PwC Ratings

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

My most heartily congratulations, but may one point out that Frederick is only top of the batting ratings because Tendulkar has not been playing.

Who's to say Shoaib wouldn't have got him for a duck?

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

My most heartily congratulations, but may one point out that Frederick is only top of the batting ratings because Tendulkar has not been playing.

At this rate Freddie will go above 800 because the current rating will still factor in a fair few of his games before July 2003 which was about the point when his rating really started to pick up.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

My most heartily congratulations, but may one point out that Frederick is only top of the batting ratings because Tendulkar has not been playing.

Sachin's rating has been in decline, has it not?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Are you ever going to understand that I've never said that?
The bowling Das scored his runs against was comparable to that which Chopra scored his against.

Until you actually look at the players from the 2 sides that is.

It's part of this "superb" (4 wins in 43, 3 of which don't count) Zimbabwe theory you seem to have.

[Richard]

And wins (or draws) don't come into how good the bowlers are - what matters is how well they have bowled.
And in my opinion, while I haven't seen all the respective bowlers bowl every ball of their careers, they are all about equal in ability in the respective conditions.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

Sachin's rating has been in decline, has it not?

You may be right, but his rating has gone down because India have played several matches without his presence. Before the tournament started it was higher than Flintoff's current rating.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

Who's to say Shoaib wouldn't have got him for a duck?

Pure guesswork. It would be safer to assume his rating would have stayed constant.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

You may be right, but his rating has gone down because India have played several matches without his presence. Before the tournament started it was higher than Flintoff's current rating.

No doubt whatsoever you are right - but then again so has that of Ponting, Gilchrist and Kallis as of the date Tendulkar played his last ODI at the start of August. They played, they crashed and burned. Why should Tendulkar have been any different?

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

No doubt whatsoever you are right - but then again so has that of Ponting, Gilchrist and Kallis as of the date Tendulkar played his last ODI at the start of August. They played, they crashed and burned. Why should Tendulkar have been any different?

He may well have failed, he may well have won the India vs Pakistan match with a brilliant innings, as he did in the World Cup. But predicting his performance is pure guesswork, and it would be safer to assume his rating would have stayed constant, in which case he would still be number 1.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

He may well have failed, he may well have won the India vs Pakistan match with a brilliant innings, as he did in the World Cup. But predicting his performance is pure guesswork, and it would be safer to assume his rating would have stayed constant, in which case he would still be number 1.

It would be safer to assume nothing - and just rely on the games actually played by the players concerned.

We have no 'pools panel' in cricket.

[roseboy64]

Chris Gayle second for allrounders.Unlike Flintoff he doesn't bowl every match even when fully fot.Just think how much higher he'd be in the bowling rankings and he's the top West Indiian bowler too.Dwayne Bravo could be in that top 5 pretty soon if his batting picks up a bit more that is.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

It would be safer to assume nothing - and just rely on the games actually played by the players concerned.

We have no 'pools panel' in cricket.

Yes you are right, but Tendulkar's rating has declined despite doing nothing wrong.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by roseboy64

Chris Gayle second for allrounders.Unlike Flintoff he doesn't bowl every match even when fully fot.Just think how much higher he'd be in the bowling rankings and he's the top West Indiian bowler too.Dwayne Bravo could be in that top 5 pretty soon if his batting picks up a bit more that is.

Top player in the side now IMHO - so vital to the Windies success in the shorter version of the game as a bowler now (and cool with it).

A good job they don't deduct points for the odd "'oops' er, I mean yours" in the slips, though.

[Mingster]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, but I will say that he's (Oram) overrated as far as I'm concerned.

When has Oram ever been overrated? I mean, who's actually named him in a World XI or such? He's an underachiever and goes about his work well. He is not overrrated. Look at his ODI record. I mean, statistics according to you mean everything! His RPO is under 5, according to you, isn't that the first and only sign of good ODI bowler?

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

Yes you are right, but Tendulkar's rating has declined despite doing nothing wrong.

Because the performances at the start bracket of the time scale have now dropped out, I presume. Now I'm guessing it's about a 3-year thing, which means that to maintain the status quo he would have had to be performing in 2001 form.

(I might be totally wrong in my assumptions here - just too lazy to go to the Price Waterhouse Coopers website).