Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Because plenty of people on this forum like to know the rankings.Richard said:Quite why these stupid rankings deserve an update thread I don't know...
Cricketweb does not revolve around you.
Because plenty of people on this forum like to know the rankings.Richard said:Quite why these stupid rankings deserve an update thread I don't know...
Well I wasn't totally happy with it... I thought I could improve it, y'see?Swervy said:jeez..even a mere tribute to Dravids exceptional record over a long period of time gets grief from Richard
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.Swervy said:erm..I am confused.
i dont think dravid could be at all considered a flat track bully
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.Richard said: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.
Will ?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.
So just about anyone except you doesn't have a realistic mind then.Richard said:Nonetheless the rankings are farcical and attempt a task that is totally unrealistic and can never be taken seriously by those with realistic minds.
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.cameeel said:how do they work it out, gilchrists had a pretty high average hasnt he
Had to check that to believe it, the guy is phenomenal.Swervy said:In his last 50 tests:
4768 runs at 68.11....wow!!!!!
U mean that 190 one, the one with Srinath...Pratyush said: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.
fair enough, is it judged solely on runs or do other factors like bowling/keeping come into it?Unattainableguy said:Great batsman, but overall, in my opinion, Kallis is still a better player.
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.cameeel said:fair enough, is it judged solely on runs or do other factors like bowling/keeping come into it?
Unattainableguy said:Great batsman, but overall, in my opinion, Kallis is still a better player.
They seem fairly accurate to me as a guide to who the form cricketers are . What's your problem with them?Richard said: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.
Should have said BATSMAN, but yes solely on runs.cameeel said:fair enough, is it judged solely on runs or do other factors like bowling/keeping come into it?
So an average of 45 doesn't make you a better batsman than someone who averages 39 with strike rate of 68 in ODIs?sledger said:NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!