Vaughan moves up to second spot in PwC ratings

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
1

**Vaughan moves up to second spot in PwC ratings **

Wisden Cricinfo staff - July 29, 2003

Both Michael Vaughan and Herschelle Gibbs moved up one place in the latest PriceWaterhouseCoopers Test ratings after scoring hundreds at Edgbaston, but the biggest gainer was Graeme Smith. His 277 and 85 in the Test ensured that he moved up a whopping 25 places, to No. 19. Vaughan and Gibbs swapped places with Sachin Tendulkar – who dropped to third spot – and Rahul Dravid, who is now ranked 10th.

Darren Lehmann’s century against Bangladesh in the Test at Cairns moved him up 11 places to No. 47, while Steve Waugh climbed two spots to No 13. Habibul Bashar improved his rating to 575 points (No. 36) – the highest ever by a Bangladesh batsman.



Rank     Batsman                    Points 
1        Brian Lara (WI)             887  
2        Michael Vaughan (Eng)   858  
3        Sachin Tendulkar (Ind)   843  
4        Matthew Hayden (Aus)    821  
5        Ricky Ponting (Aus)        816  
6        Jacques Kallis (SA)         812  
7        Adam Gilchrist (Aus)       799  
8        Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pak)    793  
9        Herschelle Gibbs (SA)      792  
10       Rahul Dravid (Ind)         789

Among the bowlers, Stuart MacGill climbed an impressive nine places to No. 7 after his haul of ten wickets against Bangladesh. However, Glenn McGrath’s lacklustre performance – he finished with 1 for 79 – ensured that he dropped a place to third spot. It also allowed meant Shaun Pollock stayed top of the rankings, despite taking only two wickets at Edgbaston. Meanwhile, Darren Gough, who played his first Test in nearly two years, made a reappearance in the top 20, at No. 19.



Rank     Bowler                                    Points 
1          Shaun Pollock (SA)                   872  
2          Muttiah Muralitharan (SL)          861  
3          Glenn McGrath (Aus)                848  
4          Harbhajan Singh (Ind)              746  
5          Jason Gillespie (Aus)                740  
6          Andrew Caddick (Eng)              698  
7=        Stuart MacGill (Aus)                 691  
            Shoaib Akhtar (Pak)                 691  
9           Anil Kumble (Ind)                    688  
10          Makhaya Ntini (SA)                 682

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd

2

Does this rankings system work out points on average runs per game per team they belong to (with respect to plys from other countries), or is it just accumulating runs the batsman puts in.

In either case, I'm surprised to see Gibbs above Inzi in that bats, and Pollock leading the bowler's list.

3

It takes care of many factor and is considered best rating systems available.
It takes care of factors like opposition,run scored,homw or away match,consistancy etc etc.
for detail go to http://pwcratings.com/cricket/cricket.htm

and click on “About The Ratings”

4

Performances against Bengladesh count so much in these ratings? :eek: Let Pakistan play 11 ODI and 9 Tests with them.

5

** How the ratings are calculated.

  1. The weighted average ** Traditional averages reflect players' standings over their whole career. The Ratings, on the other hand, put more emphasis on what the player has done in his more recent matches. For example, suppose there are two twin brothers, Steve and Mark, whose career performances have been as follows:


Steve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100  
Mark 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Both of these have an average of 50. However, in this example the trend in Steve's scores is clearly upwards, while Mark's is the reverse. Using a mathematical principle known as exponential decay, you can produce a weighted average that shows up a player's recent form, and this weighted average is the basis of the PwC Ratings.

In the Ratings formula, each innings counts as 4% less important as you go back in the player's career. In our example above, Steve's weighted average would be about 55 while Mark's would be 45 - both good levels, but Steve would have a higher rating because of his better recent form.

This weighted average explains why players with poor career averages sometimes have high Ratings (and vice versa).

Before calculating the weighted average, the Ratings program evaluates each individual performance, taking into account factors such as the strength of the opposition. These factors differ for the Test and One-Day Ratings.

2. Points

Before the player's weighted average is printed out, it is converted into points, on a scale of 0 to 1000. For example, for a batsman, a weighted average of 60 will give him about 850 points. In both the Test and One-Day Ratings, 900 points indicates outstanding, world beating form and is rarely reached by any player. A player with 700 points is usually inside the world top ten.

3. Changes in points

Like the stock market, a player's Rating can move down as well as up. The higher a player's Rating, the faster it will fall if he loses form. Changes of 100 points after a single game are possible, but usually a player's points change by less than 30 points after a Test match and less than 15 points after a One-Day International.

*4. New players
*
Batsmen and bowlers have to prove themselves before they can make the world top ten. For this reason, a player is only awarded a percentage of his points until he has fully qualified. A Test player reaches his full Rating after playing 40 innings or taking 100 wickets, although an outstanding player can reach the top ten after only a couple of series. Brett Lee of Australia climbed to sixth in the bowling after only six Test matches, but this is a rare achievement. A One-Day player needs to play about 40 matches to get a full Rating, but again, within a year of his first game a good player can make the top 20.

5. All-rounders

We publish an index of the current top five leading all-rounders. This is calculated by multiplying the batting and bowling points together. The reason for multiplying rather than adding is that by definition to be an all-rounder a player has to be selected for both his batting and bowling. Glenn McGrath (900 bowling/100 batting) is not picked for his batting, whereas Craig White (350/450 at the time of writing) is picked for both. Multiplying points together will favour all-round ability over specialist ability. Incidentally, there is a case for saying the all rounder index should actually be the square root of the number we produce, but since this wouldn't affect the order we avoid this extra complication.

6. Missing a game

A player who misses a Test match for his country, for whatever reason, loses 1% of his points, and he loses ½ % of his points if he misses a One-Day match.

6

** Factors used in Test Match Ratings **

The method of calculating the Ratings has been considerably fine-tuned since they were first launched in 1987, but the basic system has remained the same.

The two most important factors taken into account by the Test Ratings are the strength of the opposition and the level of run-scoring in the match. The value of runs scored and wickets taken are adjusted to take account of these factors.

1. Opposition strength

The Ratings adjust the value of a batsman's score depending on the strength of the opposition's bowling over the whole innings (as measured by their Ratings). If McGrath and Lee bowled most of the overs, the batsmen would get a credit of perhaps 10% on their runs, so an innings of 50 might be upgraded to be worth 55. However, if Australia's occasional bowlers bowled most of the overs, the batsmen might lose 20% or more of their runs, valuing an innings of 50 as being worth only 40 runs in normal conditions. (The exact changes depend on the Ratings of the bowlers at the time.)

Meanwhile, a bowler who dismisses a top batsman in form, such as Sachin Tendulkar, might get up to three times as much credit as he gets for dismissing a tailender like Pommie Mbangwa.

2. Level of run-scoring (wrongly known as the "pitch factor")

If both teams make 600 runs, run-scoring was clearly easy in the match (perhaps because of a flat pitch, but no measurement is made of the pitch itself). The Ratings discount runs made in high-scoring conditions, and give credit to runs made in very low scoring matches. Likewise, a bowler who takes 0 for 100 will be penalised less in a high-scoring game than a low-scoring one

3. Result of the match

The Ratings favour players who perform well when it counts. There is a bonus for players who perform well in victories for their team. A player who makes a high score or takes a lot of wickets in a victory gets a bonus, but he gets no bonus if he makes a low score or doesn't take a wicket. Steve Waugh has benefited from this bonus more than any other batsman (Australian or otherwise) in recent years.

4. Not outs

Not outs can be a distorting factor in conventional averages. In the Test Ratings, a player gets a bonus for a not out, but this diminishes as his score increases. A batsman only gets a little more credit for making 300 not out than for making 300 and out.

7

** Factors used in One Day Ratings. **

For years, batting and bowling averages have been the most widely quoted statistics for One-Day cricket, yet both figures are often meaningless as a way of measuring a player's performances. Batting averages ignore the rate at which a batsman scores, and lower order batsmen's averages are boosted by a large number of not outs. Bowling averages say nothing about the crucial factor of economy. The One-Day Ratings tackle these flaws separately.

Batting

In the One-Day Ratings, batsmen are given a bonus if they score their runs quickly. For example, in early 1999 Lance Klusener made 27 not out against the West Indies. What was significant, however, was that it was made off 14 balls, and turned the game (a typical Lance Klusener performance, in fact). In the Ratings, a batsman who scores much faster than the overall rate of scoring in the game gets a bonus, typically of between 10 and 20 runs.

Not outs, however, get little credit. An innings of 30 not out is only given about 3 runs more credit than if the batsman is dismissed for 30. Why give such little credit to not outs? Because it is much less important to preserve your wicket in a One-Day game than in a Test. A batsman who is not out in a One-Day game is, by definition, still in at the end of the innings, and that is when risk-taking and slogging take place and the price of a wicket goes down.

As with the Test Ratings, some allowance is also made for the level of run scoring in the game and the strength of the opposition.

Bowling

It is easy to demonstrate the flaw in limited overs bowling averages. Which of the following performances is better? :



Bowler A 10 overs 0 for 15

Bowler B 10 overs 2 for 60

Bowler B has the better bowling average (30.0 against A's infinite average). But if these two performances were in the same match, Bowler A's performance was much more valuable. If every bowler had figures of 0 for 15 off 10 overs, the opponents would only make 75 in their innings. But with figures of 2 for 60, the opponents are set to make 300.

The Ratings convert a bowling performance into a single value. For every wicket a bowler takes, we reduce his runs conceded. 2 for 40 is rated as roughly the same as 0 for 25. (This assumes that the 2 wickets taken were of average strength batsmen. If a bowler dismisses two top batsmen early in their innings, such as Saeed Anwar and Inzamam, the 2 for 40 is rated higher, roughly equivalent to 0 for 15.)

Bowlers get more credit if they complete their 10 overs. This means that the Ratings will tend to favour those who put in full spells over those who are part time, even if the latter have good figures.

*Non-Test opposition
*
Special consideration is given to performances made against countries who do not have full international status (eg Kenya and Scotland). Records show most of these games to have been very one-sided, so in the Ratings, big scores or wicket-hauls against these countries get relatively little reward. This means that no player can soar to the top of the Ratings by virtue of scoring a string of centuries or taking lots of wickets against the weaker nations.

World Cup bonus

Bowlers who perform above average in a World Cup match can receive up to 20% more points than the same performance would have earned them in any other One-Day tournament. This reflects the higher status given to this tournament by all countries.

8

how Sachin only 3? Sachin best means 1. Lara ver good also. may be pwc do frad for taking doler and do Lara 1 etc

9

abey Tomsawyer - First of all stop this nonsense, it isn't funny.

10

What are you talking about, he is so funny. :rotfl: :rotfl:

11

Re: Vaughan moves up to second spot in PwC ratings

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LahoriMunda: *

Rank Bowler Points
1 Shaun Pollock (SA) 872

2 Muttiah Muralitharan (SL) 861

3 Glenn McGrath (Aus) 848

4 Harbhajan Singh (Ind) 746

5 Jason Gillespie (Aus) 740

6 Andrew Caddick (Eng) 698

7= Stuart MacGill (Aus) 691

Shoaib Akhtar (Pak) 691

9 Anil Kumble (Ind) 688

10 Makhaya Ntini (SA) 682 




[/QUOTE]


ahan. so Caddick is better than MacGill and Akhtar eh. And Pollock is blowing away batsmen in dozens these days?

these rankings are such a sham.
12

Vaughan isn't even the 2nd best batsman in England. Thorpe and Trescothick could both make a case for being ranked higher.

13

How the heck in the world has Harbajhan and Kumble doing up there, they haven't done anything special in a long time, both are still living on the repuations of the test series in 2001 and 10 wickets against Pak.
Caddic doesn't deserve to be up there as well.
The top 3 is justified, Pollock is a very under rated batsman, he is a genuine wicket taker, Murali and McGrath are great bowlers.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
How the heck in the world has Harbajhan and Kumble doing up there, they haven't done anything special in a long time, both are still living on the repuations of the test series in 2001 and 10 wickets against Pak.

[/QUOTE]

I noticed that too but I didn't wanna spark another Pak-India war.

plus Pollock has done nothing special for a long time, long enough to not deserve being up there. he's been at the top for as long as I can remember and that is just silly.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sambrialian: *

I noticed that too but I didn't wanna spark another Pak-India war.

plus Pollock has done nothing special for a long time, long enough to not deserve being up there. he's been at the top for as long as I can remember and that is just silly.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree about Pollock, he was phenomenal in the test series against Pak. He is the most consistent bowler along with McGrath ever.

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
the test series against Pak
[/QUOTE]

err when was that?

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sambrialian: *

err when was that?
[/QUOTE]

Thats how long ago that was, remember in 1999, he took 10 wickets against Pakistan and that is the single reason why he is up there.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
that is the single reason why he is up there.
[/QUOTE]

yaar, if it is indeed the single reason why he is there, then that does not make a lot of sense. this is 2003 not 99 or 00.

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sambrialian: *

yaar, if it is indeed the single reason why he is there, then that does not make a lot of sense. this is 2003 not 99 or 00.
[/QUOTE]

I know, that is what I was asking.

20

To me it totally makes sense...I guess you dont see scorecard of other teams. 



                     Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10


**Harbhajan**
2001 (20y 182d)       12  570.4  1557  60  8/84  15/217  25.95  2.72  57.0  6  2
2002 (21y 182d)       13  594.3  1463  63  7/48   8/85   23.22  2.46  56.6  5  0


**Kumble**
2001 (30y 76d)         5  258.1   684  24  7/115 10/233  28.50  2.64  64.5  2  1
2002 (31y 76d)        10  521    1356  49  5/30   9/145  27.67  2.60  63.7  2  0

**Pollock**
2001 (27y 169d)       13  521    1176  55  6/30  10/147  21.38  2.25  56.8  4  1
2002 (28y 169d)        5  165.3   393  15  3/109  4/62   26.20  2.37  66.2  0  0
2003 (29y 169d)        4  109.4   210  14  4/45   5/77   15.00  1.91  47.0  0  0


**Shoib**
2001 (25y 141d)        1   19      64   1  1/64   1/64   64.00  3.36 114.0  0  0
2002 (26y 141d)        9  220     715  42  6/11   8/72   17.02  3.25  31.4  3  0

**Waqar**
2001 (29y 46d)         6  190.2   598  19  4/19   6/44   31.47  3.14  60.1  0  0
2002 (30y 46d)        12  282.3  1024  40  6/55   7/82   25.60  3.62  42.3  1  0
2003 (31y 46d)         1   28     121   1  1/121  1/121 121.00  4.32 168.0  0  0