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 April 2007, 16:14   #61
Archimandrite Herring
International Material
 
Archimandrite Herring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Team(s): Northants, England
Age: 39
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
ICC Cricket ODI Rankings 21 April 2007

Batting
1 (-) - Pietersen
25 (-2) - Collingwood
29 (+1) - Bell
36 (-1) - Trescothick
37 (-2) - Flintoff

38 (-1) - Strauss
68 (+7) - Vaughan
79 (-4) - Jones
83 (-) - Solanki
97 (-7) - Joyce
When the tournament started, Flintoff was in 29th place, ahead of Trescothick (33rd). Now, despite Tres not having played, he has moved ahead in the rankings. What does that tell you about your batting Freddie?
Archimandrite Herring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2007, 16:26   #62
beefy
World Class
 
beefy's Avatar
Bulldog spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London Town
Team(s): England & Arsenal
Posts: 7,352
I think it is a joke if the players get to select the side, the players are there to play, the management and selectors are there to choose the side that will be out there playing.
__________________
ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.
beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 04:10   #63
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 795 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,223
ICC Cricket ODI Rankings 28 April 2007

Batting
1 (-) - Pietersen
25 (-) - Collingwood
29 (-) - Bell
36 (-) - Trescothick
37 (-) - Flintoff
38 (-) - Strauss
66 (+2) - Vaughan
78 (+1) - Jones
83 (-) - Solanki
97 (-) - Joyce

Bowling
17 (-1) - Flintoff
33 (-) - Anderson
54 (+1) - Gough
58 (+2) - Collingwood
61 (-) - Lewis
65 (+2) - Plunkett
72 (+1) - Mahmood
88 (+1) - Panesar
91 (-) - Ian Blackwell

Last edited by 1000yardstare : 29th April 2007 at 10:56.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 04:59   #64
zxb
Posting God
 
zxb's Avatar
Just biding my time...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Team(s): England and the Bangas
Age: 35
Posts: 12,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
ICC Cricket ODI Rankings 28 April 2007
Bowling
1 (-1) - Flintoff
33 (-) - Anderson
54 (+1) - Gough
58 (+2) - Collingwood
61 (-) - Lewis
65 (+2) - Plunkett
72 (+1) - Mahmood
88 (+1) - Panesar
91 (-) - Ian Blackwell
Flintoff 1st in bowling? Despite going down a ranking?
__________________
"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 29th April 2007, 06:07   #65
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxb View Post
Flintoff 1st in bowling? Despite going down a ranking?
I think that is a typo and that Flintoff is around 17 in the bowling rankings.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 10:59   #66
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 795 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxb View Post
Flintoff 1st in bowling? Despite going down a ranking?
Wishful thinking - now corrected.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 22:21   #67
Silly Deep Cover
Returning Officer
 
Silly Deep Cover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leafy West London
Team(s): Wales
Posts: 22,638
One batsman in the top 20. One bowler in the top 20 and heading on his way out of it.

They say stats don't give you the full story, but...
__________________
"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 29th April 2007, 23:51   #68
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Deep Cover View Post
One batsman in the top 20. One bowler in the top 20 and heading on his way out of it.

They say stats don't give you the full story, but...
You can make it sound worse by saying top 24 too. I doubt that Flintoff is really on the way out though. If anything, actually playing a few consecutive ODIs should improve his bowling rating. I haven't actually checked though.

Right, I've now checked. Flintoff's rating (not quite the same as ranking but very similar) hasn't really gone down since the end of 2004. What does surprise me is that his ODI bowling peak was as far back as late 2003.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 11:37   #69
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,430
I don't need stats to tell us how rubbish we are.
__________________
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 30th April 2007, 12:48   #70
KT1
Bat In Hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24
Mahmood and Plunkett are both ranked above Panesar, and I think it is widely considered that the best course of action is to send them back to domestic cricket to "learn their trade". The same for Monty?
KT1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 15:20   #71
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT1 View Post
Mahmood and Plunkett are both ranked above Panesar, and I think it is widely considered that the best course of action is to send them back to domestic cricket to "learn their trade". The same for Monty?
He has played fewer games so his ranking is a bit less representative, although of course neither of Mahmood or Plunkett has played anything like enough games to have a full ranking either. Having said all that, they can both bat and field a fair bit better than Monty too so it does have to be seriously considered as to whether he offers the side enough. Vaughan's bowling figures in the World Cup were superior (okay, small sample size) and he's probably still a bit ahead of Monty with the bat and in the field.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 17:10   #72
MPT
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Warwickshire
Posts: 2,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
...and he's probably still a bit ahead of Monty with the bat and in the field.
Not by much I would imagine
MPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 18:07   #73
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPT View Post
Not by much I would imagine
No, not by much, particularly in the field.

Actually, I do have a bit to say about Monty's batting. People talk about how hard he's worked on it and the improvements he's made but actually, he did reasonably well in his first test innings and has had the odd small score since but essentially remains a rabbit of such a rabbity variety that it's not entirely clear that he should bat ahead of Hoggard. He didn't get much chance in the WC but he did nothing with the willow when he did get a bat. So, in summary, a little bit worse than Vaughan.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 18:21   #74
Silly Deep Cover
Returning Officer
 
Silly Deep Cover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leafy West London
Team(s): Wales
Posts: 22,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
People talk about how hard he's worked on it and the improvements he's made but actually, he did reasonably well in his first test innings and has had the odd small score since but essentially remains a rabbit of such a rabbity variety that it's not entirely clear that he should bat ahead of Hoggard.
Basically, everyone assumed he would be absolute sh1t. Then he had a surprisingly good knock and suddenly everyone assumed he would be pretty good. I imagine the pendulum will swing towards reality eventually, but for now he's as much a victim of expectations with his batting as he is with his bowling.
__________________
"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 30th April 2007, 18:33   #75
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Deep Cover View Post
Basically, everyone assumed he would be absolute sh1t. Then he had a surprisingly good knock and suddenly everyone assumed he would be pretty good. I imagine the pendulum will swing towards reality eventually, but for now he's as much a victim of expectations with his batting as he is with his bowling.
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.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 02:30   #76
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 795 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,223
Well the Test rankings haven't been updated but I thought it would put them on as they stand as at 26th January, 2007.

Batsmen

3 - Pietersen
13 - Strauss
14 - Collingwood
17 - Bell
22 - Trescothick
23 - Cook
27 - Flintoff
68 - Shah
78 - GJones
80 - Giles
99 - Read

Bowlers

5 - Hoggard
9 - Flintoff
17 - Harmison
33 - Panesar
36 - Giles
47 - Anderson
57 - Mahmood
58 - Plunkett
72 - Udal
83 - Lewis

I think Read will be disappearing soon. Vaughan was at 48 but has vanished as he hasn't played for so long.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 16:12   #77
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,706
The new rankings should be published very soon, now that India and Bangladesh have finished the test match. LG states they publish within 12 hours of the finish of a match, but they were probably waiting until both of the overlapping tests were in the books.

I was opining the other day that there seems a lot of mystery surrounding the computing of the Ratings, based on wihch the rankings are listed. In the interests of removing some of that mystery, I read through their FAQ's.

Interestingly, they don't use anything that is not in the standard scorecard listing of a Test match, although they do have formulae to account for various factors, which are not revealed.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:37   #78
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,706
As of Today:

Batsmen

3 - Pietersen (-)
13 - Collingwood (+1)
14 - Bell (+3)
15 - Strauss (-2)
22 - Cook (+1)
23 - Trescothick (-1)
27 - Flintoff (-)
75 - Prior
78 - GJones (-)
82 - Giles (-2)
96 - Shah (-28)
100 - Read (-1)

Bowlers

7 - Hoggard (-2)
9 - Flintoff (-)
18 - Harmison (-1)
26 - Panesar (+7)
37 - Giles (-1)
48 - Anderson (-1)
59 - Mahmood (-2)
60 - Plunkett (-2)
72 - Udal
85 - Lewis (-2)
99 - Collingwood



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.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:40   #79
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,880
Prior already ahead of Read and Jones.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:40   #80
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieH View Post
As of Today:

Batsmen

3 - Pietersen (-)
13 - Collingwood (+1)
14 - Bell (+3)
15 - Strauss (-2)
22 - Cook (+1)
23 - Trescothick (-1)
27 - Flintoff (-)
75 - Prior
78 - GJones (-)
82 - Giles (-2)
96 - Shah (-28)
100 - Read (-1)

Bowlers

7 - Hoggard (-2)
9 - Flintoff (-)
18 - Harmison (-1)
26 - Panesar (+7)
37 - Giles (-1)
48 - Anderson (-1)
59 - Mahmood (-2)
60 - Plunkett (-2)
72 - Udal
85 - Lewis (-2)
99 - Collingwood
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 health 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.[/quote]

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?
Vaughansashes2009 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 10:39.



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