The top all-rounders (by rating)

[a massive zebra]

Could you work out the players with the highest average rating per match after their 25th Test? For example, if someone played 27 Tests and had a rating of 650 after 25 tests, 660 after 26 tests and 670 after 27 tests, their average rating would be:

(650+660+670)/3 = 660

A batsman does not get a full rating until he has played 40 Test innings and a bowler does not get a full rating until he has taken 100 wickets, so it would be interesting to see the highest average "full rating".

Many thanks

 

[AndrewB]

You are doing a fabulous job. You should start ur own thread only for analysis realated to ICC ratings.

Request: Both Sehwag and Gilchrist have identical ODI record. Can u tell me who spent more matches or days above 650 ICC batting rating in ODI. Just want to check who was more consistent.

3407 days for Gilchrist, 2161 for Sehwag.
I don't have the data (yet) for matches-based questions.

 

[Victor Ian]

I have one that I'd love for you to be able to crack. If you took the current rating for all teams and the current rating for all players in those teams then does team-rating / sum-of-player-ratings-in-that-team show a close correlation? Then we could determine rankings for all time teams that are always being created.

Otherwise, I'd be curious to know most games spent above 900 rating.

 

[AndrewB]

I have one that I'd love for you to be able to crack. If you took the current rating for all teams and the current rating for all players in those teams then does team-rating / sum-of-player-ratings-in-that-team show a close correlation? Then we could determine rankings for all time teams that are always being created.

Otherwise, I'd be curious to know most games spent above 900 rating.

It turned out the second of those wouldn't have been too hard to work out if the ratings were updated on a logical date... anyway, here's the answer. "Games" here only includes those where the person in question actually played.

Batsmen
30 GS Sobers
28 DG Bradman
25 L Hutton
24 SPD Smith
22 PBH May
16 RT Ponting
14 JB Hobbs
14 IVA Richards
9 KC Sangakkara
9 AB de_Villiers
8 SM Gavaskar
7 Mohammad Yousuf
6 JH Kallis
6 ED Weekes
5 RN Harvey
5 MEK Hussey
5 KF Barrington
5 JE Root
5 BC Lara
4 ML Hayden
4 CL Walcott
3 KD Walters
3 DCS Compton
2 RG Pollock
2 HM Amla
2 GA Headley
2 V Kohli
1 S Chanderpaul
1 MJ Clarke
1 AD Nourse
1 KP Pietersen

Bowlers
28 M Muralitharan
28 GD McGrath
19 DW Steyn
18 SM Pollock
18 RJ Hadlee
10 MD Marshall
7 Waqar Younis
7 AK Davidson
6 SF_ Barnes
6 IT Botham
6 CEL Ambrose
5 Imran Khan
4 VD Philander
4 AV Bedser
3 GAR Lock
3 GA Lohmann
2 R Ashwin
1 WJ O'Reilly
1 WA Johnston
1 SK Warne
1 DL Underwood
1 CV Grimmett

 

[CricAddict]

Viriya 2.0 reborn in CW just few months after he bade farewell. Great work Andrew.

 

[Bolo]

Funny how often Pollock comes out near the top in any analysis not made subjectively. He was an amazing bowler when he was a genuine quick. The first 2/3 of his career he was Mcgrath with the ball and a more reliable bat than some of the (admittedly poor) specialists in his team.

 

[ankitj]

At one time he had the best bowling average of anyone with more than 200 wickets. That's freakish no matter what kind of arguments you spin to diminish that. And he was taking a proportion of top order wickets comparable to McGrath and Ambrose. He tailed off quite a bit in latter years though.

 

[ankitj]

To put numbers to it, after 78 tests Pollock had taken 318 wickets at 20.83, better average than anyone with 200+ wickets. In last 30 tests he took 103 wickets at 30.16.

 

[Bolo]

Ya, he tailed off pretty badly, and it's fair to put him behind a lot of other bowlers. But damn he was good early on.

I remember watching a game in 99 when Donald was at the height of his powers and being annoyed by having to sit through the Donald overs waiting for Pollock to bowl. And this is Donald. While you could argue Donald wasn't one of the very best, it's difficult to argue he wasn't one of the most exciting.

 

[smash84]

Ya, he tailed off pretty badly, and it's fair to put him behind a lot of other bowlers. But damn he was good early on.

I remember watching a game in 99 when Donald was at the height of his powers and being annoyed by having to sit through the Donald overs waiting for Pollock to bowl. And this is Donald. While you could argue Donald wasn't one of the very best, it's difficult to argue he wasn't one of the most exciting.

What?

 

[Bolo]

What?

Relatively speaking. I'm sure a lot of people would place him outside the top ~10 best ever bowlers, but it's difficult to place him outside the ~5 best ever strike bowlers. I can't think of any other bowler I consider top tier who had anywhere near as little control as him, which made him all the more exciting.

 

[smash84]

Relatively speaking. I'm sure a lot of people would place him outside the top ~10 best ever bowlers, but it's difficult to place him outside the ~5 best ever strike bowlers. I can't think of any other bowler I consider top tier who had anywhere near as little control as him, which made him all the more exciting.

I don't know what your definition of top tier is if donald doesn't make it

 

[Bolo]

I don't know what your definition of top tier is if donald doesn't make it

"any other bowler I consider top tier"

 

[smash84]

I see, I guess i was seeing it from the perspective of your earlier post

 

[Bolo]

The perspective on the earlier post is still a bit out. I'm a big Donald fan, and there's only one player I've ever prefered watching bowling (career, not slice of career as per comment on Pollock).

Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 5 bowlers I'd definitely rank ahead of him and there are a whole bunch that are very similar. I don't have a top 10, but if I did, he likely wouldn't make it. While he's top tier, he's not at the top of the top.

Off the top of my head, as a strike bowler, he's in a group of 3- the very best.

 

[Victor Ian]

I'm always up for some Pollock cheer. The guy really was McGrath with a bat for a long time.

 

[Bolo]

For anyone who remembers Pollock as a fast medium/ medium fast bowler, in 99 he was sending almost every ball of the only spell I can remember the speedo for in the mid 140s, and he'd already started to slow a little by then.

He was never true express, but I'm not sure if anyone has ever coupled consistency in pace and accuracy like him.

 

[smash84]

To put numbers to it, after 78 tests Pollock had taken 318 wickets at 20.83, better average than anyone with 200+ wickets. In last 30 tests he took 103 wickets at 30.16.

Are you sure those stats are correct?

 

[ankitj]

Are you sure those stats are correct?

Yes.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Bolo]

He also averaged 34.81 with the bat in his first 78 tests. He had a relatively low runs per test, but he was batting low in the order (usually 8), not because of his own ability, but because south Africa were fielding up to 3 allrounders capable of making the team as specialist batsmen. He managed 2 centuries batting at 9 in his first 78 tests, but his hallmark was consistency, not the spectacular- he was seldom a matchwinning batsman of his own accord, but his rearguard action (along with help from a strong tail) helped push a potentially very poor team total to a respectable one in what felt like at least every 3rd innings, and the lower order partnerships he contributed to helped swing the balance of a lot of games.

Judging by specialist bat standards, he had a limited range of strokeplay, but was very technically proficient in the shots he did use, and without any real weakness I can recall.