ICC's top 20 all-time list

[Jono]

It's this overriding sentiment that has stopped me posting here more often to be honest. Some ridiculous labelling going on, and it seems like this sort of posting is acceptable when if it was being done the other way it'd be pounced on in an instant.

Come back Dasa

 

[weldone]

But there's not a flaw in the system - there's a flaw in people's interpretation of the results/the article. Amazing how pointing out this fairly basic point hasn't appeared to put people's concerns into perspective, based on some of the arguments made here...

Come on, I am sure you are not imbecile enough to miss my point...The whole point being made here is not that it's some conspiracy of ICC or something...The point is that (the point made earlier by me, and unintensionally by The Sean) is that if the rating system conveys as much meaning as the one published by The Sean or the one published by me (both among the last few posts) then why should ICC endorse the list it does and not one of the above two lists?....I hope this time I am being clear enough to you all, and I sincerely hope that this time all of you DON'T think that the last few sentences typed by me do not search for any anti-Tendulkar conspiracy...

 

[Matt79]

The ICC have only endorsed it as a list of people's peak career rankings. That is an accurate thing for them to do.

Why does the ICC do anything? Of all the poor acts they've been a party to, this doesn't even merit a mention.

 

[weldone]

The ICC have only endorsed it as a list of people's peak career rankings. That is an accurate thing for them to do.

How can you tell that is an accurate thing for them to do? and that endorsing a list of top batting averages, or a list of highest runs in an innings, or a list of highest number of test innings(where incidentally Warne comes at number 16 ) would not have been an accurate thing for them to do? Based on what logic?

 

[weldone]

Your post is a JOKE. Sunil Gavaskar doesn't even make the top 10?

By the way, who is he? Sunil who? ... Oh that stupid old fellow who blabbers some nonsense on tv every time a test match is on, and the person who knows nothing about cricket...Oh, the person whose number of test runs is going to be surpassed by your number of posts some day soon...Sorry, I forgot his name for a moment...

 

[Matt79]

they all would have been accurate things to do. They're all lists of stats derived from objective rules. Whether they mean anything for what is ultimAtely a subjective judgement is questionable. But I really don't think anyone has pretended otherwise.

 

[Matt79]

By the way, who is he? Sunil who? ... Oh that stupid old fellow who blabbers some nonsense on tv every time a test match is on, and the person who knows nothing about cricket...Oh, the person whose number of test runs is going to be surpassed by your number of posts some day soon...Sorry, I forgot his name for a moment...

lol. wtf? Can't say I get what your point is or why you're so angry.

 

[weldone]

they all would have been accurate things to do. They're all lists of stats derived from objective rules. Whether they mean anything for what is ultimAtely a subjective judgement is questionable. But I really don't think anyone has pretended otherwise.

Absolutely true...Then my question is why they chose one among those lists and didn't choose the others? You don't have an answer, right? ... Now, THAT was the whole point of this thread...That this list is as imbecile as any other list anyone can make who has never known what the game is all about, but does know something about numbers...

 

[weldone]

lol. wtf? Can't say I get what your point is or why you're so angry.

Same here...I couldn't get the point of your post (post no. 56) and why you're so sarcastic...

 

[Sanz]

... Now, THAT was the whole point of this thread...That this list is as imbecile as any other list anyone can make who has never known what the game is all about, but does know something about numbers...

Not Really, If they had put Tendulkar @ No. 2 there wouldn't be any furor. TBF the list may be stupid and we can argue that, but the reaction in Indian media and Tendulkar fans has been just idiotic and in certain cases insulting (e.g. "ICC snub Sachin, Includes Hayden ")

Has it occured to anyone that this ICC list is sponsored by an Indian Company (Reliance). What a travesty, really. In a country where so many more important things need to be addressed, Its national media is worried about Tendulka'r ranking.

Times of India is leading the cause :-

Fight back for Sachin...
Do you think ICC ranking is correct? Fight back for Sachin.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, that's why I'm being "so sarcastic". If the same system had thrown up Sachin at no. 2 or in the top 5, and the ICC had released it in the same manner, there wouldn't have been any of this outcry.

People getting narky because others' analysis doesn't fit with their own pre-existing perceptions is generally a very dire spectacle...

 

[silentstriker]

Just popping in here to say how ridiculous this whole thing is.

Yes, I've contributed nothing. But there is nothing to contribute, it's a non-issue.

 

[weldone]

Not Really, If they had put Tendulkar @ No. 2 there wouldn't be any furor.

But I can't imagine what Aussie media could have done if they had put Bradman at no. 2!!! ... It's same everywhere mate...

 

[weldone]

Yeah, that's why I'm being "so sarcastic". If the same system had thrown up Sachin at no. 2 or in the top 5, and the ICC had released it in the same manner, there wouldn't have been any of this outcry.

People getting narky because others' analysis doesn't fit with their own pre-existing perceptions is generally a very dire spectacle...

Problem is that you are still deviating from my point...And started bashing Indian media again, because that's very convenient here...Where have I supported the media in this thread?

 

[Matt79]

So far as I can tell you don't have a point, besides saying that these rankings don't prove anything conclusively in terms of a batsman's greatness and that taking them, in isolation, to do so leads to results that most people would disagree with. Which is such an obvious point, which no-one including "the ICC" is disagreeing with, that I'm amazed this conversation has continued for so long.

 

[weldone]

...these rankings don't prove anything conclusively in terms of a batsman's greatness....... which no-one including "the ICC" is disagreeing with...

ICC agreeing that these rankings don't prove anything conclusively in terms of a batsman's greatness don't justify their endorsing the system...Anyways let's agree to disagree...Probably this thread would have been more popular had Bradman been placed at no. 2 in the list (after Peter May at no. 1 probably, who is currently at no. 5 or so), but that's a different story...

 

[Sanz]

But I can't imagine what Aussie media could have done if they had put Bradman at no. 2!!! ... It's same everywhere mate...

First of all, Sachin is NOT Bradman, he never will be, nowhere close either. That he is a highly distant No. 2 is highly debatable too. Forget all time No. 2 He isn't the indisputable no. 1 of his generation either, he is not even the indisputable no. 1 batsman of his own country and to some extent he is not the indisputable no. 1 among the Indian batsmen of his generation either (Hint :- Many actually prefer Dravid over him).


Secondly, There is no point in speculating what Aussie media could have done, It just does not matter. No one is making a case for them here either. That said Lillee is @ 34 among the bowler's list (Steyn @ 22, Harmison 36 ) and I dont see much furor in Aussie media .

 

[Sanz]

But they deceive ignorant people by calling it a 'All-time (or best-ever) ranking for batting in tests'...They should have called it a 'Ranking of test batsmen based on how much more they achieved in their peaks compared to their peers' or something like that, though that heading wouldn't have fetched that much attention I am sure.

This ranking (the all-time one, not the current players one which is decent to an extent) is as stupid as a ranking based on averages only where batsmen are arranged in order of their averages, or even more stupid perhaps.

If you read the ranking link, you will notice that is couldn't have been any more specific.

Reliance Mobile ICC Player Rankings

"The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained "

 

[Sanz]

Problem is that you are still deviating from my point...And started bashing Indian media again, because that's very convenient here...Where have I supported the media in this thread?

But the tone of the thread has been set from the first post itself. The thread starter didn't post the ICC link and quoted the distorted statement from the Indian media suggesting some conspiracy against Tendulkar.

If the actual rating link was posted in the first place, I dont think this thread would have seen much light.

 

[weldone]

If you read the ranking link, you will notice that is couldn't have been any more specific.

Reliance Mobile ICC Player Rankings

"The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained "

I was talking about the heading itself - that could be misleading...not the explanation thereunder...