Jaztheman
Chairman of Selectors
Everyone knows who Sachin Tendulkar is, no-one has said they don't. They obviously do know who he is as they have included him in the list. Also, remember to read posts in future and then post.
ICC Rankings of the best test batsmans & bowlers of all time
- Thread starter Tanmay
- Start date
Everyone knows who Sachin Tendulkar is, no-one has said they don't. They obviously do know who he is as they have included him in the list. Also, remember to read posts in future and then post.
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
omg what are we going to do in India. Sachin is not number one, this is an outrage lets start fighting over it.
Chill out and than try to understand what the list is actually for Sachin doesn't have to be #1 in everything.
Chill out and than try to understand what the list is actually for Sachin doesn't have to be #1 in everything.
mukund_nadkarni
Club Cricketer
I find it rather difficult to believe that the ICC just made a list of those who have scored highest points in their ratings ever and decided to put it out in the public calling it 'Reliance Mobile ICC best ever Test Championship rating'. It should be called 'ICC highest points list' or something like that. But what would such a list mean, if anything?!
Arunava
Club Captain
the list is just fine, if u understand it what it really is.
"being a fanboy wont help" .
one needs to understand that it is eliciting the peak rating/form of all the players. and is not about best player of all time.
so why do they come with this ?
just because it tells that when in best form or at peak form, who was/is the best ever.
so why don't they come up with all time best batsman or bowler ?
just because that is not possible. it takes consistency in account which is not possible to calculate or maybe it is but not at the moment. Also it can be controversial so better not come up with it
in such a list, it could be that sachin might be right up there
as he has been pretty consistent for a long time.
"being a fanboy wont help" .
one needs to understand that it is eliciting the peak rating/form of all the players. and is not about best player of all time.
so why do they come with this ?
just because it tells that when in best form or at peak form, who was/is the best ever.
so why don't they come up with all time best batsman or bowler ?
just because that is not possible. it takes consistency in account which is not possible to calculate or maybe it is but not at the moment. Also it can be controversial so better not come up with it
in such a list, it could be that sachin might be right up there
as he has been pretty consistent for a long time.
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
this list is old, I saw this thing a while back and it was posted on here I think and it got the same reaction.
"OMG how can Sachin be that low blah blah"
"OMG how can Sachin be that low blah blah"
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
This list has been out for quite a while on Wikipedia as they list ever thing and wasn't made its always been like that they've simply published it on their site.
Will_NA
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
This thread is hilarious
Fanboy: Why is Sachin not there. He's 26! WTF!
...........: It's simply a list in descending order of the batsman who have achieved the highest scores in Test cricket history
Fanboy: They've done this because they hate India and Tendulkar!
...........:No, it's not representative of who the ICC think are the best ranked Test batsman ever, it's the highest scores achieved by a batsman at their peak
Fanboy: They will learn who Sachin Tendulkar is! He is God!
Fanboy: Why is Sachin not there. He's 26! WTF!
...........: It's simply a list in descending order of the batsman who have achieved the highest scores in Test cricket history
Fanboy: They've done this because they hate India and Tendulkar!
...........:No, it's not representative of who the ICC think are the best ranked Test batsman ever, it's the highest scores achieved by a batsman at their peak
Fanboy: They will learn who Sachin Tendulkar is! He is God!
Precambrian
International Cricketer
Ok, brilliant guys, can you explain how Maninder Singh is rated above Wasim Akram?
Certainly a mark of greatness? Lol!
Come out of your high perches ye hypocrites.
Certainly a mark of greatness? Lol!
Come out of your high perches ye hypocrites.
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
did you not understand anything that people have been trying to explain...
Precambrian
International Cricketer
All I saw was "Hey fanboy/one-eyed Indian/Tendulkar addict, blah-blah-blah, It is not a mark of greatness.... but it reflects highest ever ratings" crap.
The ratings suck because it is impossible to compare across eras in cricket.
Why assume "peaks" as the only marks of greatness?
In other words, why don't the ICC come up with another Index giving weightage to the "longetivity"?
And WHY THE HECK they proclaim in their website that this rankings are a reflection of greatness of the players, and then come up with a contradicting statement?
I am not finding fault because it placed Tendulkar at 26th. Or Lara at 23rd. But a list showing Maninder Singh above Wasim Akram is just ridiculous.
A sorry exercise.
The ratings suck because it is impossible to compare across eras in cricket.
Why assume "peaks" as the only marks of greatness?
In other words, why don't the ICC come up with another Index giving weightage to the "longetivity"?
And WHY THE HECK they proclaim in their website that this rankings are a reflection of greatness of the players, and then come up with a contradicting statement?
I am not finding fault because it placed Tendulkar at 26th. Or Lara at 23rd. But a list showing Maninder Singh above Wasim Akram is just ridiculous.
A sorry exercise.
RoboRocks
Chairman of Selectors
The system seems to be run due to which player can receive the highest rank, which is totally wrong.
I think the system should be for the players who have remained the No.1 player for a certain number of years or via an average ranking.
I think the system should be for the players who have remained the No.1 player for a certain number of years or via an average ranking.
Precambrian
International Cricketer
Really? Atleast that is an improvement!
:Expecting non-Indians to come harping with statements like "ICC once again bows to BCCI"
And Indians to come up with "Why this is ridiculous, he should be No.1/2 in Tests and No.1 in ODIs"
stereotype
Club Cricketer
What the list does propose though is if i basically grab the first 5 batsmen 4 bowlers, Sobers and Sangakarra and they are inform then the side would truely be unbeatable in accordance to the rankings.
Bradman, Hutton, Hobbs, Ponting, Richards, Sobers and Sangakarra are great batsmen and basically can't be bowled to when in form.
On another day and using another formula Tendulkar would perhaps be further up there but using this method he isnt. I think the people baying for Sachin in some ways dont seem to understand there have been batsmen as good as he was or better. Guys like Bradman, Sobers, Pollock i would rate higher anyway, and in many ways guys like Lara, Hobbs, Richards, Ponting and Sangakarra are better imo too. There are certain aspects of their game that are superior to Tendulkars.
Bradman, Hutton, Hobbs, Ponting, Richards, Sobers and Sangakarra are great batsmen and basically can't be bowled to when in form.
On another day and using another formula Tendulkar would perhaps be further up there but using this method he isnt. I think the people baying for Sachin in some ways dont seem to understand there have been batsmen as good as he was or better. Guys like Bradman, Sobers, Pollock i would rate higher anyway, and in many ways guys like Lara, Hobbs, Richards, Ponting and Sangakarra are better imo too. There are certain aspects of their game that are superior to Tendulkars.
Precambrian
International Cricketer
Care to explain how Sangakkara "excels" Tendulkar? Wicketkeeping perhaps?
Similar threads
