2007/2008 WI tour to SA thread

The LG ICC Player Rankings are a widely followed system of rankings for international cricketers based on their recent performances.
Click to expand...

The ratings were developed at the suggestion of Ted Dexter in 1987. The intention was to produce a better indication of players' current standing in the sport than is provided by comparing their averages.
Click to expand...

Source: Wikipedia

Nothing wrong with the rankings. :)
 
Anyone care to give a breakdown of how the ICC interprets the word "recent"? You guys say that the rankings reflect more "recent" form but what exactly is the ICC's definition?

I'm busy downloading stuff in the background so websites takes ages to load otherwise I would've just checked myself.
 
mercurial said:
wikipedia is your answer :rolleyes:? wtf do they know about anything? ffs even the commentators were talking about the new system a while back when it was introduced.
Click to expand...

It's not my answer, it simply explains how the rankings work. Even if it was my answer, so what?

The LG ICC Player Rankings are a sophisticated moving average. Players are rated on a scale of 0 to 1000 points. If a player’s performance is improving on his past record, his points increase; if his performance is declining his points will go down.

The value of each player’s performance within a match is calculated using an algorithm, a series of calculations (all pre-programmed) based on various circumstances in the match.
All of the calculations are carried out using pre-programmed formulae, using the information published in a Test match scorecard. There is no human intervention in this calculation process, and no subjective assessment is made of the quality of the pitch or of the players.
Click to expand...

Source: LG ICC Cricket Rankings

Just because you don't like the way their system works, doesn't mean it's "phucked" up and if you dislike an answer, don't reply with "wtf". Use something constructive. :)
 
That sounds pretty fair, what's the problem mercurial?

From the snippet .geek posted it seems very fair, it's also a very good indication of whether a player is consistently good or not. I mean just think about it, you have a few good/great matches and your ranking shoots up but as soon as you lose form and perform badly, your bad performance will negatively impact your overall stats and your ranking drops accordingly. I don't see how it isn't a fair system..

Recent performances have more impact on a player’s rating than those earlier in his career, but all his performances are taken into account. A great player who has had a lean run of form will still have a respectable rating.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
the problem i have is that it takes current form as opposed to what i was talking about. ICC Rating
FAQS

1 Q What do the ratings measure?

A Think of the LG ICC ratings as a system for identifying the players who could be selected for an ICC World XI if it was picked today. Take a look at the latest top tens, and you should find that most of the players at the top would be candidates for your current World XI. The ratings have often been described as a measure of form, but this is a simplification. A form rating would only look at what a player has done in (say) the last year, whereas our ratings take into account a player's entire career - though they put more emphasis on what he has done recently.
Click to expand...

the new system takes results from 2003 and upwards, completely disregarding performances before that. Dale has 91 wickets. Shaun Pollock has over 300. You're honestly telling me that he's better than Polly?

taken from ICC site, read below

For a bowler, the factors are:

wickets taken and runs conceded;
ratings of the batsmen dismissed (the wicket of Rahul Dravid is worth more than that of Glenn McGrath – but if McGrath’s rating improves, the value of his wicket will increase accordingly)
the level of run-scoring in the match; bowling figures of 3 for 50 in a high scoring match will boost a bowler’s rating more than the same figures in a low scoring match;
- heavy workload; bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets;
the result. Bowlers who take a lot of wickets in a victory receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams.
Click to expand...

refer you to the first bolded part - so basically they're saying that if i took 6/55 and the opposition scored 500, i get a better ranking than someone who took 6/55 and the opposition scored 300. let's put that into perspective:

i take 6/55 against windies who scored 500 - i get higher ranking

i take 6/55 against windies who scored 300 - i get lower ranking

does that make sense to you? punishing me for doing well/bowling out a team for less?

2nd bolded part - shame, what a load of crocksh1t.

a rating system should be simply as follows:

you take the amount of wickets someone has, divide that by the amount of runs conceded. period. problem solved. also, the older system used rankings in which you weren't part of unless you played a certain amount of matches(which i agree with cos you can't be number 2 if you played a few matches...go figure). none of the rubbish that was described above should be a factor at all.

i can understand that they "rate" certain wickets higher than others cos of a batsman's rating, but wickets are wickets. if you win a match, by 2 runs or 400 runs, it doesn't matter, cos a win is a win. why is the same principle not applied here? ie: a wicket is a wicket - no special points for certain batsmen?

PS: wtf wtf wtf :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
mercurial said:
refer you to the first bolded part - so basically they're saying that if i took 6/55 and the opposition scored 500, i get a better ranking than someone who took 6/55 and the opposition scored 300. let's put that into perspective:

i take 6/55 against windies who scored 500 - i get higher ranking

i take 6/55 against windies who scored 300 - i get lower ranking

does that make sense to you? punishing me for doing well/bowling out a team for less?
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me.

But I think to compare scores of 500 to 300 wont really make it clear.

If I take 5/50 in a game where the other team scored 500 then obviously I have done a awesome job. I took half the wickets and only conceded 1 tenth of the runs they scored.

But, If I take 5/50 in a game where the other team scored 131 runs, then I took half the wickets but also conceded more than a third of the runs they scored, so obviously there is a difference in the performance.

And everybody knows that Pollock was the better bowler, but currently Steyn is the better PERFORMER. I mean Pollock only played 1 test this whole summer, how can his PERFORMANCE be better than Steyn's. And that, in my view, is all the rankings does, it rates your current performance.
 
Last edited:
Any actuaries in the house?
I read an actuary text book once, very interesting! It showed how all cricket stats are recorded etc interesting read, although I cant remember how it worked:p
 
JK8 said:
Any actuaries in the house?
I read an actuary text book once, very interesting! It showed how all cricket stats are recorded etc interesting read, although I cant remember how it worked:p
Click to expand...

Yeah keeping track of cricket stats is crazy, not only do they keep track of what happened, they keep track of when it happened as well. Detailed stuff..
 
Back to Cricket matches... :D

The ODI series are gonna be interesting... Wonder if Ontong is going to get a full go... 2 months ago i would've said we're gonna hand their arses to them on a plate... but now... who knows... Still think we are gonna take the series but not as easily.

Bif (Smith) needs to carry his good recent test form to ODI's and hopefully Gibbs can start proving his worth again. Steyn should play in all the ODI's with the Morkel bro's each getting a fair go at proving themselves... Botha... - i'm not convinced he will do anything special.
 
i've always thought that ontong has so much potential. he's been the one bowler that i really think can be great for SA, if he was properly coached. he turns the ball both ways and he does it fairly well, but he can do much better with the right assistance.
 
ja well, i don't really think they picked Ontong for his bowling prowess... He got picked as a middle order batsmen...
 
mercurial said:
poor batsmens' averages would make good bowling averages and poor bowlers' averages would make good batting averages.
Click to expand...

Yes, and if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle :)

Anyway, Ontong never really performed to expectations after the whole Rudolph / Ontong / Percy Sonn fiasco happened in 2003 in Aus.
 
"We are also satisfied that Herschelle's career is on the up again. We want him to play as much cricket as possible and he will definitely start the Standard Bank International Pro20."
Click to expand...

Source: News24

I'm not too sure how Gibbs suddenly is in form after being left out of a test match, not playing any other first class cricket and scoring 20 odd in the following test. :)
 
.geek said:
Source: News24

I'm not too sure how Gibbs suddenly is in form after being left out of a test match, not playing any other first class cricket and scoring 20 odd in the following test. :)
Click to expand...

Well, he his test average for 07 was 26, and he did manage to score 27. which is more than his average. :rolleyes:
 
.geek said:
Source: News24

I'm not too sure how Gibbs suddenly is in form after being left out of a test match, not playing any other first class cricket and scoring 20 odd in the following test. :)
Click to expand...
I think his last innings must've left a mark. 27 off 22 balls is nothing special but I guess they're hoping he goes into the T20 with that sort of strike rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X