RANKINGS

[fair_balance]

Re: RANKINGS

@Faisal

I read all the boiler-plate they have for ranking batsmen and bowlers. Which is all fine. The website is strangely silent on how they define "all-rounders", so its left as a guessing game. So for them to just come up with 5 "all-rounders" essentially doesn't mean much, unless they define the criteria.

Yes..new website doesnt say anything. Thought old website clearly said that they dont have any scientifc way of ranking all rounders. They just multiply Batting and Bowling points to come out with list of all rounders. That is the reason they only publish top 5.

[Raindance]

Re: RANKINGS

Why should be there any ‘twisting’ criterias when simple logic tells me to follow the logic and base it on “Currently active” players in their catagory playing 1st class cricket. Hellooo?

ICC can shove their so called ‘criterias & rules’, When Bangladeshis have done every thing possible to help ICC but to literally beg them to revoke their Test status,

Bunch of Morons, thats what they are,

[fair_balance]

Re: RANKINGS

@Raindance

Why should be there any ‘twisting’ criterias when simple logic tells me to follow the logic and base it on “Currently active” players in their catagory playing 1st class cricket. Hellooo?

Its very easy to criticize.
Why dont you do one thing.. Tell us what do you think would be best way to rank a cricketter? Please keep in mind their are 2 many variables like quality of opposition, Length of career, Pitch etc.
I honestly think ICC’s player ranking system is very well thought system which PWC developed for them. It is very scientific. Though I cant say same about their Team ranking system.

[Raindance]

Re: RANKINGS

@fair_&_balance

Its very easy to criticize.
Why dont you do one thing.. Tell us what do you think would be best way to rank a cricketter? Please keep in mind their are 2 many variables like quality of opposition, Length of career, Pitch etc.
I honestly think ICC’s player ranking system is very well thought system which PWC developed for them. It is very scientific. Though I cant say same about their Team ranking system.

------------cvabn---------------
Nahi Fair bhaya, This is not critisim, on the contrary it is very simple logic and
simplified method for current stat evaluations. The only hiccup I see here is the difference of “duration of cricket playing season” in a calandar year. Most of the Asian and African counteries have a lenghty seasonal duration compare to NZ UK & Europe, etc.
Its fact that most of the ICC cricket rulz have been created to leash & tame the asian nations , They are biased and much has been said and writen about them, :k:

[fair_balance]

Re: RANKINGS

@Raindance

------------cvabn---------------
Nahi Fair bhaya, This is not critisim, on the contrary it is very simple logic and
simplified method for current stat evaluations. The only hiccup I see here is the difference of “duration of cricket playing season” in a calandar year. Most of the Asian and African counteries have a lenghty seasonal duration compare to NZ UK & Europe, etc.
Its fact that most of the ICC cricket rulz have been created to leash & tame the asian nations , They are biased and much has been said and writen about them, :k:

It is just your opinion or do you have any facts to back it up. I have seen Sachin on Top of batting list for most part of 90 now it is being dominated by Ricky and righly so. In bowling it was either Murali,Macgrath or Warne who has been at top of ranking. As someone said, right now in top 10 batsmen in TEST 3 are pakistani more than AUS and India. I think they are their because in recent time they have batted well. I dont see any substance in your allegation.

[Nancy_Drew]

Re: RANKINGS

after a series loss to india,pak r back to 3rd position in ICC odi ranking

[maihu_don]

Re: RANKINGS

Team Matches Points
1 Australia 41 5523 135
2 South Africa 35 4061 116
3 New Zealand 33 3730 113
4 India 45 5075 113
5 Pakistan 39 4353 112
6 England 27 2920 108
7 Sri Lanka 43 4649 108
8 West Indies 23 2042 89
9 Zimbabwe 23 1012 44
10 Bangladesh 23 322 14

[umer.ashraf]

Re: RANKINGS

:) MS India.

[maihu_don]

Re: RANKINGS

@umer.ashraf

MS India.

[umer.ashraf]

Re: RANKINGS

Mahendar Singh (for) India.

[Nancy_Drew]

Re: RANKINGS

so if pak wins in SL,they climb to no.4?