Mariyam Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 MS Dhoni >>>>> Wasim Akram >>>> Sachin Tendulkar .. Great ranking system :adore: EDIT: Not only humans but even beast is also in that list. Great Great list. :adore: :adore: The President/CEO/General/Managing Director/Darvish of a country commented on Dhoni's hairstyle and gave him styling tips. That alone makes him a bigger impact player than Wasim Akram and Sachin Tendulkar combined. Kuy2OLZMasA
thongale Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Desmond Haynes avg 50 in won games w/ 16 hundreds. He played with the same bowlers Viv played with so why isn't on the list? Because his SR sucks. Gorden Greenidge avg 54 w/ 9 hundreds in won games. Again he played the same bowlers as Viv did. He isn't on the list too. ditto.
zen Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Because his SR sucks. ditto. Obviously that one of the reasons even though their SR could be acceptable for that time. Though I am not asking that question literally but through that question implying that having more win percentage or being part of wins doesn't automatically mean that your index score will go up like what is assumed by some. Coming back to Sachin, even if we assume that he won 100% of his games, his career avg of 44 at a SR of 86 could even lower his index score. Though it's hard to take such indexes seriously.
Ganeshkumar Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 @Rett,I don't want to argue on the lines of "If Sachin had a strong team,he would've won more matches etc." Just one straight question: 1.Shouldn't an Impact Index list or a list of Best players ever give an indication of why a particular Team(West Indies during 1970s and 80s;Australia since 1998-99 in ODIs.) dominated the Cricket world for a long time,or how a particular player influenced an ordinary Team's fortunes and made them get a decent Win%.(Sachin in this case) 2.A great team is one which consists of at-least 4-5 great players,who have consistently influenced their Team's results.Instead,we only have Gilchrist in the top 5(At #4);of the great Windies,there are only Viv and Garner.More-over,it was McGrath's consistent performances in Big occasions,which frequently made them win the World Cup and oother Tournaments.And he's not in the list! 3.A list which puts players who consistently influence their Team's results,much below the players,who may've influenced just a couple of Big Tournaments;just because the latter performed well both with bat and ball;and the former was just a specialist is rubbish. To me it's a joke;based on the parameters they took,the list might be right;but if it couldn't reveal the actual picture;to hell with those *****y parameters.
zen Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 @Rett,I don't want to argue on the lines of "If Sachin had a strong team,he would've won more matches etc." Just one straight question: 1.Shouldn't an Impact Index list or a list of Best players ever give an indication of why a particular Team(West Indies during 1970s and 80s;Australia since 1998-99 in ODIs.) dominated the Cricket world for a long time,or how a particular player influenced an ordinary Team's fortunes and made them get a decent Win%.(Sachin in this case) 2.A great team is one which consists of at-least 4-5 great players,who have consistently influenced their Team's results.Instead,we only have Gilchrist in the top 5(At #4);of the great Windies,there are only Viv and Garner.More-over,it was McGrath's consistent performances in Big occasions,which frequently made them win the World Cup and oother Tournaments.And he's not in the list! 3.A list which puts players who consistently influence their Team's results,much below the players,who may've influenced just a couple of Big Tournaments;just because the latter performed well both with bat and ball;and the former was just a specialist is rubbish. To me it's a joke;based on the parameters they took,the list might be right;but if it couldn't reveal the actual picture;to hell with those *****y parameters. I am looking forward to people like you creating a fair index. The index being discussed has everything in it to inspire folks like you to come up with a more accurate one! On a side note, I feel that people do all these stats/indexes to try to vindicate to their ownselves that their opinion is correct. So I won't be surprised, if your index has all the parameters that puts Sachin at the top :--D
Ganeshkumar Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 @Rhett,based on my parameters,I will certainly have Sachin in top 5;but what'll make my list look more fair is it'll try to have at-least 8-10 players in the top 25;who were responsible for a couple of Teams to dominate the ODI Cricket world,during different eras.(Windies in 70s and mid 80s,Aussies of late 90s and 2000s) It'll give a more accurate picture of why some Teams won so many matches during a particular era;and why some players were considered such a 'prized' wicket. :)
Ganeshkumar Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I'm going to go out on a limb and say that match winning ratio doesn't indicate much. See, a person could be a part of a very strong playing XI, like Brad Hogg was of the Australian wonder team. He would have a very high win % in the ODIs he played in simply because his team was awesome, and not because he contributed much. Thats what I think anyways. Madam,do you watch cricket?Or,else how can you compare the case of Sachin's with that of Brad Hogg. One who has watched matches,will know how Sachin has been responsible for improving our Success ratio,ever since he opened the Batting.
Ganeshkumar Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I am not complaining about Richard topping the index, there is no doubt about his capabilty in ODIs. But this doesnt take away from the fact that if win rate is consider so important, its going to be a handicap for players from weaker teams. Similalry all rounders, even mediocore ones like Kronje(God rest his soul), will have an upper hand What do you mean Sachin isnt exceptional for his time(the 90s)? Where is Ponting on the list? I always had issues with any kind of player comparison which included team results. That just doesnt make any sense Dude,he meant Sachin's strike rate isn't exceptional for his time compared to Richard's.During Richards' time,65-70 S.R. was alright,but Richards batted at 90 and was also more consistent.Only Kapil had better strike rate. In the case of Sachin's time,during 90s-a strike rate rate of 75 was acceptable,so Sachin's S.R. of 86 is just somewhat better,and there were already some batting at 90 and 100 strike rates(Afridi,Ghilly,Jaya);but what makes Sachin stand out is he had better strike-rate among all players who had near or above 40 averages.(Kallis,Anwar,Ganguly,Kirsten,Bevan)
vvvslaxman Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Dhoni above Sachin has to certainly defy logic. You are comparing someone who has got the highest number of runs in world cup matches (close to 1800 runs) with someone who is yet to play a world cup match. If we start using filters we can certainly prove Harbhajan is a better batsman than Ricky Ponting.
Raghav_12 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Dhoni above Sachin has to certainly defy logic. You are comparing someone who has got the highest number of runs in world cup matches (close to 1800 runs) with someone who is yet to play a world cup match. If we start using filters we can certainly prove Harbhajan is a better batsman than Ricky Ponting. Didn't Dhoni play last world cup in WI?
Manny_Pacquiao Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 richards should be automatically disqualified on account of his girly first name "VIVIAN" richards...wtf he should be auditioning for a black-oriented sit com
vvvslaxman Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Didn't Dhoni play last world cup in WI? 2007.. oh yea lol forgot.. the whole world cup seems like it never happened :cantstop: . gosh. He didn't do well i suppose.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now