(Stats Video) Most days spent as #1 Batsman & Bowler in Test Cricket

[trundler]

Trueman's peak rating is only a point higher than Lindwall and 10 less than Davidson. Certainly not Trueman and the rest as I thought.

 

[ankitj]

For completeness, top 15 batsmen over time.

I noticed Victor Trumper vs Clem Hill, Graeme Pollock bring denied #1 by isolation.

 

[trundler]

Sobers vs Barrington another tight battle. Lawry and Turner underrated as I thought.

 

[AndrewB]

I noticed Victor Trumper vs Clem Hill, Graeme Pollock bring denied #1 by isolation.

Pollock was ranked #1 for most of 1970 - for some reason the video never seems to give him his 1970 rating.

The video's also a bit misleading at other times because when a player's rating jumps from (say) 400 to 700, it insists on counting up the rating through the 300 points (even though ratings don't work like that), so there's a massive lag before they move to the right place (and the rating bars also move gradually - hence you have Hutton in 1940 apparently 12th in the list despite having the 4th highest ranking).

 

[stephen]

The video also showed that Warne spent almost no time ranked #1.

Often people like to say ‘Warne and McGrath’ as if they’re a single entity but there are measures by which McGrath made an impact and Warne didn’t. This is one.

Murali was first ranked ahead of Warne in 1999 and remained ranked ahead of him for the rest of both players' careers.

My only point about Warne and McGrath is that other than Murali they were the last of the 90s greats to retire.

Surely the reason Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Warne and Walsh were underrepresented in this is because their competition was so strong. Ambrose was a beast and deserves a lot of credit for being so consistently top ranked. Pollock too.

 

[harsh.ag]

An away average of 26 is hardly problematic.

Take NZ away, against the two good sides of the time. 29 wickets @27.48 in Oz and 30 wickets @32.30 in Windies. If it was a modern bowler, we would be saying how he shouldn't be in the running for the best of the best, in the ATG first or second XI.

 

[a massive zebra]

Take NZ away, against the two good sides of the time. 29 wickets @27.48 in Oz and 30 wickets @32.30 in Windies. If it was a modern bowler, we would be saying how he shouldn't be in the running for the best of the best, in the ATG first or second XI.

This sounds like a straw man argument to me. Who said he was "in the running for the best of the best, in the ATG first or second XI"? No one as far as I can see. The debate was whether he was clearly the best fast bowler of his generation or at the same level as the likes of Lindwall, Davidson, Statham, Adc0ck and Fazal.

 

[harsh.ag]

This sounds like a straw man argument to me. Who said he was "in the running for the best of the best, in the ATG first or second XI"? No one as far as I can see. The debate was whether he was clearly the best fast bowler of his generation or at the same level as the likes of Lindwall, Davidson, Statham, Adc0ck and Fazal.

I wasn't talking about the debate in this thread in my post. People frequently rank Trueman among the best of the best and he has been featured in many 2nd ATG XIs including the cricinfo one.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Often people like to say ‘Warne and McGrath’ as if they’re a single entity but there are measures by which McGrath made an impact and Warne didn’t. This is one.

I would disagree, purely because I wouldn't consider this a measure that has an impact on anything that matters.

 

[Bolo.]

I reckon these rankings must place a decent premium on top order wickets/ quality of wickets? Ambrose's amount of time at the top is otherwise pretty surprising, as is the fact that mcgrath was so far ahead of warne- I would have expected their wpm and average to have evened out somewhat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I reckon these rankings must place a decent premium on top order wickets/ quality of wickets? Ambrose's amount of time at the top is otherwise pretty surprising, as is the fact that mcgrath was so far ahead of warne- I would have expected their wpm and average to have evened out somewhat.

I don't think the rankings are that nuanced. McGrath ahead of Warne isn't surpsising, he had a comfortably better average and they would have played the same opposition in the same conditions so you can't really judge them seperately on those metrics.

 

[ankitj]

Pollock was ranked #1 for most of 1970 - for some reason the video never seems to give him his 1970 rating.

The video's also a bit misleading at other times because when a player's rating jumps from (say) 400 to 700, it insists on counting up the rating through the 300 points (even though ratings don't work like that), so there's a massive lag before they move to the right place (and the rating bars also move gradually - hence you have Hutton in 1940 apparently 12th in the list despite having the 4th highest ranking).

Yeah, did notice that lag issue. Was lazy to check if Pollock achieved #1. Given his peak rating of 900+ makes sense he would have.

 

[OverratedSanity]

For completeness, top 15 batsmen over time.

I noticed Victor Trumper vs Clem Hill, Graeme Pollock bring denied #1 by isolation.

It annoys me that when the players' rating overtakes another players, the position on the graph still remains below sometimes. It makes the whole thing kinda pointless.

 

[ankitj]

Given the ratings are not quite continuous and can jump significantly based on performance in one match, the animation will be very choppy if they changed positions immediately. May be that's why they do what they do. Although that will still be preferable to showing wrong positions.

 

[ankitj]

Because of that lagged animation Akram shows on top once!

 

[h_hurricane]

Ashwin and Jadeja spending more time at No. 1 than Warne is ITSTL.

Warne being injured/unfit against India in every series he played doesn't help his case. We were lucky that we were up against MacGill and not Warne in 2003-04 series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, so lucky not to face a guy that averages 50 against us

 

[h_hurricane]

And a lot of those wickets came against Ramesh, Parthiv Patel etc..

 

[vcs]

'93-'95 was when Warne had his first peak, and then the rest of the decade was a bit less spectacular. That period overlapped with Ambrose being consistently great and Waqar having his monstrous peak, so he didn't get to spend that many days at No. 1. In the latter part of the decade, McGrath started to become Australia's best bowler.

 

[trundler]

I don't think the rankings are that nuanced. McGrath ahead of Warne isn't surpsising, he had a comfortably better average and they would have played the same opposition in the same conditions so you can't really judge them seperately on those metrics.

Why wouldn't they be? If bored coders on here can account for those things in their rankings why wouldn't the official ICC rankings be more nuanced?