Am I missing something?

[Richard]

No, it's far more likely PwC are. :saint:
Jacob Oram is ranked 9th in The World for ODI bowling.
His record, for those who don't know:
423.1 overs, 1895 runs, 59 wickets. For those who can't calculate (), that equates to an economy-rate of 4.47-an-over, and an average of 32.11.
His domestic economy-rate is extremely impressive (4.03-an-over) but in ODIs it's very poor. The average, while still a fraction lower than his domestic one, is comfortably over 30.
And yet this guy is ranked 9th most in-form bowler in The World.
Yes, it's also a commentary on the state of World cricket and bowling especially, but surely the credibility of these rankings must be called into serious question.



As if they haven't been called into question already.

 

[Langeveldt]

Maybe its the sheer dominance of the batsman in the world game???

Why, who is below him, anyone much better?

 

[Jamee999]

Crucial word FORM How good are hisstats for the last 6 mnoths to Year.

 

[Armadillo]

Well he did have a fantastic series against Pakistan in both batting and bowling,

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well he did have a fantastic series against Pakistan in both batting and bowling,

Not exactly hard to achieve, though.

Must be beared in mind.

 

[Armadillo]

Not exactly hard to achieve, though.

Must be beared in mind.

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/NATIONAL/ICC/RATINGS/ICCODIC/

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/NATIONAL/ICC/RATINGS/ICCTC/

Notice the difference in rankings. Have I made my point?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Notice the ludicroucy of the rankings.

I have back up on this.

PWC are decent, but CricInfo...

 

[Armadillo]

This is ICC not Cricinfo you knob! And one more thing, I don't think that PwC does team rankings.

 

[Tom Halsey]

ICC, then.

I know they don't do team rankings.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's the general standards.. Hogg is 22nd, Williams 18th.

It's an accurate reflection.

 

[Langeveldt]

It's the general standards.. Hogg is 22nd, Williams 18th.

It's an accurate reflection.

And its a bit of an eye-opener...

 

[Tim]

I would have to agree that while Oram has bowled well, he probably isn't in the top 10.

Although I don't think he's the only one out of place on those rankings.

 

[Craig]

No, it's far more likely PwC are. :saint:
Jacob Oram is ranked 9th in The World for ODI bowling.
His record, for those who don't know:
423.1 overs, 1895 runs, 59 wickets. For those who can't calculate (), that equates to an economy-rate of 4.47-an-over, and an average of 32.11.
His domestic economy-rate is extremely impressive (4.03-an-over) but in ODIs it's very poor. The average, while still a fraction lower than his domestic one, is comfortably over 30.
And yet this guy is ranked 9th most in-form bowler in The World.
Yes, it's also a commentary on the state of World cricket and bowling especially, but surely the credibility of these rankings must be called into serious question.



As if they haven't been called into question already.

4.47 an over is not bad at all. He managed to drop it after a bad series in Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

D'you mean in India? The TVS Cup where he went at about 6.6-an-over or something?
His only decent tournaments have been the bowler-dominated Bank Alfalah Cup, WC2003 and a couple of other offshire tournos. Then he was OK for most of the Pakistan games, home and away.
He's been back to his normal poor self against South Africa.
4.47-an-over mightn't be absymal, but it certainly is bad.

 

[marc71178]

This is ICC not Cricinfo you knob! And one more thing, I don't think that PwC does team rankings.

I wish you 2 would keep your childish arguments where the belong - the playground.

 

[marc71178]

4.47-an-over mightn't be absymal, but it certainly is bad.

You what?!

If every bowler did that, it'd be around 225 as the teams score.

In almost every game, teams exceed that.

4.47 in the current climate is a very good economy rate.

 

[Richard]

As I've said countless times, it's not that simple.
Projected scores don't relate to personal economy-rates. 4.3-an-over is what any good bowler should be aiming for less than.

 

[marc71178]

And the current state of ODI scores means that 4.47 is certainly not "bad"

 

[Richard]

No, the average scores don't relate to individual economy-rates.

 

[marc71178]

So what do they relate to then?

You cannot call an economy rate of 4.47 by any stretch of the imagination.