bradman to get a rating of 1700 or whatever.

Precisely. If you really want to see the wonder of Bradman, forget about comparing peak rating % and have a look at his career graph on the website – once he’d built his points up over the first few years of his career he plateaued out and maintained a rating hovering around the 950 mark all the way until his retirement.

So what this means is that his average level of performance, match after match for over a decade, was higher than the greatest single peak any other batsman has ever achieved.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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...

The article's authors aren't. The ICC certainly are.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The article's authors aren't. The ICC certainly are.

You're kidding, aren't you? Because the ICC publish a ratings system, probably with an over-hyped title, they are saying that it's the definitive measure of a batsman?