Best against the best

[honestbharani]

Indeed.. Suddenly sanity seems to have returned to the CC.

 

[indiaholic]

Rankings do take into account whether the team won that match:

"The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)"
Reliance ICC Player Rankings

Huge mistake IMO.

 

[indiaholic]

And what is the point of threads like these? Murali, Sachin, Warne, McGrath, Lara are Gods. You will choose the best on the basis of the style of play or the country you come from. And trust me you will always find statistics to support you. A few well placed filters here and there and you arre done.

 

[hang on]

thanks for confirming that fact about the ratings, indiaholic.

the point of threads like this is discussion and debate. not all here are just out to prove a point about their own favourite players. and one does tend to learn a decent amount on here thru discussion and looking at issues and points from different angles.

 

[marc71178]

there is one problem with the ratings, though. it gives points more points for wins. thus, a super performance that does not lead to a win will not get a player as many points as one that actually does lead to a win. am sure it is done in a finessed and fair way, but it does, still, penalize players from weaker teams.

If that's the case then how do you explain Shakib being number 1 all rounder and Ray Price right up in the ODI bowling?

 

[smash84]

I was watching a feature on Imran on tv the other day. It mentioned that he topped batting and bowling averages in a series in England. I am sure smileyshah knows more about it.

yep he did very well in the 1987 series but was lower than Javed and some others. Yep howe zat mentions it below.

1987. He topped the bowling averages (taking a 10-for in the match pakistan won) and did well with the bat, averaging 47 and scoring a hundred. He didn't top the batting though, as Miandad, Nazar and Saleem Malik all batted well on that tour.

Imran was quite good in this series.

So if he did perform at the same time, explain how he never did post an all round series of note - it was always one or the other?

Who says he didn't????

The 1987 Eng Pak series posted above

The 1982-83 series against India. In the six test series he did phenomenally well. Was at his peak with the ball and pretty good with the bat. Got injured after this series. Didn't bowl for the next 2- 2.5 years.

Cricket Records | Records | India in Pakistan Test Series, 1982/83 | Most runs | ESPN Cricinfo

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=248;type=series

Also the 1986-87 series against the WI was almost the best Pakistan batsman. It was a very low scoring series with awesome bowling from both sides and tied at 1-1 thanks to a match saving innings from Imran. Imran topped the bowling averages with 18 wickets at 11 runs a piece.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=279;type=series

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=279;type=series

Also the 1982 series in England he topped the bowling averages and overall 3rd in batting in terms of runs scored at a 50+ average.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=244;type=series

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=244;type=series

finishing above the likes of David Gower and Javed Miandad.

So I wonder what you are talking about that he never performed with the bat and the ball at the same time in even one series?

The main criticism that I can see regarding Imran's batting is that it wasn't as potentially explosive as that of Kapil or Botham.

I hope you now have evidence of his all round performance in a series

 

[marc71178]

Who says he didn't????

Where is he then?

All the other big names mentioned have done it, and they don't need a list of caveats and excuses.

 

[hang on]

If that's the case then how do you explain Shakib being number 1 all rounder and Ray Price right up in the ODI bowling?

no question of "if that is the case" anymore...see indiaholic's link.

regarding explainging it: they would have got more points if their contributions had led to wins.

 

[smash84]

Where is he then?

All the other big names mentioned have done it, and they don't need a list of caveats and excuses.

How convenient to ignore the number of innings played in those series

how many 4 or 5 test series did Imran play???? Unlike most of the other names in the list who play a 5 test series every other year.

In the only 6 match series that Imran did play he scored 247 runs in only 6 innings and your cutoff is 250. Big difference that makes.

Quite a ridiculous statement to make really.

The other 4 and 5 test series. One against India and the other against England that I remember.

In the England one he did pretty well. Not so well against India in 1987 with the ball, excellent with the bat though IIRC.

 

[vcs]

Where is he then?

All the other big names mentioned have done it, and they don't need a list of caveats and excuses.

As smalishah has mentioned, Imran probably didn't play that many 5 or 6 match series. All the names in that list are from 5 or 6 match series.

 

[marc71178]

no question of "if that is the case" anymore...see indiaholic's link.

regarding explainging it: they would have got more points if their contributions had led to wins.

Yes, I did post before that was explained, but the fact that those 2 are so high when they play in teams which don't win suggests that it doesn't have that big an effect on ratings.

 

[marc71178]

As smalishah has mentioned, Imran probably didn't play that many 5 or 6 match series. All the names in that list are from 5 or 6 match series.

He played 4 or 5 longer series, which more than Hadlee did, yet Hadlee appears on the list.

 

[vcs]

Well, Hadlee has one appearance.. as smalishah pointed out, Imran misses out by 3 runs in one series which is hardly significant. The series that he posted were pretty good all-round performances for me.

That list really makes me appreciate Sobers though.. he has 3 appearances (so does Botham) and 2 of them against England who were probably the best opposition of the time.

 

[smash84]

He played 4 or 5 longer series, which more than Hadlee did, yet Hadlee appears on the list.

So if Hadlee appeared once on that list so he automatically became better than Imran??? Quite a silly argument. And what exactly is the fault with all those series that I posted? You had asked to post a single series that he was good in with both bat and ball together and I posted a number of them. Interestingly now you try to change the argument.....

Well, Hadlee has one appearance.. as smalishah pointed out, Imran misses out by 3 runs in one series which is hardly significant. The series that he posted were pretty good all-round performances for me.
.

exactly. Missing out by 3 runs and he only played 6 innings in those so he had a very good average too.

 

[marc71178]

Misses out by 3 runs in a series when they played 6 Tests though.

I know people hate it when people point out faults in their heroes but he has never produced an all round series to rival his competitors and that has to count against him. Every other player has done it, and to actually score the runs AND take the wickets at the same time indicates a lot more effort is needed IMO, and more the indicator of an all-rounder.

 

[hang on]

Yes, I did post before that was explained, but the fact that those 2 are so high when they play in teams which don't win suggests that it doesn't have that big an effect on ratings.

i doubt it is an appreciably big difference, though many would argue that any extra points is 'unfair'.

regarding the 'list', am rather surprised to see dev on it twice.

 

[Howe_zat]

Misses out by 3 runs in a series when they played 6 Tests though.

I know people hate it when people point out faults in their heroes but he has never produced an all round series to rival his competitors and that has to count against him. Every other player has done it, and to actually score the runs AND take the wickets at the same time indicates a lot more effort is needed IMO, and more the indicator of an all-rounder.

250 runs would have been acceptable, but 247 isn't enough? Why draw the line there?

 

[smash84]

Misses out by 3 runs in a series when they played 6 Tests though.

I know people hate it when people point out faults in their heroes but he has never produced an all round series to rival his competitors and that has to count against him. Every other player has done it, and to actually score the runs AND take the wickets at the same time indicates a lot more effort is needed IMO, and more the indicator of an all-rounder.

Again I don't see why you consistently fail to address the points that I raise???? You mentioned that there was not one single series that Imran performed well with both bat and ball. After I mention a number of such series you conveniently forget about them and bring up other all rounders who had had some marvelous series. Not even caring to see how many long series Imran even played throughout his career or for that matter how he performed in them.

Also you mention that he missed by 3 runs in 6 tests. How many innings did he play in those 6 tests. You fail to address this issue as well. You just seem hell bent on trying to find faults which are not there. I am not saying that Imran didn't have his faults just that it is better to cut down on some of the ridiculous claims that you keep on making in the face of facts.

250 runs would have been acceptable, but 247 isn't enough? Why draw the line there?

Exactly.

You never cared to answer this.

 

[ankitj]

regarding the 'list', am rather surprised to see dev on it twice.

Really?

Kapil's overall averages is the only place where he comes out looking ordinary. But if you count stand out performances (using whatever definitions) with bat and ball, he has as many as any other great all rounder. How about the fact that besides Botham, only Kapil had an entry in both Wisden's best 100 batting and bowling performances? The guy was capable of some beast like performances!

 

[marc71178]

250 runs would have been acceptable, but 247 isn't enough? Why draw the line there?

Ask Cricinfo, they chose the cut offs.

Why do we celebrate centuries and not 99s?

To me, 247 runs in a 6 Test series does not suggest a good contribution with the bat, same was as 250 doesn't, but I'm not the one who lists these out. I would look at some form of weighting so that x runs per match and y wickets per match is a cut-off - using a minimum of 3 Tests for a series (Assuming a 5 Test series for the Cricinfo list would give x = 50 and y = 4)

But even looking at something like that I can see 1 series (3 Tests) where Imran could be deemed to have performed with the bat and ball at the same time. He played 3 or more games in 21 series.

Looking at all the people who made that list:
George Giffen qualified 1 out of 9 qualifying series.
Len Braund - 1 out of 5
Aubrey Faulkener - 1 out of 7
George Thompson - 1 out of 1
Jack Gregory - 2 out of 5
Keith Miller - 2 out of 11
Richie Benuad - 1 out of 14
Garry Sobers - 4 out of 21
Trevor Goddard - 1 out of 9
Tony Greig - 1 out of 13
Ian Botham - 6 out of 21
Kapil Dev - 0 out of 31
Richard Hadlee - 2 out of 23
Jacques Kallis - 2 out of 30
Shaun Pollock - 3 out of 20
Andrew Flintoff - 1 out of 19.