Impact Index rating system

[aussie1st]

An Indian company has come up with a new way of rating players. It takes it account things like contribution to team, partnership builder, etc.

Their top 25 ODI players overall

1) Sir Vivian Richards (West Indies)
2) Imran Khan (Pakistan)
3) Sir Richard Hadlee (New Zealand)
4) Adam Gilchrist (Australia)
5) Sir Ian Botham (England)
6) Hansie Cronje (South Africa)
7) Andrew Flintoff (England)
8) Jacques Kallis (South Africa)
9) Kapil Dev (India)
10) Carl Hooper (West Indies)
11) Sanath Jayasuriya (Sri Lanka)
12) Shaun Pollock (South Africa)
13) MS Dhoni (India)
14) Lance Klusener (South Africa)
15) Wasim Akram (Pakistan)
16) Shane Watson (Australia)
17) Chris Cairns (New Zealand)
18) Sachin Tendulkar (India)
19) Chris Gayle (West Indies)
20) Joel Garner (West Indies)
21) Jeremy Coney (New Zealand)
22) Simon O'Donnell (Australia)
23) Shahid Afridi (Pakistan)
24) Lance Cairns (New Zealand)
25) Heath Streak (Zimbabwe)

Top ODI Players

And also:
Top ODI Bowlers
Top ODI Batsmen

Still have to look into at more depth but it's produced some very interesting results and they haven't rigged their stats to have certain players in the top 3.

 

[Chewie]

Saw this over on cricketweb. Some of the rankings are rather stupid tbh

 

[sami ullah khan]

Shahid Afridi in that list . Hint hint Ijaz Butthole

 

[sifter132]

I think the ratings are pretty solid at first glance. The overall list is a bit odd looking because of all the all-rounders, but I like the specialised batting and bowling lists more. It's GREAT to see props for the older players like Greenidge, Lamb, Garner, Dean Jones, Hadlee, Holding. Sure they probably wouldn't be as good if we magically transported them into the current day, but they certainly dominated their day and deserve that recognition.

So using the ratings you might end up with a team like:
1 Gordon Greenidge
2 Matthew Hayden
3 Dean Jones
4 Sachin Tendulkar
5 Viv Richards
6 Adam Gilchrist (wk)
7 Imran Khan
8 Richard Hadlee
9 Joel Garner
10 Shane Bond
11 Muttiah Muralitharan/Glenn McGrath

That's a damn good XI. Taking some liberties with the batting order of course with Tendulkar and Gilly usually opening, but there aren't many players on their list who batted #4 or lower. Allan Lamb and Brian Lara would come in probably for Hayden and Tendulkar if you wanted a more appropriate batting order.

 

[AbhishekS]

The system favors the all-rounders by a huge margin, not fair.

 

[Varun]

Shane Bond above McGrath in the top bowlers? Wow!

 

[mohit_dude10]

Shane Bond above McGrath in the top bowlers? Wow!

Shane bond was indeed the best odi bowler, the only thing that stopped him from being one of the greats was injuries. If he had a full career like others he would have surely been among the top 2/3 odi wicket takers.

 

[AbhishekS]

Shane Bond above McGrath in the top bowlers? Wow!

Here is a post I found at CricketWeb. The thread is titled as 'Bond > McGrath > Akram'

Originally posted by miscer on CricketWeb

Okay. So here are the stats. Clearly Bond didnt play enough tests but in pure skill he is better than both of the others. And in ODI's he leaves them in the dust

even garner isnt as good. Garner is pretty close though not gonna lie.

 

[angryangy]

The system favors the all-rounders by a huge margin, not fair.

For sheer effect, completely fair. If someone like Kallis is already the peer of any batsman, then of course all those wickets create quite a lead.

 

[shravi]

The system favors the all-rounders by a huge margin, not fair.

This isn't the best players of all time list. This is just measuring their impact as 1 out of the 11 players in the team. It's obvious that all rounders have a greater impact, even if perhaps they aren't the best of the best in either skill set (batting or bowling).

 

[sami ullah khan]

Bond>Akram. yeah Right Cricket is not all about skill. Its about how you keep yourself fit and motivated to perform for as long as someone like Wasim did. Even when it comes to skill, I think Wasim would outdo any other bowl to have played cricket.

 

[Dare]

Bond>Akram. yeah Right Cricket is not all about skill. Its about how you keep yourself fit and motivated to perform for as long as someone like Wasim did.

people seem to get these rankings all wrong all the time. Cause a big deal out of nothing.
These rankings are an index as it says in the title of how valuable each players was during their careers. Points awarded to the bowlers for taking more top order wickets and that kind of stuff. In his 82 ODIs Bond has a impressive index and in his 400+ ODIs Wasim has impressive index too. Nowhere does it say that Bond is better then Wasim, quote where it says so.

Even when it comes to skill, I think Wasim would outdo any other bowl to have played cricket.

Dont think so.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I'm with sifter, using the specialised lists create a better picture.

of course, all-rounders do have an opportunity to have a big impact, but would you rather the team sifter posted using the bowlers and batsmen distributed in the team as they would be OR would you rather this team.



jayasuriya
gilchrist*
viv richards
kallis
Botham
Carl Hooper
Flintoff
Hansie Cronje
Kapil Dev
Imran Khan
Hadlee

because in the end, you have all the bases covered, keeper, openers, opening bowlers, spin options. but it's a bit of a silly team, and I'd prefer the one sifter proposed.

so it's not that the lists are wrong, just that, this favouring of all-rounders, then labelling the list as "top 25 impact players" is slightly odd presentation because it really doesn't feel like the best 25 players in ODIs, it feels like the most useful ones.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Jayasuriya
Gilchrist +
Kallis
Viv Richards
Carl Hooper
Hansie Cronje
Botham
Flintoff
Imran Khan *
Kapil Dev
Hadlee

You would win a lot of matches with that side, to be fair.

 

[Owzat]

Saw this over on cricketweb. Some of the rankings are rather stupid tbh

"England's top ODI batsmen are Alan Lamb, Kevin Pietersen, Marcus Trescothick, Graham Gooch and Graeme Hick. "

Ahem, one of the most controversial omissions when TMS pundits came up with their England ODI side was NEIL HARVEY FAIRBROTHER. I thought maybe he didn't reach 75 which I think means he wouldn't qualify, but he played EXACTLY 75 ODIs. I think that is a very harsh qualification, it isn't Indian or Sri Lankan perchance is it? (just cause that seems a bit high when a lot of players in the past played so many less ODIs, or are they suggesting quantity of ODIs outweighs quality of cricketer)

NH Fairbrother

ODIs : 75
Inns : 71
Not Out : 18
Runs : 2092
Average : 39.47
SR : 72.06

An SR of 72.06 may not seem a lot, but back then it was. Besides Lambie averaged about the same runs, a tad higher SR but you'd want Fairbrother in your side as one of the best fielders ever. No mention of Nick Knight

Does seem their "best" 25 ODI players includes way too many all-rounders, suggests they should have just done batsmen, bowlers, all-rounders, keepers.