ICC's list of greatest test batsmen : 'Couldn't care less'

[jacky007]

Hayden greater than Sachin: ICC 15 Jan 2009, 0008 hrs IST, TNN NEW DELHI: Donald Bradman - the unquestioned supreme deity of batting - said Sachin Tendulkar reminded him of himself more than anybody before or Matthew Hayden and Sachin Tendulkar walk towards the pavilion during the lunch break on the fifth and final day of their third Test in New Delhi on November 2, 2008. since. You might think Sachin can, thus, safely consider the No. 2 slot in a list of all-time greats his for the taking. But you would be wrong, or so says the ICC. Sachin isn’t even in the top 20 Test batsmen , according to new ICC "best ever" ratings. So who are the "greats" who elbowed Sachin out? Among those ahead of his No. 26 rank are Kumar Sangakkara at joint sixth, Matthew Hayden (joint 10th), Mike Hussey and Neil Harvey (joint 17th), Kevin Pietersen (No. 24) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul, one slot above the Indian maestro. The only Indian in the top 20 is Sunil Gavaskar, who only just gets in ahead of West Indian George Headley. How about The Wall? Rahul Dravid stands not so tall at No. 30. "Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period," the ICC website explains, which makes it slightly difficult to understand why none of the top four run-getters in Tests - Sachin, Brian Lara, Alan Border and Steve Waugh - figures among the ICC’s top 20 Test batsmen. In Sachin’s case, we can only conclude that the ICC believes 12,429 runs and 41 tons are not excellent enough. Or perhaps 19 years is not a prolonged enough period. The 'best-ever' ratings for batsmen by the ICC is nothing short of baffling. While the Test ratings defy logic, the list of the "best ever" ODI batsmen strains your credulity no less. Mercifully, Sachin does figure in the top 20 here, though only at No.12, but those who follow him in the list of top run getters in ODIs - Sanath Jayasuriya, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Sourav Ganguly and Ricky Ponting - are among the also-rans. Inzy is ranked as low as No.43, while compatriot Zaheer Abbas is at No.2, a fact that surely will embarrass Zaheer no end. Matthew Hayden, ranked No.18 might be wondering why he always thought his fellow opener Adam Gilchrist was the superior ODI player, considering the stumper ranks only No.30. Cricketing stars in India are understandably astounded at the composition of the list, particularly Tendulkar’s low ranking in the Test list. "It’s shocking. If Sir Don Bradman is number one, then Sachin should have been number two. If not number two, at least his name should have been there in the top five in an all-time greats list. Anybody who scores 12,000 runs and is still going strong after playing international cricket for 19 years not having his name in the all-time great list will surprise not only me but everyone in the fraternity," said former Indian opener Chetan Chauhan. "To play Test cricket at the age of 16, he must be and is a genius. The kind of determination he has is something extraordinary. He has looked after himself well and his hunger for runs is still alive. And these are characteristics of an all-time great batsman," he added. Former India skipper and chairman of selectors Dilip Vengsarkar agrees: "Those players who have been named in the Test list don’t even come near Sachin Tendulkar. I don’t know what kind of calculation is done here to shortlist the names. I am very, very surprised," he said. TV commentator and former India opener Arun Lal summed up what’s likely to be the public mood when he said: "Like many, I am absolutely shocked. I would not take this list that seriously till it has Sachin Tendulkar’s name in it."

As if the ranking joke wasnt enough!!!!

[DomainK]

The ODI rankings are even worse. Who has been supplying drugs to ICC?

[Lord]

The ODI rankings are even worse. Who has been supplying drugs to ICC?

mohammed asif's 'public curer':winky:

[Gambit]

@Gambit: So why are they calling it a ranking of the "best ever"? It should be called a list of players sorted in order of highest point totals. In what sense does it show the best ever?

Well they do state this - "The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained" which is what they have used to compile the lists(Best ever rating points). Like I said, it's like sorting players based on their individual scores.

[DomainK]

Well they do state this - "The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained" which is what they have used to compile the lists(Best ever rating points). Like I said' date=' it's like sorting players based on their individual scores.[/quote'] But the heading says "best ever" and thats where the objections arise.

[The Outsider]

But the heading says "best ever" and thats where the objections arise.

The heading on the ICC website says :

Reliance Mobile ICC Best-Ever Test Championship Rating

It's our brainless media which has put the spin on it.

[Shane]

[goose]

These are the offending words on the ICC website. Read them carefully. Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period. The ratings shown are the highest points totals these players have attained and no player is allowed to appear on the list more than once. The first sentence is very poorly worded. It implies that to get to the TOP of THIS particular list one needs to sustain excellence over a long period of time. The better placed one is in THIS list, the greater the consitency of excellence sustained. What they actually mean, and should have said, is that a high points ranking reflects sustained excellence over two maybe three seasons of top flight cricket and here is a list of batsmen that have achieved that feat ranked by their peak points. The list says nothing of excellence over the LONGEST period of time. Absolutely nothing. The second sentence underlines the stupidity of this list still further. No batsman can appear twice in the list it says. Essentially, we don't care if you scaled numerous peaks in the 860-890 range over ten years, it matter only that your best ever was 898. THAT is the antithesis of a most ever consistent list. Our media are not at fault this time. The ICC has presented a set of data and spun it to misreprsent. It's a serious matter. Not everyone like us has time to scrutinize the data or query the results of the ICC's self proclaimed 'BEST-EVER' list. This list is a collection of one-hit wonders. I know, lets take all the pop songs that ever made it to numero uno in the charts and rank them by the number of weeks spent at number one. Never mind them artitsts that got to number one many times with different songs over their career. Like Gambit said, this list is one step away from proclaiming the best ever on the basis of a single innings or high score.

[Tapioca]

The first sentence is very poorly worded. It implies that to get to the TOP of THIS particular list one needs to sustain excellence over a long period of time.

It does not imply that. It says that to *make it to the list* you should do well for a long period, not *to make to the TOP of the list*. That is your assumption.

[goose]

It does not imply that. It says that to *make it to the list* you should do well for a long period' date=' not *to make to the TOP of the list*. That is your assumption.[/quote'] Disagree. The list is a compilation of the best ever points totals. It goes without saying that the list will be composed of batsman that have done well, sustained excellence over a period of time etc etc. We all know what it takes to get to 900 or thereabouts. Why spell it out? The casual reader is easily fooled into thinking guys at the top of the list have maxed out on said criteria.

[Anakin]

No. And, while these rankings dont mean anything at all, you'll be well served to remember that greats like Don Bradman and Viv Richards may atleast excel over SRT - I agree we should not compare across generations, so lets not try that. Ofcourse this list is weird. But expecting SRT to be crowned as the #1 ever in the world is OTT as well.

If only you really knew what OTT is. Simply put, SRT is the greatest batsman ever.

[SachDan]

Mission accomplished for ICC !! Expect more hits on ICC website for the next couple of months atleast. Sach is the greatest cricket player ever :isalute:

[diegovegaz]

the icc has failed in its objective, if it has failed to name sachin tendulkar in the top 5

[SachDan]

ICC clarifies..

New Delhi: The ICC was cricket world's laughing stock after it made a ridiculously hilarious defence of its all-time great rankings of cricketers, saying the list did not "rank players in terms of true greatness". A day after the new chart was released, former Indian cricketers expressed surprise at the composition of the list and said it was 'extremely misleading' since many great names like Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara did not figure in the top ten positions. The ICC, on its part, promptly, came out with a clarification saying the list does not give a full picture of a player's level of consistency or longevity in the game. "The ICC player rankings are a great way to compare the performances of players but the all-time list of highest rated players does not by itself rank those players in terms of true greatness", the ICC said in a statement. It said that Matthew Hayden's place higher up the table than Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara in the all-time Test and ODI rankings does not necessarily mean that the just-retired Australian is the 10th-best Test batsman or 18th-best ODI batsman in the history of the game. "The rankings give an indication of how players peaked during their careers but do not give a full picture of those players' level of consistency or longevity in the game", it said. India's former left-arm spinner Maninder Singh went to the extent of calling it a "joke" and said "sadistic" ICC officials should stop coming out with such lists. "The ICC is in the habit of making a joke of themselves, and this list proves that. Now, how can you explain Tendulkar who has scored over 12,000 Test runs not being in that list? "I think these jokers should not be given the pleasure of rating players in this way", Maninder told PTI. Explaining the manner in which the rankings have been decided, the ICC said, "A batsman or a bowler who averages around 700 ratings points for most of his career apart from a purple patch where he shoots up to 900 points before dropping down again may be ranked higher on the all-time ratings. "But that does not mean he should necessarily be considered to be better than a player who hovered around the 850-point mark for his entire career," it said. "For that reason some players, who are considered by most observers of the game to be truly great, such as Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Wally Hammond, Greg Chappell and others, do not feature in the top 20 in the all-time high ratings," the statement said Tendulkar was ranked 26th in the Test rankings while Lara was listed three rungs above him. The ICC urged fans to take a closer look at a player's entire career graph to determine his greatness rather than go by the snapshots, which is what the "best-ever ratings" effectively are. If a player's career is considered as a mountain, then a single peak would hold worth less than a high, long plateau, the ICC said. "Hence Tendulkar would be deemed greater than most other players despite having a lower peak. One way of assessing a player would be to calculate his "average rating" over his career though of course this could penalise a player whose long career included a slow start," the ICC said. Maninder said the complex calculations used by the ICC was hard to comprehend since the chart does not reflect the reality. "I don't think players like Tendulkar, Lara, Border or Steve Waugh become smaller just because they don't figure in this list. They have achieved a lot in their careers and cricket fans know their true worth", Maninder said. Former Indian cricketer and coach Madan Lal was also quite astounded by the composition of the list. "It shocked me that Tendulkar is not there. He is Test cricket's most prolific run-getter. He has scored heavily in every condition and against all countries. If he is not there who will be there, I don't know. Tendulkar should definitely have been there," he said. "I am not bothered whether Matthew Hayden or others like Kumar Sangakkara are there. They are also great players but I am surprised any such ranking does not include a Tendulkar and Brian Lara. I don't know what factors or criteria they used to rank the players." Former Indian opener Chetan Chauhan said it was quite shocking to see the list without the name of Tendulkar who has been regarded as one of the best batsmen in the world. "Anybody who has scored over 12,000 runs has to be in the top five at least. Tendulkar is still going strong after 19 years of international cricket, so it is really baffling he is not higher up in the list", Chauhan said.

http://cricketnext.in.com/news/icc-slammed-for-not-hailing-tendulkar-as-greatest/37502-13-1.html

[Shane]

Ratings

[putrevus]

Why are you so quick to say what Sachin isn't and so reluctant to say what he is? I don't understand this at all. Whatever suits you though. He's decimated attacks all over the world. I think he would make at least compete (although I believe he is) to be the best. Its not over the top at all.

When did he decimate any attack other than aussies in 1998, he was always good to very good but his peak compared to peak of Say Viv Richards, lara and Ponting was below par. Tendulkar never scored more than 500 runs in a series till the last visit down under that itself shows even in his peak he never really took over a series and won the series for his team.

[graphic23]

When did he decimate any attack other than aussies in 1998, he was always good to very good but his peak compared to peak of Say Viv Richards, lara and Ponting was below par. Tendulkar never scored more than 500 runs in a series till the last visit down under that itself shows even in his peak he never really took over a series and won the series for his team.

Richards had bowlers who could back up if he fired or misfired. When Lara was at his best in the 90s, he had Ambrose and Walsh in the team. Who did Sachin have? Srinath was the only above-average bowler we had. Its a team game.

[CSK Fan]

When did he decimate any attack other than aussies in 1998, he was always good to very good but his peak compared to peak of Say Viv Richards, lara and Ponting was below par. Tendulkar never scored more than 500 runs in a series till the last visit down under that itself shows even in his peak he never really took over a series and won the series for his team.

For a player to score more than 500 runs, he neds to form partnerships with other players. In the 90s most often overseas, the score would be 220 all out with Sachin scoring a 100. Also india hardly used to play more than 2-3 tests in any series as compared to Aus and England. Its difficult for anyone to score more than 500 in a 3 match series He has decimated many an attack in the 90s

[graphic23]

For a player to score more than 500 runs, he neds to form partnerships with other players. In the 90s most often overseas, the score would be 220 all out with Sachin scoring a 100. Also india hardly used to play more than 2-3 tests in any series as compared to Aus and England. Its difficult for anyone to score more than 500 in a 3 match series He has decimated many an attack in the 90s

Plus, we lost all the games in SA in the '01 tour but he played some awesome innings. In '98 too he played very well in SA. He's played well in NZ, West Indies (in that game where we need 140 odd to win and everyone capitulated), Australia (duh.), Pakistan, Sri Lanka (excluding the most recent tour of course), England.

[CSK Fan]

^^^ Right! Recently Ponting scored a 100 and 99 in the second test against SA but Australia still lost. Very rare that a Ponting innings went in vain. The reason was evident, lack of wicket taking bowlers. A batsman can never win u a test, he can only set it up for the bowlers But about the ratings, the list has always been there. Its just that some reporter notived it recently, saw Sachin was missing and raised a hue and cry without understanding the concept