• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Impact Index Cricket - ODI Batsman and Bowlers

vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
robelinda linked to an article which listed Shane Watson as the 16th best player of all time in ODI cricket. Thought I'd look up the website, and have a look at all the lists. Left the best player list in that thread, but interesting to see how they run a ruler over the batsmen and bowlers.

ODI Bowlers

Top ODI Bowlers

1. Garner
2. Bond
3. McGrath
4. Muralitharan
5. Lee
6. Holding
7. Hadlee
8. Warne
9. Saqlain
10. Donald
11. Pollock
12. Ambrose
13. Fleming
14. Bracken
15. Ntini
16. Wasim
17. Harbhajan
18. McDermott
19. Waqar
20. Chatfield

Thing that stands out the most to me is Wasim being so low. Obviously they don't take longevity into account that much, with Bond so high and Wasim being lower, and interesting to see Damien Fleming rated so highly.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
ODI Batsmen

1. Richards
2. Jones
3. Greenidge
4. Tendulkar
5. Hayden
6. Crowe
7. Haynes
8. Lamb
9. Lara
10. Anwar
11. Gilchrist
12. Kirsten
13. Ponting
14. Kallis
15. Miandad
16. M. Waugh
17. G. Smith
18. Gayle
19. Boon
20. Pietersen

Seems to be a bit of a bias to the batsmen of the 1980s. The calculations seem to be based around what was happening in each match, and with Jones and Viv being far ahead of their contemporaries, it may have helped their standing quite a bit. Interesting not to see Bevan there, and generally not many guys who bat below the number 4 - Dhoni, Hussey, etc.
 
Last edited:
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The whole thing seems a complete waste of time. How does Gilchrist end up well ahead of Sachin in the 'best player' list (where presumably Sachin's bowling would have bumped him up the rankings as per the bias towards allrounders) but in the pure batting list, Sachin is miles ahead? The latter is fine, the former makes no sense unless the weights make Gilchrist's catching ahead of Sachin's wicket-taking. If that's the case, no Mark Waugh in this list, one of Aus's best ever ODI batters and a brilliant catcher? And if we're taking into account the whole package, no Symonds?

Serious questions over the method. Doesn't pass the bull**** test.

EDIT: It's worse than I thought;

http://www.impactindexcricket.com/methodology.html

Bias city.
 
Last edited:
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seems like a strange system to rate cricketers. Safe to say I don't understand it very well.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Multiply that index by log (matches) + 1 of matches they played. because longevity is also important. 1 added because of log 1 = 0. Innings bowled or overs bowled / wickets taken would be a better indicator.

For the bowling it gives



I did one analysis and it had McGratrh, Wasim, Murali and Garner in first 4 places where most of the members agreed with. Wasim has gone quite a way so may be there's a issue with the methodology. And these are the top 20 displayed in the above site. There may be ones who they've missed.
 
Cevno

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:


Seems to be a bit of a bias to the batsmen of the 1980s. The calculations seem to be based around what was happening in each match, and with Jones and Viv being far ahead of their contemporaries, it may have helped their standing quite a bit..
Click to expand...


Where's Zaheer Abbas then?Had a similar record to VIV in terms of both SR and Average and in a way weaker team too.

And either Viv or Jones were not more ahead of their contemporaries like Abbas and others than what Sachin was of his contemporaries in the 90's(only Bevan and perhaps Klusener were close).
It's only in the 2000's that everyone catched up.
 
Last edited:
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Cevno said:
Where's Zaheer Abbas then?Had a similar record to VIV in terms of both SR and Average and in a way weaker team too.

And either Viv or Jones were not more ahead of their contemporaries like Abbas and others than what Sachin was of his contemporaries in the 90's(only Bevan and perhaps Klusener were close).
It's only in the 2000's that everyone catched up.
Click to expand...
I really don't think Sachin's average was so flash in the 90s.. I thought he peaked in the late 90s but there was an initial period when he had not even scored a hundred after so many games.. His first hundred was in 1994, IIRC..
 
Cevno

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
I really don't think Sachin's average was so flash in the 90s.. I thought he peaked in the late 90s but there was an initial period when he had not even scored a hundred after so many games.. His first hundred was in 1994, IIRC..
Click to expand...
Late 90's still comes in the 90's though.
 
G.I.Joe

G.I.Joe

International Coach
honestbharani said:
I really don't think Sachin's average was so flash in the 90s.. I thought he peaked in the late 90s but there was an initial period when he had not even scored a hundred after so many games.. His first hundred was in 1994, IIRC..
Click to expand...
He did score his first 100 in Sep' 94. But once he scored that first one, he needed just 4 years exactly to hit 16 more and break Haynes' record of most ODI hundreds in a career. That is nothing short of phenomenal.
 
L Trumper

L Trumper

State Regular
G.I.Joe said:
He did score his first 100 in Sep' 94. But once he scored that first one, he needed just 4 years exactly to hit 16 more and break Haynes' record of most ODI hundreds in a career. That is nothing short of phenomenal.
Click to expand...
India played lot of odis [close to infinite i'd guess] during that time and this method didn't take longevity into account, so it doesn't really matter in this evaluation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top