PwC is no more

[marc71178]

PwC works in mysterious ways that define logic and they are not consistent according to their own rules.

Erm, it's a fixed algorithm - how can it be inconsistent?

 

[Richard]

The algorithms cause inconsistencies in themselves.

 

[Richard]

I like 'em, bit of harmless fun. No-one claims they're the be-all & end-all of cricket, just a chance for one to indulge one's more anorak-ish tendencies!

That's just the problem - they do.
Far too many people put far too much emphasis on them when in fact they're just a very approximate approximation.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah... )

 

[Richard]

I have been skeptical occasionally about their ranking system, but they have been regarded for several years as the most reliable ranking system, and hence had grown to accept it !!

Just because they're the best there is why does it mean they're any good?
They attempt an impossible task - even the best in the business are still worth little or nothing.

 

[Richard]

Surely that will be even more the case if the ICC is now promoting them as official rankings...

That's what I'm hoping!
Hopefully the end of PWC's sponsorship of them will expose them to the lasers of derision they have long deserved.

 

[marc71178]

The algorithms cause inconsistencies in themselves.

How exactly do they do that?

 

[marc71178]

Hopefully the end of PWC's sponsorship of them will expose them to the lasers of derision they have long deserved.

Why do they deserve derision?

Because they actually look at what happens in the game and rates people accordingly rather than using your theory whereby if you rate a player then they're good regardless of whether they can't score a run for toffee?

 

[membersstand]

11:15 AM January 20

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has announced it is giving official status to the system of player Test and one-day rankings devised by former England captain Ted Dexter.

Widely accepted for more than a decade as an accurate indication of ability, the key aspect of Dexter's system is that it takes account of the quality of opposition a player is up against.

Thus, unlike traditional averages, runs or wickets taken against Australia - the world's best side - count for more in the rankings than those taken against a weaker nation such as Zimbabwe.

In a statement ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed said: "The ICC has today (Wednesday) taken over ownership of the rankings produced by Ted Dexter Associates and sponsored by PwC.

"We have been looking to develop an official system of player rankings for some time and having studied a range of options we are of the view that these rankings provide the truest reflection of the relative merits of international cricketers."

Dexter, a dashing England batsman during the late 50s and early 1960s, whose company will continue to be involved in the on-going maintenance of the rankings, expressed his delight that the system had been officially recognised.

"I congratulate the ICC on their initiative in giving these rankings official status for the first time," said Dexter, also a former England chairman of selectors.

"It gives me great satisfaction to know that the cricketing public will continue to enjoy their interest in the continuously changing standings of all the best players in the world," the Sussex great added.

The rankings will now be sponsored by leading Asian electronic goods manufacturer LG.

According to the rankings, the world's current leading Test batsman is India's Rahul Dravid with Australia paceman Glenn McGrath the best bowler.

-AFP

Source: AFP

 

[Swervy]

The algorithms cause inconsistencies in themselves.

in what way

 

[biased indian]

it has lot of problems and i had enquried them lot of times asking them y this and that had happened and every time instead of explaning the reasons their reply was that this was the perfect think available.being good among the available is nice but that doesnt mean that u r perfect

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

it has lot of problems and i had enquried them lot of times asking them y this and that had happened and every time instead of explaning the reasons their reply was that this was the perfect think available.being good among the available is nice but that doesnt mean that u r perfect

Yes... example? Everyone seems to criticse the ratings without actually pointing to any specific instance of an inconsistancy.

 

[biased indian]

Last week taibu jumped 25 places up for his good effort aganist bangladesh
but did he desrve such a high jump for a century scored aganist a week attack

his current point is 536 while some one like katich for all his good effort in india was never able to go beyond 521

 

[marc71178]

Look at the runs he scored out of the total in the match - fairly high proportion.

 

[Swervy]

Last week taibu jumped 25 places up for his good effort aganist bangladesh
but did he desrve such a high jump for a century scored aganist a week attack

his current point is 536 while some one like katich for all his good effort in india was never able to go beyond 521

katich scored 103 runs out of Australias score of 15 wickets for 727 in the third test..and scored 80 odd in a total of 474..all that vs a not very highly rated Indian bowling attack.
Good performance but not one that dominates a match...mix in that all the low scares katich has scored, then his acheivements with the higher scores are diluted somewhat

Taibu scored 238 out of Zimbs 20 for 484..thats one hell of an acheivement, no matter who you play..he also scored 92 out of 312 previous to that, and he has had the odd score here and there before then.

seems like the ratings have it ok on that one

 

[Black Thunder]

Not a big fan of the rankings. I'd rather people come up with their own opinons, and try to use their own brains.

Instead, you get people who don't know a thing about the game using these rankings as their "own opinions" without knowing what they're saying.

Say for instance, Joe Bloggs is ranked number 1 in the world and Henry VIII is number 2, but i consider Henry the better batsmen. I'm trying to put my point across that he has more strokes, times the ball better and has better technique. But the other person just simply won't accept it because JB is ranked number 1 and therefore must be better without argument.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not a big fan of the rankings. I'd rather people come up with their own opinons, and try to use their own brains.

Instead, you get people who don't know a thing about the game using these rankings as their "own opinions" without knowing what they're saying.

Say for instance, Joe Bloggs is ranked number 1 in the world and Henry VIII is number 2, but i consider Henry the better batsmen. I'm trying to put my point across that he has more strokes, times the ball better and has better technique. But the other person just simply won't accept it because JB is ranked number 1 and therefore must be better without argument.

The ratings are not the be all and end all of debate when it comes to the value of any given player, but they are a very well designed system of ranking players, and it is rather irritating when people dismiss them simply because they don't back up their pre-formed views about the game. eg: I believe that, say, Brett Lee is the best bowler in the world but the rankings place him outside the top 10, so I dismiss the rankings as either stupid or purposely biased against people named Brett.

 

[Mr Casson]

Say for instance, Joe Bloggs is ranked number 1 in the world and Henry VIII is number 2, but i consider Henry the better batsmen. I'm trying to put my point across that he has more strokes, times the ball better and has better technique. But the other person just simply won't accept it because JB is ranked number 1 and therefore must be better without argument.

You have a point, but I think most people are willing to accept that some batsmen look better/time the ball better/have more shots even though they are ranked lower.

The ratings are never meant to reflect how pretty a player is; they are a guide to who is in form and who is not. The only thing that can change the ratings is runs; which at the end of the day are all that count.

 

[Richard]

Why do they deserve derision?

Because they actually look at what happens in the game and rates people accordingly?

They base some things on assumption, and attempt an impossible task. It is not possibly to quantify anything to anywhere near the level they attempt to.

 

[Richard]

in what way

How exactly do they do that?

Because the points-scoring methods change according to the supposed quality of opposition, which is assumed and often assumed incorrectly.
Not to mention the fact that they take account of largely irrelevant matters such as the total runs scored, and that they try to quantify to a quite ridiculous out-of-1000 score.

 

[Richard]

The ratings are not the be all and end all of debate when it comes to the value of any given player, but they are a very well designed system of ranking players

No, they are a reasonably designed system to attempt an impossible task.
And people talk about them like they actually mean something big.