All time spinner ratings (rankings by Silentstriker) - NEW METHOD

[PhoenixFire]

Why is Abdul Qadir below Ashley Giles, now that's just silly. I'm no great fan of Qadir, but isn't it a bit odd...........

 

[silentstriker]

Why is Abdul Qadir below Ashley Giles, now that's just silly. I'm no great fan of Qadir, but isn't it a bit odd...........

Qadir averages 61 in Australia, Giles 50.
Qadir averages 40 in ENgland, Giles 43.
Qadir averages 69 in India, Giles 33.
Qadir averages 52 in NZ, Giles 39.
Qadir averages 34 in SL, Giles 33.92.
Qadir averages 38 in WI, Giles 68.

Basically, except his own country (Pakistan) and the West Indies, Giles pretty much is equal to or better than, Abdul Qadir. Though its close, and neither particularly come out that well.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Forget averages, do you think Qadir is better than Giles?

 

[silentstriker]

Forget averages, do you think Qadir is better than Giles?

At home yes - by far, away no.

 

[C_C]

At home yes - by far, away no.

In that case, you know even less about cricket than i gave you credit for.

 

[C_C]

Why is Abdul Qadir below Ashley Giles, now that's just silly. I'm no great fan of Qadir, but isn't it a bit odd...........

Damn right this is odd. But this is what you get when someone with very little understanding of cricket goes around forming arbitary ranking points about criterias he/she doesnt grasp very well at all.

 

[silentstriker]

In that case, you know even less about cricket than i gave you credit for.

Damn right this is odd. But this is what you get when someone with very little understanding of cricket goes around forming arbitary ranking points about criterias he/she doesnt grasp very well at all.

I am so not getting into this with you, mate. I'm sorry you don't like the rankings. It's not supposed to somehow be the definitive answer to anything. Its something fun that I thought of and maybe would give you some information, certainly not all, and certainly not enough to convincingly rate one player or not. If you don't think so, then you're welcome to your opinion, and I'd rather leave it at that instead of getting into personal attacks.

 

[C_C]

I am so not getting into this with you, mate. I'm sorry you don't like the rankings.

I dont like it because it is absolutely ********.
Compare the pitches Qadir bowled on and the kind Giles bowls on and it aint rocket science to see why Qadir's figures suffered. MOST pitches today-even in England- are flatbeds (especially when they face a good bowling attack like OZ/RSA/PAk) and flatbed pitches = far more favourable to spinners than pacers. 99% of the pitches Qadir bowled on outside Pakistan or India were seaming/bouncing paradises.Spin bowling was also far different in philosophy back then than it is today- spinners were supposed to be economical more than anything and the whole spin-bowling mentality was far more defensive than it is with Murali-Warne era. If you cant even adjust for that massive factor and instead just compare averages, its nothing more than being absolutely ********.

 

[Ikki]

I am so not getting into this with you, mate. I'm sorry you don't like the rankings.

Good choice, when it's that time of the month it's better to leave 'em.

 

[silentstriker]

I dont like it because it is absolutely ********.
Compare the pitches Qadir bowled on and the kind Giles bowls on and it aint rocket science to see why Qadir's figures suffered. MOST pitches today-even in England- are flatbeds (especially when they face a good bowling attack like OZ/RSA/PAk) and flatbed pitches = far more favourable to spinners than pacers. 99% of the pitches Qadir bowled on outside Pakistan or India were seaming/bouncing paradises.Spin bowling was also far different in philosophy back then than it is today- spinners were supposed to be economical more than anything and the whole spin-bowling mentality was far more defensive than it is with Murali-Warne era. If you cant even adjust for that massive factor and instead just compare averages, its nothing more than being absolutely ********.

OK.

 

[Turbinator]

Damn right this is odd. But this is what you get when someone with very little understanding of cricket goes around forming arbitary ranking points about criterias he/she doesnt grasp very well at all.

Little harsh there on SS...

 

[adharcric]

I dont like it because it is absolutely ********.
Compare the pitches Qadir bowled on and the kind Giles bowls on and it aint rocket science to see why Qadir's figures suffered. MOST pitches today-even in England- are flatbeds (especially when they face a good bowling attack like OZ/RSA/PAk) and flatbed pitches = far more favourable to spinners than pacers. 99% of the pitches Qadir bowled on outside Pakistan or India were seaming/bouncing paradises.Spin bowling was also far different in philosophy back then than it is today- spinners were supposed to be economical more than anything and the whole spin-bowling mentality was far more defensive than it is with Murali-Warne era. If you cant even adjust for that massive factor and instead just compare averages, its nothing more than being absolutely ********.

Look mate, these are statistical ratings and nobody is trying to portray them as a genuine representation of the ability and performance of these spinners. There are so many factors that should be taken into account - different types of pitches, the standards of different eras, the batsmen that a certain spinner had to face, etc. - but they're not all that easy to represent statistically. The rating system devised by SS is clearly flawed in several ways but that shouldn't come as a surprise; isn't it pretty obvious and generally agreed upon that "stats don't tell the whole story"?

Now, I'll admit SS can get a little addicted and overreliant on statistics when judging the quality of a player, but he knows his cricket rather well (except when it comes to Indian pacers). Let's not resort to personal attacks. SS made this rating system for fun and to shed some light on how various spinners compare STATISTICALLY. Chill out.

At home yes - by far, away no.

Well, you really do deserve a personal attack for that one. Gotta be kidding me .. Giles?!?

 

[silentstriker]

Well, you really do deserve a personal attack for that one. Gotta be kidding me .. Giles?!?

Well Giles isn't a better spinner overall, certainly. However, Qadir was really not a very good spinner abroad so while overall Qadir is a better spinner, their quality in away matches isn't all that much different. Its pretty much agreed he wasn't all that great abroad (ave. of 47, 68 wickets from 27 matches).

 

[silentstriker]

Look mate, these are statistical ratings and nobody is trying to portray them as a genuine representation of the ability and performance of these spinners. There are so many factors that should be taken into account - different types of pitches, the standards of different eras, the batsmen that a certain spinner had to face, etc. - but they're not all that easy to represent statistically. The rating system devised by SS is clearly flawed in several ways but that shouldn't come as a surprise; isn't it pretty obvious and generally agreed upon that "stats don't tell the whole story"?

Now, I'll admit SS can get a little addicted and overreliant on statistics when judging the quality of a player, but he knows his cricket rather well (except when it comes to Indian pacers). Let's not resort to personal attacks. SS made this rating system for fun and to shed some light on how various spinners compare STATISTICALLY. Chill out.

Yup, in the batting ratings, Tendulkar and Gavaskar aren't close to the top. That doesn't mean they are actually the 15th all time. It's just something to compare people's stats, its not supposed to be anything else.

Anyway, I don't really worry about what C_C says anymore. I'm quite familiar with his over the top, holier than thou, arrogant attitude.

Back to the thread.

 

[oz_fan]

SS could you please do Lance Gibbs

 

[silentstriker]

SS could you please do Lance Gibbs

Sure. Does well in the averages department but not really as well in the S/R department. Really underlines how subcontinent spinners (outside Murali) really struggle outside of home (something thats easily borne out from simply looking at averages as well).

1. Warne (91.91)
2. Muralitharan (91.13)
3. Underwood (87.8)
4. Grimett (87.192)
5. Laker (84.085)
6. O'Reilly(83.23)
7. Mushtaq Ahmed (82.23)
8. Chandrashekhar (79.226)
9. Saqlain Mushtaq (78.150)
10. Lance Gibbs (78.052)
11. Ramadhin (78.6)
12. Verity (75.179)
13. Kumble (73.852)
14. Bedi (73.119)
15. Rhodes (72.328)
16. Harbhajan (64.674)
17. Giles (63.814)
18. Qadir (63.502)
19. Vetorri (61.511)
20. Dave Mohammed (52.600)

 

[Perm]

How about Bill O'Reilly? Where would he be ranked?

Also Alf Valentine if you have time mate.

 

[silentstriker]

1. Warne (91.91)
2. Muralitharan (91.13)
3. Underwood (87.8)
4. Grimett (87.192)
5. Laker (84.085)
6. O'Reilly(83.23)
7. Mushtaq Ahmed (82.23)
8. Chandrashekhar (79.226)
9. Saqlain Mushtaq (78.150)
10. Lance Gibbs (78.052)
11. Ramadhin (78.6)
12. Verity (75.179)
13. Kumble (73.852)
14. Bedi (73.119)
15. Alf Valentine (72.82)
16. Rhodes (72.328)
17. Harbhajan (64.674)
18. Giles (63.814)
19. Qadir (63.502)
20. Vetorri (61.511)
21. Dave Mohammed (52.600)

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't see how you could have such radically different statistical criteria for your seamer ranking and your spinner ranking. For example, why aren't the records against minnows removed from the seamers rankings? Also the whole rating each country equally thing is rubbish. I can understand why away record is considered important, but your going to play half your games at home anyway, how could that only factor in 1/8 of the overall record.

Seems to me an exceptionally daft way of doing things, unless you had certain conclusions that you wanted to prove with these stats from the outset. Not mentioning anything in particular though.












You wanted to get Warne ahead of Murali.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't see how you could have such radically different statistical criteria for your seamer ranking and your spinner ranking.

Yea, if I had to redo the pacer rankings, I'd use a little bit more of this criteria. As for why? Well, I didn't think of this until after. Most likely I'd use a little bit of this and a little bit of the other one.