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

[Dare]

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.

and you get mad because of what??

Now I haven't gone over every post in this thread word for word but I haven't seen anyone call you a "one eyed Indian" and I haven't seen it posted anywhere.

now let me explain something.

are you aware of a thing called the LG ICC Player Rankings. Now the player that's ranker #1 on that list at the moment is Chanderpaul and he has 900 points if Chanderpaul manages to get 962 he would be #1 on the list that was posted on the 1st page. That means if he manged to get 962 he would be ahead of Bradman. Does that mean that he is better than Bradman no it doesn't.
Now I don't know why its so fu***** hard to understand that these rankings are yearly or monthly.
Either you are really young and cant understand something like that list and what it means or to you the only thing that sticks out is that Tendulkar is at #26 and not #1. Or maybe this looks like nuclear science to you and you just cant get it.

Dare added 2 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...

Care to explain how Sangakkara "excels" Tendulkar? Wicketkeeping perhaps?

He is ahead of Tendulkar because in the year before 01/12/2007 Sangakkara had a year that was better than any year Tendulkar ever had. It means that he was better in a single freaking year. IE he scored more runs in a given year at a better average **** like that. Is that to hard to understand.

 

[Precambrian]

and you get mad because of what??

Now I haven't gone over every post in this thread word for word but I haven't seen anyone call you a "one eyed Indian" and I haven't seen it posted anywhere.

now let me explain something.

are you aware of a thing called the LG ICC Player Rankings. Now the player that's ranker #1 on that list at the moment is Chanderpaul and he has 900 points if Chanderpaul manages to get 962 he would be #1 on the list that was posted on the 1st page. That means if he manged to get 962 he would be ahead of Bradman. Does that mean that he is better than Bradman no it doesn't.
Now I don't know why its so fu***** hard to understand that these rankings are yearly or monthly.
Either you are really young and cant understand something like that list and what it means or to you the only thing that sticks out is that Tendulkar is at #26 and not #1. Or maybe this looks like nuclear science to you and you just cant get it.

Dare added 2 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...



He is ahead of Tendulkar because in the year before 01/12/2007 Sangakkara had a year that was better than any year Tendulkar ever had. It means that he was better in a single freaking year. IE he scored more runs in a given year at a better average **** like that. Is that to hard to understand.

Buddy you better enrol for a course of Simple English and Anger management.

The list is stupid. And I understand on what basis it is prepared, and the basis is absolutely flawed.

I just can't understand your maddening stupidity trying to defend the logic of placing Sangakkara over Tendulkar.

Anyway, get sleep mate.

 

[Dare]

Buddy you better enrol for a course of Simple English and Anger management.

The list is stupid. And I understand on what basis it is prepared, and the basis is absolutely flawed.

I just can't understand your maddening stupidity trying to defend the logic of placing Sangakkara over Tendulkar.

Anyway, get sleep mate.

Why English too hard to understand for you?

If you understood the list and why the order is like it is than you would know why Sanga is ahead of Tendulkar but since that is too hard for you to understand the cause is worthless.

Care to point out why the basis of the list is so flawed?

 

[stereotype]

Care to explain how Sangakkara "excels" Tendulkar? Wicketkeeping perhaps?

Ok one area where Sangakkara is a better batsman is he is better at scoring that really big score. Tendulkar has played some fabulous innings and certainly has a lot of attributes that are ahead of Kumar, but when Kumar gets going i think the stats suggest he is a lot harder to get out. Their batting average is basically identical and they are a similar age so i dont see how you could be so certain of Tendulkar "excelling" Sangakkara in every way. If he does why doesnt the record show it.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Buddy you better enrol for a course of Simple English and Anger management.

The list is stupid. And I understand on what basis it is prepared, and the basis is absolutely flawed.

I just can't understand your maddening stupidity trying to defend the logic of placing Sangakkara over Tendulkar.

Anyway, get sleep mate.

HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS IN THE THREAD EXPLAINING THE RATINGS!?

freaking hell people are ignorant....

 

[Precambrian]

Ok one area where Sangakkara is a better batsman is he is better at scoring that really big score. Tendulkar has played some fabulous innings and certainly has a lot of attributes that are ahead of Kumar, but when Kumar gets going i think the stats suggest he is a lot harder to get out. Their batting average is basically identical and they are a similar age so i dont see how you could be so certain of Tendulkar "excelling" Sangakkara in every way. If he does why doesnt the record show it.

Batting average identical? Similar age? Are you really from the planet named earth? The third rock from the sun.

Precambrian added 0 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS IN THE THREAD EXPLAINING THE RATINGS!?

freaking hell people are ignorant....

Care to explain? Oh duh..

 

[.::Stevo::.]

READ THIS IF YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND

The ratings aren't technically who's the greatest player over their career! Its the highest form/point they have reached.

Ill use an example.

Sachin is one of the greats ever, over his career he would of averaged a rating of probaly 700-800.

NOW, lets pick a really really bad batsman. Ill use Glenn McGrath. Now Glens average would of probaly been 0-100 over his career. But lets say hypothetically Glenn has an AWESOME test series and scored hundreds, his rating at the time could spike to 850, but then fall dramatically as his form faded.

In this case, on the list the ICC just put out, Glen would be ranked higher than Sachin, but that doesn't mean Glen is a better batsman then Sachin does it??? no, of course not.

What they should of done is released a list of the top rankings for the average score for each player. You would then probaly find Sachin in the top 5

I love how Indians get so touchy. Its hilarious

 

[karnog]

Ok guys calm down. Yes the title was stupid and the ICC cannot help but commit foolish acts. BUT there is nothing wrong with the method in which they calculated this list. Its not an all-time great list its more like "who banged the most in a year" list. Sure some guys got heaps in one year but it doesn't mean they did it consistently. The player had dry and wet periods. But with Warney at 15, Akram at 49 and Sachin at 26 it means they consistently scored high points but never had that massive peak...

 

[Neo95]

Ok My friends the reason why Sachin isn't on the list is for the reason that at his peak he just scoired 1392 runs in a calendar year with a lesser average.

Compare that to smith's 1656 runs last year at an average of 73.

And to all other guys there who fail to understand why we hail him as God.
Because he has something charming about him.Same reason why you English love KP

 

[karnog]

Ok i'm going to give an analogy. Hopefully all males understand this. Stevo, Neo85, Precambrian, Dare and karnog are having a competition. Its who bangs the most chicks in a year. We all know karnog is a player but he only got 26 in the year at the most. But every year he bangs around 20. Dare banged 60 in one year but then got married and has had any ever since. Stevo got 20, Neo85 got 85 different girls and Precambrian has had only 20. So the list goes as follows:

1. Neo85 85
2. Dare 60
3. karnog 26
4. Stevo 20
4. Precambrian 20

This is how they've done the list. They looked who reaped the benefit the most in one year regardless of their career. Hence Peter May > Neil Harvey, Hayden> Tendulkar, etc. Kapish

 

[Arunava]

@precambrian
I don't think any wise guy would care to explain it to you anymore. Because you should have understood it already but you haven't.
Dude don't feel humiliated or supressed, as you are not the only one. Just don't react knowing half the truth- try to research more with an open mind and you will get it.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Ok i'm going to give an analogy. Hopefully all males understand this. Stevo, Neo85, Precambrian, Dare and karnog are having a competition. Its who bangs the most chicks in a year. We all know karnog is a player but he only got 26 in the year at the most. But every year he bangs around 20. Dare banged 60 in one year but then got married and has had any ever since. Stevo got 20, Neo85 got 85 different girls and Precambrian has had only 20. So the list goes as follows:

1. Neo85 85
2. Dare 60
3. karnog 26
4. Stevo 20
4. Precambrian 20

This is how they've done the list. They looked who reaped the benefit the most in one year regardless of their career. Hence Peter May > Neil Harvey, Hayden> Tendulkar, etc. Kapish

I'm happy with 20

 

[karnog]

lol the stats don't lie

 

[Dare]

Batting average identical?

Batting averages are almost identical.

Sachin 54.27
Sanga 54.37

Ok i'm going to give an analogy. Hopefully all males understand this. Stevo, Neo85, Precambrian, Dare and karnog are having a competition. Its who bangs the most chicks in a year. We all know karnog is a player but he only got 26 in the year at the most. But every year he bangs around 20. Dare banged 60 in one year but then got married and has had any ever since. Stevo got 20, Neo85 got 85 different girls and Precambrian has had only 20. So the list goes as follows:

1. Neo85 85
2. Dare 60
3. karnog 26
4. Stevo 20
4. Precambrian 20

This is how they've done the list. They looked who reaped the benefit the most in one year regardless of their career. Hence Peter May > Neil Harvey, Hayden> Tendulkar, etc. Kapish

what how did I come 25 behind Neo, these ratings are crap man. and I end up getting married too.

this sucks.

 

[mattfb]

Whats the hell?
Lara is at 26 and Sachin is at 26 and ponting 3rd

I'm not surprised Ponting is high though. Lara and Sachin should be up there but Ponting deserves to be just behind them. Maybe Tendulkar 3, Lara 4 and Ponting 5.