PwC Ratings

[a massive zebra]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[a massive zebra]

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).

No the reason is because he has not played. You lose something like 2% of your rating each time your team plays a match without you.

His form in ODIs has been pretty consistent.

season 2000 3 3 0 154 93 51.33 0 1 0
season 2000/01 19 19 0 917 146 48.26 3 4 0
season 2001/02 15 14 2 707 146 58.91 2 3 0
season 2002 7 7 1 337 113 56.16 2 0 0
season 2002/03 19 18 2 714 152 44.62 1 6 1
season 2003/04 19 19 1 915 141 50.83 3 4 1
season 2004 6 6 1 281 82* 56.20 0 3 0

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Zebra, do you have an email address that I can contact you at?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Got it.

 

[marc71178]

And wins (or draws) don't come into how good the bowlers are - what matters is how well they have bowled.

If a team has a record like that, the bowlers can't have bowled well.

To have not bowled well for 4 years suggests that maybe they're not very good.

It is ludicrous to suggest a side with 1 win in 35 non-Bang Tests is anything but substandard.

 

[marc71178]

Chris Gayle second for allrounders.Unlike Flintoff he doesn't bowl every match even when fully fot.

In his last 60 games, he's not bowled in 6 of them.

In one of those, the team didn't bowl.
In one they bowled Bangladesh out cheaply.
In one they bowled less than 9 overs.
In one they bowled 5 overs.
In one England knoecked off a small target in 22 overs.
In one they bowled England out cheaply.

Suggests to me that he bowls pretty much every match, and indeed in 17 of those games he's bowled a full 10 (and I haven't checked for any reduced overs games he's bowled a full compliment)

 

[marc71178]

When has Oram ever been overrated?

Since Richard decided so - ignoring his recent form completely.

I mean, who's actually named him in a World XI or such?

If he can improve his batting a bit and maintain his bowling form, I'd put him close to the Pollock role in a World side.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Chris Gayle is a specialist bowler when it comes to West Indies fielding in ODIs. He's a true ODI allrounder in that sense.

Flintoff is superior though, because he can operate as a strike option with the ball. Gayle is intelligent, but will never be able to manufacture wickets like Flintoff can. Also, if Flintoff finds seam-friendly conditions, he can be almost impossible to get away. If Gayle finds spin-friendly conditions, he'll bowl the same and generally be milked for at least 40 runs in his 10.

 

[marc71178]

The thing about Gayle and Flintoff is that they offer a genuine 10 over option, but are also good enough to bat in the top order, and thus allow 4 other 10 over options.

No other side has such a player IMO.

 

[a massive zebra]

The thing about Gayle and Flintoff is that they offer a genuine 10 over option, but are also good enough to bat in the top order, and thus allow 4 other 10 over options.

No other side has such a player IMO.

Kallis?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Kallis?

I certainly wouldn't ask Kallis to bowl 10 overs if I were Smith. He's their best batsman by some way and a crucial part of their batting success. You don't want to burden him.