Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[Smudge]

Quite why these stupid rankings deserve an update thread I don't know...

Because plenty of people on this forum like to know the rankings.

Cricketweb does not revolve around you.

 

[Richard]

Nope, it doesn't.
Nonetheless the rankings are farcical and attempt a task that is totally unrealistic and can never be taken seriously by those with realistic minds.

 

[Richard]

jeez..even a mere tribute to Dravids exceptional record over a long period of time gets grief from Richard

Well I wasn't totally happy with it... I thought I could improve it, y'see?

 

[Richard]

erm..I am confused.

i dont think dravid could be at all considered a flat track bully

But joking about him being a flat-track bully when he had just bullied some exceptionally poor attacks on some very flat tracks isn't entirely appropriate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nope, it doesn't.
Nonetheless the rankings are farcical and attempt a task that is totally unrealistic and can never be taken seriously by those with realistic minds.

So don't take them seriously, and nobody will take your first chance average or 4.5 eco cutoff point or your theories about fingerspinners or McGrath's lucky wickets seriously, given that they have some idea about cricket.

 

[C_C]

nobody will take your first chance average or 4.5 eco cutoff point or your theories about fingerspinners or McGrath's lucky wickets seriously, given that they have some idea about cricket.

Will ?
You mean there are some who actually do ?


All i gotto say is, if McGrath is more successful than Craig White because he is just luckier, then Luck is one of his skills ( to borrow a phrase from Macross Plus)and gimme such a lucky bowler any day of the week!

 

[marc71178]

Nonetheless the rankings are farcical and attempt a task that is totally unrealistic and can never be taken seriously by those with realistic minds.

So just about anyone except you doesn't have a realistic mind then.

 

[cameeel]

he's one of the best, but i didnt think he was that prolific, geez

 

[cameeel]

how do they work it out, gilchrists had a pretty high average hasnt he

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

how do they work it out, gilchrists had a pretty high average hasnt he

It's not just based on average. Each innings is awarded a score based on the runs made, the ratings of the opposition bowlers, the number of runs scored by other batsmen in the game, the impact on the match result and so on, and the rating of the player in question is determined by what he scores each time he plays. The same thing for bowlers but in reverse.

 

[Pratters]

From the time Dravid hit those runs in Wellington, I have been a huge fan. Its a pity I havent been able to watch more of Dravid in that New Zealand tour in highlights packages etc.

I had the privelege to watch Dravid again on day 4 of the Calcutta test at the Eden Gardens.

Dravid is withuot an iota of a doubt, the best batsman on current form in world cricket as the ratings indicate.

Overall, he would be among the top Indian batsmen of all time. Certainly among the top three I have witnessed along with Azharuddin and Tendulkar.

 

[twctopcat]

In his last 50 tests:
4768 runs at 68.11....wow!!!!!

Had to check that to believe it, the guy is phenomenal.

 

[Sehwag309]

From the time Dravid hit those runs in Wellington, I have been a huge fan. Its a pity I havent been able to watch more of Dravid in that New Zealand tour in highlights packages etc.

I had the privelege to watch Dravid again on day 4 of the Calcutta test at the Eden Gardens.

Dravid is withuot an iota of a doubt, the best batsman on current form in world cricket as the ratings indicate.

Overall, he would be among the top Indian batsmen of all time. Certainly among the top three I have witnessed along with Azharuddin and Tendulkar.

U mean that 190 one, the one with Srinath...

 

[Unattainableguy]

Great batsman, but overall, in my opinion, Kallis is still a better player.

 

[cameeel]

Great batsman, but overall, in my opinion, Kallis is still a better player.

fair enough, is it judged solely on runs or do other factors like bowling/keeping come into it?

 

[Dydl]

Dravid doesn't keep much anymore, so it shouldn't be based on that...and he doesn't exactly bowl....and he HAS been performing well with the bat. That is basically why his spot in the team valuable. I would guess that it would be based on his batting and number of runs scored (?)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

fair enough, is it judged solely on runs or do other factors like bowling/keeping come into it?

There's a seperate rating for bowlers and for ODI/Test cricket. In bowling McGrath is number 1 in both tests and ODIs, and I think the number 1 in ODI batting is Sarwan at the moment.

 

[sledger]

Great batsman, but overall, in my opinion, Kallis is still a better player.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

 

[garage flower]

Nope, it doesn't.
Nonetheless the rankings are farcical and attempt a task that is totally unrealistic and can never be taken seriously by those with realistic minds.

They seem fairly accurate to me as a guide to who the form cricketers are . What's your problem with them?

 

[Unattainableguy]

fair enough, is it judged solely on runs or do other factors like bowling/keeping come into it?

Should have said BATSMAN, but yes solely on runs.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

So an average of 45 doesn't make you a better batsman than someone who averages 39 with strike rate of 68 in ODIs?

And there isn't much difference in their test career stats that will clearly convince you as to who is the better batsman, but still in Kallis's last 17 test matches, he's scored 1969 runs at an amazing average of 82.

And lastly, it was Kallis holding the no 1 spot before Dravid took it, and that's because he is currently playing against Pakistan. And I'm sure once South Africa go on a tour/ play a series, Kallis will grab it back.

So he is certainly the most valuable player of all currently playing, especially when you consider his contributions with the ball as well.