ICC Cricket Rankings

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by englandsashes2009

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by StevieH

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?

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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.

[zxb]

Good to see GoJo holding on to 78th.

[Vaughansashes2009]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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.

[Cricket Guy]

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.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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]

Originally Posted by englandsashes2009

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??

[Vaughansashes2009]

Originally Posted by StevieH

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by englandsashes2009

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.

[Vaughansashes2009]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

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.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by englandsashes2009

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.

[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

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

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Cheers 1000ys.

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

[daz]

Trescothick still 23. How on earth does that work?

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

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.

[Silly Deep Cover]

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

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

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.

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

[Aidan11]

Beat up Ricky Ponting

[Rey]

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.

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