ICC Rankings of the best test batsmans & bowlers of all time

[mukund_nadkarni]

YES!!! Maninder Singh > Wasim Akram in ODIs

:rtfl

Reminds me of an old ad, " Kyon ho gayi GOOGLY?!!"

 

[Themer]

As I said before in another thread I think this is NOT a list saying who they think is the best in order its simply shows the highest scores in the ICC ranking list and when they were.
The list simply shows the peaks.

The list is also on here explained better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_ICC_cricket_ratings

 

[King Pietersen]

Yes, you're all buffoons. Do you actually do any research before posting this crap? It's not a list of who the ICC deem the greatest player of all-time, it's a simple ranking to show the highest scores achieved by individual batsmen throughout their careers, hence why Michael Hussey is ranked so high. This thread is just the best evidence for the way the quality of posting has declined in this section of the forum since the vCash games have been moved in here. Really is starting to annoy me.

 

[Chetan0304]

This is crap ,ICC needs to re-think and should justify clearly.

not because Sachin is not in list , Because Lara is also excluded : that's why i hate ICC ! idiots!

 

[Themer]

This is crap ,ICC needs to re-think and should justify clearly.

not because Sachin is not in list , Because Lara is also excluded : that's why i hate ICC ! idiots!

For god sake read posts and read the link its not that hard. :

As I and KP have already said this isn't a "best ever" list but only shows the highest score an individual has scored on their ranking list.

 

[Precambrian]

Yes, you're all buffoons.

Old colonial master. Bow to thee.... :hpraise

I know what those ratings mean. But what sense does it make? What is the need for such a list? Why doesnt ICC prepare a "All time best Strike Rate" list?

And the idea of trying to equate the efforts of a Sid Barnes or a Lohmann to Wasim Akram or Shaun Pollock just does not make sense.

 

[King Cricket]

Yes, you're all buffoons. Do you actually do any research before posting this crap? It's not a list of who the ICC deem the greatest player of all-time, it's a simple ranking to show the highest scores achieved by individual batsmen throughout their careers, hence why Michael Hussey is ranked so high. This thread is just the best evidence for the way the quality of posting has declined in this section of the forum since the vCash games have been moved in here. Really is starting to annoy me.

Right you are. We are all buffons and you are our GOD. :hpraise:hpraise:hpraise:

 

[Themer]

Really though King Cricket I fail to see where KP said he was god so I think that the sarcasm was a bit over the top :

Its really not that hard to look at things properly

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Yes, you're all buffoons. Do you actually do any research before posting this crap? It's not a list of who the ICC deem the greatest player of all-time, it's a simple ranking to show the highest scores achieved by individual batsmen throughout their careers, hence why Michael Hussey is ranked so high. This thread is just the best evidence for the way the quality of posting has declined in this section of the forum since the vCash games have been moved in here. Really is starting to annoy me.

Original research?!

Just go the page and see for yourself mate. The page title reads 'Reliance Mobile ICC best ever Test Championship rating'. The list on the right has the title 'Top 100 batsmen- Test'. So how can it be that as well as what you think it is.

 

[Themer]

"Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period. The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained and no player is allowed to appear on the list more than once."

Ahem

It says 100 best batsmen as those are the 100 best batsmen setup in this way

 

[KBC]

But disregarding the teams, 4th innings, all that stuff and adding the points only regarding the performance of the player. Then, you'd get expected rankings. But yes, these are based upon every aspect of the game and results are judged upon them.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

From the FAQ section of the said website :

What is the best way to determine the "best players of all time�. Can you produce a definitive list?

The ratings represent a player's standing have compiled a list of "best-ever ratings" which are effectively snapshots of greatness. When it comes to judging a player's greatness over his career, it's necessary to look at his entire graph rather than his peak. It's not so much how high a player gets as how long he stays there. If you think of a player's rating graph as being the shape of a mountain, then the greats will have graphs shaped more like Kilimanjaro than the Matterhorn. Hence Tendulkar would be deemed greater than Clyde Walcott despite the latter's higher peak. One way of assessing a player would be to calculate his 'average rating' over his career though of course this could penalize a player whose long career included a slow start. So it's over to you to make your own judgment by comparing graphs, or by other more subjective means.

Makes a mockery of the list. The essence of that answer really is that a list of the greatest Test cricketers is different from a list of the best cricketers of all time.

Three cheers to the ICC for that brilliant piece of reasoning.

 

[King Cricket]

Three cheers to the ICC for that brilliant piece of reasoning.

The ICC is run by a bunch of pigheads and some guys who have escaped from mental asylums. Everybody knows that.

 

[Themer]

Will you stop saying that its the best cricketer of all time, it says best ever ratings which that list shows. It goes on to say that the list doesn't show the greatest as some on the list had one really good period then dropped down quite a bit, so they have said that a list of the Best Rating Ever and the Greatest players of all time aren't the same which is obvious.

If anything you're making a mockery of yourself

 

[King Cricket]

Will you stop saying that its the best cricketer of all time

Who's saying that?