ICC Cricket Rankings - Page 6

1000yardstare · 28th May 2007, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazntfc

Trescothick still 23. How on earth does that work?

Each time he doesn't play he would drop a point for two.
644 - Cook
609 - Trescothick
598 - Sehwag

slop · 28th May 2007, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Deep Cover

KP must be wondering what on earth more he has to do to get the No. 1 spot back.

Back?

Fatslogger · 28th May 2007, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Score some runs against a decent attack? Although, Collymore is rated 10.

Odd that isn't it? I suppose the issue is covered in your bowling thread. Pietersen is now at his highest ever rating and only 6 points behind MoYo. Ponting is a bit further ahead.

Vaughan has returned to the bowling rankings not through having increased his rating (not having bowled his actual rating will have declined very marginally) but through having played again and hence having his rating reinstated in the list.

Michelle Fivefer · 28th May 2007, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

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

Collingwood is shown as going up a place but he was 13th last time. And may I say that these latest rankings are very harsh on Bell. He went up 3 points last time with his unbeaten century, but having made only 24 runs fewer than Collingwood in just the one innings he's slid down 5 points and is back below Strauss who scored only 15 in this match and has scored just one half-century (exactly 50) in the last seven matches. The snakes cerrtainly move a lot faster than the ladders. What is the explanation?

Fatslogger · 28th May 2007, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

Collingwood is shown as going up a place but he was 13th last time. And may I say that these latest rankings are very harsh on Bell. He went up 3 points last time with his unbeaten century, but having made only 24 runs fewer than Collingwood in just the one innings he's slid down 5 points and is back below Strauss who scored only 15 in this match and has scored just one half-century (exactly 50) in the last seven matches. The snakes cerrtainly move a lot faster than the ladders. What is the explanation?

Bell has far fewer total test innings than Strauss so he is more prone to significant fluctuations in ranking based on a single innings. Also, 5 runs is fewer than 15. Position is dependent on how many players there are around you and what their ratings are.

Michelle Fivefer · 28th May 2007, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Bell has far fewer total test innings than Strauss so he is more prone to significant fluctuations in ranking based on a single innings. Also, 5 runs is fewer than 15. Position is dependent on how many players there are around you and what their ratings are.

I know that really. It takes longer to climb up and longer to drop down. However, both batsmen failed, I don't think 10 runs makes much difference. Also, Collingwood made only 29 compared to the 111 and 34 at Lord's but he stays the same.

Fatslogger · 28th May 2007, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

I know that really. It takes longer to climb up and longer to drop down. However, both batsmen failed, I don't think 10 runs makes much difference. Also, Collingwood made only 29 compared to the 111 and 34 at Lord's but he stays the same.

10 runs doesn't make much difference but it does make some. Collingwood wouldn't have lost too many points based on a modest score of 29 (by comparison with a score of 5, it's not too bad is it?) and his place is also based on who is near him in the rakings. There was and still isn't anyone that close to him. Fleming is the next man down at 674 while Collingwood is at 694, which does represent a fall from 706 after Lords. Bell has gone from 679 to 658 so he's not dropped all that many more points but that brings him below Fleming, Smith, Tendulkar, Strauss and Gilchrist.

daz · 28th May 2007, 23:10

Bell drops 5 places yet Trescothick doesn't and he isnt even playing

Fatslogger · 28th May 2007, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazntfc

Bell drops 5 places yet Trescothick doesn't and he isnt even playing

Please read. Essentially, playing and doing badly is going to have a more dramatic impact than not playing. Of course not playing can't possibly do other than reduce a player's rating whereas playing can.

1000yardstare · 28th May 2007, 23:49

'bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets'

I don't agree with that at all.

Fatslogger · 28th May 2007, 23:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

'bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets'

I don't agree with that at all.

They are contributing to their side's efforts. They do still lose plenty of points by going for runs without using wickets. It's just a minor correction. Think of it as credit from the bowler's captain wanting him to bowl despite not taking wickets.

**Rey** · 29th May 2007, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

And may I say that these latest rankings are very harsh on Bell....What is the explanation?

Everyone is against Bell. Everyone

Michelle Fivefer · 29th May 2007, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by °Rey°

Everyone is against Bell. Everyone

Fatslogger · 29th May 2007, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by °Rey°

Everyone is against Bell. Everyone

Don't forget Jimmy.

**stevieh** · 29th May 2007, 01:02

I'd recommend the FAQs also, for a greater understanding of the rankings.

Also, if you check out an individual player's graph, you can hover over the line at any point to see the match which influenced a significant move (up or down). The ratings invariably make some sense whenever I have looked at them.

What is not always intuitive are moves in the rankings relative to other players, since other matches - India vs Bangla in this case can affect how much a player goes up or down. Tendulkar, feasting off the Bangladesh bowling, went back above Bell in today's version of the batting rankings, for instance.

Silly Deep Cover · 29th May 2007, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by °Rey°

He never was first. You're confusing ODI rankings with Test rankings

I stand corrected.

Baron Shakattak Greenback · 29th May 2007, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

I have very few expectations of his batting. It's more that a few people had commented on how much he'd improved which suggests that he must have been getting out for less than a duck fairly often before.

It's all about the multi-dimensional thing though. If no-one had ever mentioned that he needed to bat and field better to justify a place you wouldn't have heard a peep. But Fletcher did mention it and all of a sudden everyone and his dog was reporting sightings of Monty batting at 3 in his school team and hitting sixes out of the ground at the Gabba*. This immediately became a perceived "improvement" in his test batting.

If Monty continues to develop his bowling he will be picked regardless of his batting, especially as his fielding certainly has improved. Of course he should keep working but I think the odd entertaining 20-odd, like his innings against SL and Murali, are as much as we can expect.

*One of these may not actually have been reported

beefy · 29th May 2007, 10:27

I think it is a change in peoples perceptions through clever media influence which has lead to the belief Monty has improved as a batter, as opposed to an actual genuine improvement. Whenever i watch him he still looks clueless and will be a no11 for some time to come. To me that matters little as long as he can keep improving his bowling. We also have young pace bowlers who offer alot more promise with the bat, hence alleviating the pressure on Monty to score runs i.e Mahmood, Plunkett and Broad.

I also hope Moores does not hold the same almost obsessive fetish for having bowlers who can bat as opposed who ones who can bowl that Fletcher possessed.

beefy · 29th May 2007, 10:30

I would love for Pietersen to reach number 1 in both Test and ODI rankings, does anyone have any idea how possible it will be for him to reach no1 in the Test arena any time soon? Would a few more big scores this series bump him up to no1? Or is Ponting too far ahead at the current time.
Also, incidently, how safe is he at no1 in the ODI ratings?

I personally don't pay much attention to ratings, hence why i am asking someone more in the know how viable it will be for him to reach both the no1's! Although i don't trust the ratings, it would be very nice to see an England player dominating all forms. Has that ever happened before?

Jock McTuffnell2 · 29th May 2007, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy

I would love for Pietersen to reach number 1 in both Test and ODI rankings, does anyone have any idea how possible it will be for him to reach no1 in the Test arena any time soon? Would a few more big scores this series bump him up to no1? Or is Ponting too far ahead at the current time.
Also, incidently, how safe is he at no1 in the ODI ratings?

I personally don't pay much attention to ratings, hence why i am asking someone more in the know how viable it will be for him to reach both the no1's! Although i don't trust the ratings, it would be very nice to see an England player dominating all forms. Has that ever happened before?

Depends on the Indian bowlers rankings and how many runs he gets vs them (lots is my prediction).

29th May 2007, 10:27	#118
beefy World Class Bulldog spirit Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Town Team(s): England & Arsenal Posts: 7,352	I think it is a change in peoples perceptions through clever media influence which has lead to the belief Monty has improved as a batter, as opposed to an actual genuine improvement. Whenever i watch him he still looks clueless and will be a no11 for some time to come. To me that matters little as long as he can keep improving his bowling. We also have young pace bowlers who offer alot more promise with the bat, hence alleviating the pressure on Monty to score runs i.e Mahmood, Plunkett and Broad. I also hope Moores does not hold the same almost obsessive fetish for having bowlers who can bat as opposed who ones who can bowl that Fletcher possessed. __________________ ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.

29th May 2007, 10:30	#119
beefy World Class Bulldog spirit Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Town Team(s): England & Arsenal Posts: 7,352	I would love for Pietersen to reach number 1 in both Test and ODI rankings, does anyone have any idea how possible it will be for him to reach no1 in the Test arena any time soon? Would a few more big scores this series bump him up to no1? Or is Ponting too far ahead at the current time. Also, incidently, how safe is he at no1 in the ODI ratings? I personally don't pay much attention to ratings, hence why i am asking someone more in the know how viable it will be for him to reach both the no1's! Although i don't trust the ratings, it would be very nice to see an England player dominating all forms. Has that ever happened before? __________________ ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28th May 2007, 23:10	#108
daz Posting God Join Date: Feb 2007 Team(s): Northamptonshire Posts: 11,288	Bell drops 5 places yet Trescothick doesn't and he isnt even playing

28th May 2007, 23:49	#110
1000yardstare Posting Goddess JA 901 Cummins 301 SCurran 58 Jhye 39 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Posts: 22,889	'bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets' I don't agree with that at all.

29th May 2007, 01:02	#115
stevieh Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario Team(s): England, Kent, Canada Posts: 7,145	I'd recommend the FAQs also, for a greater understanding of the rankings. Also, if you check out an individual player's graph, you can hover over the line at any point to see the match which influenced a significant move (up or down). The ratings invariably make some sense whenever I have looked at them. What is not always intuitive are moves in the rankings relative to other players, since other matches - India vs Bangla in this case can affect how much a player goes up or down. Tendulkar, feasting off the Bangladesh bowling, went back above Bell in today's version of the batting rankings, for instance.