Posts
What surprises me is that Sri Lanka are a lowly fifth in the ODI team rankings… surely they should be higher than that.
PLEASE NOTE The Corridor is moving grounds at the moment. This is the old site, and comments have been disabled. Check back tomorrow and we should be safely ensconced at our new home
Too highly rated?
By Ian last year, mid-July Leave a comment on this post
I see Kevin Pietersen has been knocked off the top spot in the ODIs by Ricky Ponting. Very difficult to argue with that – Ponting is surely the stand out batsman in both forms of the game. Looking at the other batting rankings, it is difficult to find fault, although on current form, Shiv Chanderpaul ought to be in the test top three at least. Also, I struggle to understand how Mahela Jayawardene doesn’t break into either top ten, while Hussey retains a top five place in both. He’s very good, granted, but is he top five?
The bowlers are altogether more perplexing. For one, how can Shoaib Akhtar still be at number 10 in tests? He’s played four tests since the start of 2006 and taken only a handful of wickets. Maybe in the current game, not playing is the way to climb the rankings. Likewise, Jason Gillespie (22) is still deemed a better Test bowler than Lasith Malinga (28)!
Agreed, it must be difficult to devise a workable system. Also, stats don’t tell the full story. But things start to look decidedly suspect when you inspect the Best Ever Ratings, which is a list of players at their peak. Ponting at four is just about fair enough, given his recent dominance. However, Peter May above Viv Richards shows a flaw, while Matthew Hayden in the top ten is just crazy. KP (21) is one place higher than Sachin and two places higher than Wally Hammond. Enough said.
For the bowlers, I half expected to see the list packed high with bowlers of yesteryear, given how modern bowlers are meant to have struggled, but it does put Murali, McGrath, Pollock, Waqar and Warne in the top 15. Of course, Warne should be in the top three, if not top of the pile. Wasim Akram limps in at number 57 behind the likes of Ntini, Shoaib and Harmison, which doesn’t seem right.
That said, like most critics, I can’t think of a better way. There must be some bright spark at Cricinfo with a formula….?
Tags: glenn-mcgrath, jason-gillespie, kevin-pietersen, lasith-malinga, LG-ICC-Rankings, mahela-jayawardene, muttiah-muralitharan, ricky-ponting, sachin-tendulkar, shane-warne, shaun-pollock, Shivnarine-Chanderpaul, shoaib-akhtar, steve-harmison, Wally-Hammond, Waqar-Younis, Wasim-Akram |
8 Responses to “Too highly rated?”
July 9th, 2007 at 11.32 am
July 9th, 2007 at 2.02 pm
“Lies, damn lies and statistics”. I think it was Disraeli who came out with that gem, and he was spot on. Stats can be made to say pretty much anything, and cricket stats in particular can be both informative and yet totally mis-informing at the same time (OK, x may have an average of 65, but he’s only batted 3 times this season and was not out twice etc).
The LG ratings seek to redress this by combining all of the relevant information, and so are supposed to provide a much better picture than just an average - such things as strike rate, quality of opposition and even state of the track (I think) are included.
As such, they are supposed to give a better picture, but I don’t think that there’s any debate that they are sadly flawed. Whichever maths freaks are doing this need to do a bit more tinkering.
But there’s one reason why no cricket fan will ever totally believe the ratings, and that’s aesthetics. Presumably if Simon Katitch slaps a 4 through point off the bowling of Shaun Pollock at the MCG, it would have exactly the same effect on his rating as if David Gower were to hit the 4.
And yet we all know that Katitch would have shovelled it out to the boundary, with a nasty shuffle at the crease, and an ugly movement towards the ball; whereas Gower would in all liklihood have gently rocked back and caressed the ball to the boundary. One is a much more pleasing, more beautiful shot, that we could watch over and over again, and if we were Mark Nicholas we could say “dreamy, just dreamy” or something similar; the other is a more prosaic bash.
And that’s why the ratings don’t work - they’re all about our actual events, converted into numbers, whereas we work off perception of what happens - and there’s no way they can take account of that.
July 9th, 2007 at 2.24 pm
Spot on, Bear. We need to invent a computer with a soul!
It would also have to recognise other qualities such as grit, will and tenacity. Steve Waugh wasn’t always the prettiest - indeed Katich maybe learned his shovel shot watching him - but you’d back him every time on any track against any attack.
July 9th, 2007 at 2.46 pm
The rankings can be fun, particularly when you’re a kid, but as you get older, you spot the glaring holes, and think, what is the point in this?
The recent bowling stats are shocking. But then you realise Warne and McGrath just retired, letting people into the top ten who should never be there.
We are in a drought of good bowlers at the moment, and many of the ones sitting in the top ten are nearing the ends of their careers. Australia’s bowlers are tight, and will probably finish with exceptional career statistics, but, as Bear mentioned, without Warner and Pigeon, they’re lacking the aesthetics. Maybe they’ll develop that at the Academy.
July 10th, 2007 at 10.48 pm
Interesting stuff; I am using the rankings in my research for a ‘Greatest Test XI’ - and was particularly baffled by Hayden’s ranking too.
I am attempting to pick the ‘Greatest Test XI’ (from those who made their debuts in 1908 or later); I would be great to hear from as many fans/writers as possible (http://third-umpire.blogspot.com/search/label/Greatest%20Test%20XI)
Thanks.
July 11th, 2007 at 9.53 am
On a related topic, did anyone see that Tony Greig recently announced his greatest ever England XI? Obviously, he knows more than I do, but I was amazed that he couldn’t find room for Sir Jack Hobbs, one of the cricketers of the century. Also, Frank Tyson only played 17 tests in his career and basically only had a couple of good years. Where’s Syd Barnes? Finally, Kevin Pietersen at 5- he’s only played 27 tests so far. If he sustains his numbers throughout his career then he might come very close to inclusion. However, I can’t help but feel that he’s being a bit premature in Pietersens’s selection.
July 24th, 2007 at 3.50 pm
The other explanation is that you are looking at the cricketers of your youth through rose-coloured glasses.
As for Pietersen only playing 27 tests, well, Don Bradman only played 54.
Pietersen is a great batsman, possibly England’s best ever. Just because he didn’t play in 1930 or 1972 and has a stupid haircut doesn’t mean he can’t still be the best of all time.
July 25th, 2007 at 8.14 am
Yobbo, I’ve never stated this explicitly before, but I wasn’t even born in 1972. I’m still in my youth. And as I say, Tony Greig obviously knows a lot more about the game than I have, having seen and played with many of the game’s greatest players. If he says that Pietersen’s one of his greatest England batsmen, then fine- I can see that. All I’m saying is that it’s a bit strange (in my opinion) to include a player who’s only been around for three years.
