Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 22nd May 2007, 16:50   #81
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post

I know the ratings reflect past performance too, but is there a rose tinted glasses function in there. How the **** is Giles the 37th best bowler in the world?
There aren't all that many bowlers in the world, are there? Name 37 clearly better ones with enough test wickets behind them to have their full ratings.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 16:58   #82
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieH View Post
Notes:
Despite his hundred, KP's rating score declined a few points (-6), though he remains ranked in 3rd.
Collingwood and Bell have leapfrogged Strauss, based on their performances with the bat.
Cook made a healthy gain in ratings points (+33) moving him ahead of Trescothick.
Prior enters the rankings at 75, 3 places ahead of GoJo.

Hoggy dropped two places, with his wicketless performance - a bit unlucky, but the ratings have no place for sentimentality.
Monty has moved up significantly, as expected with 66 ratings points - he could soon overtake Steve Harmison at the rate he is climbing the ladder.
In a very high scoring game (loads of runs and only 23 wickets falling) against a weak attack, I suppose Pietersen's 130 or so runs were not even quite par for the third best batsman in the world. Does seem a bit odd though. The rest of it makes plenty of sense. Monty's rating improved both by his performance in the game and by getting a slightly higher percentage of his full rating by getting nearer to 100 test wickets. Odd that Harmy only dropped one place isn't it although maybe he lost quite a few points?
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:04   #83
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
In a very high scoring game (loads of runs and only 23 wickets falling) against a weak attack, I suppose Pietersen's 130 or so runs were not even quite par for the third best batsman in the world. Does seem a bit odd though. The rest of it makes plenty of sense. Monty's rating improved both by his performance in the game and by getting a slightly higher percentage of his full rating by getting nearer to 100 test wickets. Odd that Harmy only dropped one place isn't it although maybe he lost quite a few points?
I think it is true to say that once players have reached a high position, they are not made to suffer the ignominy of a rapid fall from grace.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:04   #84
zxb
Posting God
 
zxb's Avatar
Just biding my time...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Team(s): England and the Bangas
Age: 34
Posts: 12,297
Good to see GoJo holding on to 78th.
__________________
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato

"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Eisenhower

"The Pie will soon be mine" - Weebl
zxb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:08   #85
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
There aren't all that many bowlers in the world, are there? Name 37 clearly better ones with enough test wickets behind them to have their full ratings.
Clearly better than Giles and his record since May 2005, which is:

9 matches, 16 wickets at 68

I am pretty sure I could do that.

For England only since then we have:

GBH
Hoggard
Fred
Panesar
Plunkett
Mahmood
Anderson
Udal
Lewis
SiJo (but he is out on 18 month rule)

We have 9 better who have played in the last 18 months. Ok, not full ratings but they are better, and thats just England.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:09   #86
Cricket Guy
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,727
I see Irfan Pathan is still 16th in the Test bowling. Those 40-odd wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangla two years ago have sure done him a lot of good ratings wise!

More significantly, just one Indian in the top 20 Test batsmen. This is probably our worst batting line-up in the last decade.
Cricket Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:09   #87
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
In a very high scoring game (loads of runs and only 23 wickets falling) against a weak attack, I suppose Pietersen's 130 or so runs were not even quite par for the third best batsman in the world. Does seem a bit odd though. The rest of it makes plenty of sense. Monty's rating improved both by his performance in the game and by getting a slightly higher percentage of his full rating by getting nearer to 100 test wickets. Odd that Harmy only dropped one place isn't it although maybe he lost quite a few points?
Harmison lost 21 of his rating points, but that only meant a one place drop in the rankings. Another perfomance at Leeds like the one at Lord's, however, and he'll begin to plummet.

Re the fact that Giles is still in the 30's in the bowling rankings. He did play a test as recently as at Adelaide, and as you pointed out, he has well over 100 wickets in his career. He had 455 ratings points at Adelaide, and 437 today, after missing the past few tests. If he announces his retirement from test cricket, he'll be removed from the active tables.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:15   #88
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Clearly better than Giles and his record since May 2005, which is:

9 matches, 16 wickets at 68

I am pretty sure I could do that.

For England only since then we have:

GBH
Hoggard
Fred
Panesar
Plunkett
Mahmood
Anderson
Udal
Lewis
SiJo (but he is out on 18 month rule)

We have 9 better who have played in the last 18 months. Ok, not full ratings but they are better, and thats just England.

The first four are already ranked higher than Giles. Plunkett, Mahmood and Anderson are all treading water in the lower reaches of the bowling rankings, although a few solid wicket taking performances would see them move up the tables - their hammerings in Australia took their toll.

Udal and Lewis? Surely you jest! Lewis has played only one test match, so how could he possibly be ranked above the KoS??
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:17   #89
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieH View Post
The first four are already ranked higher than Giles. Plunkett, Mahmood and Anderson are all treading water in the lower reaches of the bowling rankings, although a few solid wicket taking performances would see them move up the tables - their hammerings in Australia took their toll.

Udal and Lewis? Surely you jest! Lewis has played only one test match, so how could he possibly be ranked above the KoS??

Morally. I would back them in a test match before the WB.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:19   #90
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Clearly better than Giles and his record since May 2005, which is:

9 matches, 16 wickets at 68

I am pretty sure I could do that.

For England only since then we have:

GBH
Hoggard
Fred
Panesar
Plunkett
Mahmood
Anderson
Udal
Lewis
SiJo (but he is out on 18 month rule)

We have 9 better who have played in the last 18 months. Ok, not full ratings but they are better, and thats just England.
You've picked a rather fallow period of Giles' career though. Much of his rating is from games previous to that time. Indeed, in 2004, just after he shed the "wheeliebin" tag by taking loads of wickets against WI and NZ, his rating was rather high at 668 and I think he was close to the world top 10.

That is a rather irrelevent list of players given that some of them have had very few games and only the four above him in the ratings have actually played a proper number of times.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:22   #91
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
You've picked a rather fallow period of Giles' career though. Much of his rating is from games previous to that time. Indeed, in 2004, just after he shed the "wheeliebin" tag by taking loads of wickets against WI and NZ, his rating was rather high at 668 and I think he was close to the world top 10.

That is a rather irrelevent list of players given that some of them have had very few games and only the four above him in the ratings have actually played a proper number of times.
I know. Obviously I am messing.

That said the rating should represent reasonably current form and two years is a long time. I was jesting, but making a point (sort of). I do feel the rating value the past a little too much.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:34   #92
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
I know. Obviously I am messing.

That said the rating should represent reasonably current form and two years is a long time. I was jesting, but making a point (sort of). I do feel the rating value the past a little too much.
It really depends on what you want the things to do. They do have difficulty reflecting the decline of a once great player. I think of them as an amalgum of career record and recent form.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 20:38   #93
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,186
ICC Cricket Rankings at 28th May 2007

Batsmen

3 (-) - Pietersen
13 (-) - Collingwood
17 (-2) - Strauss
19 (-5) - Bell
22 (-) - Cook
23 (-) - Trescothick
28 (-1) - Flintoff
38 (+10) - Vaughan
60 (+15) - Prior
80 (-2) - Jones
85 (-3) - Giles
98 (-2) - Shah

Bowlers

8 (-1) - Hoggard
10 (-1) - Flintoff
18 (-) - Harmison
26 (-) - Panesar
37 (-) - Giles
48 (-) - Anderson
53 NEW - Sidebottom
55 (+5) - Plunkett
61 (-2) - Mahmood
74 (-2) - Udal
86 (-1) - Lewis
90 NEW - Vaughan
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 20:58   #94
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,071
Cheers 1000ys.

BTW how does Vaughan get a bowling rating - did he even bowl?
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 21:08   #95
daz
Posting God
 
daz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Team(s): Northamptonshire
Posts: 11,288
Trescothick still 23. How on earth does that work?
daz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 21:22   #96
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Cheers 1000ys.

BTW how does Vaughan get a bowling rating - did he even bowl?

No he didn't even bowl. Collingwood appeared briefly at 99 after taking a wicket in the last Test but he is now down at 101. Vaughan's career 6 wickets keep him above Collingwood.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 21:25   #97
Silly Deep Cover
Returning Officer
 
Silly Deep Cover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leafy West London
Team(s): Wales
Posts: 22,638
KP must be wondering what on earth more he has to do to get the No. 1 spot back.
__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." (Walt Whitman)
Silly Deep Cover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 21:27   #98
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Deep Cover View Post
KP must be wondering what on earth more he has to do to get the No. 1 spot back.
Score some runs against a decent attack? Although, Collymore is rated 10.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 21:27   #99
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,403
Beat up Ricky Ponting
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northantsfanone View Post
Speaking to Geoff Cook today they may released Mark Wood from Durham. He rates him but the kid has had an operation and maybe one too many bowlers on the books type deal.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 21:32   #100
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Deep Cover View Post
KP must be wondering what on earth more he has to do to get the No. 1 spot back.
He never was first. You're confusing ODI rankings with Test rankings
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org