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

[_00_deathscar]

Haq's average in 90s stands out for me among those who played a lot of cricket in 90s. He was averaging just 43 at the end of decade and then finished with average of just shade under 50. It illustrates how much easier naughties were for batting (without meaning disrespect to Haq).

How much does the ICC rankings take that into account out of curiosity? Ponting's peak was definitely incredible, but it also came at a time when batting was by far the easiest it has (perhaps ever) been. So it's surprising to see his peak rating of 942 when other players of the 90s are in the mid 20s or late 30s (Lara/Tendulkar/Waugh).

 

[vcs]

yeah, because of the pandemic

??

Didn't say it was because of the pandemic. It most likely didn't change anything because Kohli was terrible in New Zealand. Just a shame that we're missing out on a lot of cricket (not sure whether India or Australia had any other Test series scheduled before the end of the year tour).

 

[honestbharani]

Didn't say it was because of the pandemic. It most likely didn't change anything because Kohli was terrible in New Zealand. Just a shame that we're missing out on a lot of cricket (not sure whether India or Australia had any other Test series scheduled before the end of the year tour).

India surely did not. Australia missed a tour to Bangladesh, I believe. I actually it would have been a close one and a good one to follow as a neutral.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

According to Marcus Berkmann’s book on the ratings, dismissing high-rated batsmen does get a bowler more credit than dismissing low-rated batsmen. (Admittedly that book is now 30 years old).

Warne took 20% more wickets in the same time frame as mcgrath (timeframe rather than wpm matters wrt icc rankings for people in the same team).

Mcgraths average was notably better, so no issue with him being typically ranked higher. But you would expect them to swap a fair bit, even if we accept that Mcgrath was statistically superior.

Wicket quality is definitely a factor as per Andrews post. Your idea that the system is not sophisticated enough to deal with this level of nuance is very plausible, but it was decades ago. Them having a level of sophistication that is a better representation than ignoring it, and recently backtracking is implausible. It almost certainly exists now.

The importance of when they peaked didnt occur to me though. It is likely more significant that Mcgrath peaked at a time when there was little competition. See Pollock spending longer on top than Donald.

[/QUOTE]

 

[TheJediBrah]

Didn't say it was because of the pandemic. It most likely didn't change anything because Kohli was terrible in New Zealand. Just a shame that we're missing out on a lot of cricket (not sure whether India or Australia had any other Test series scheduled before the end of the year tour).

Was just a weird thing to say, implies that you think the pandemic played a role somehow

 

[trundler]

Was just a weird thing to say, implies that you think the pandemic played a role somehow

no you're touchy

Beta thing to say tbh

 

[TheJediBrah]

being called beta by a ****ing simp I've reached a new low

 

[honestbharani]

being called beta by a ****ing simp I've reached a new low

So you think his simping worked?

 

[TheJediBrah]

simping never works

 

[cricketsavant]

Most Days Spent as #1 Bowler in Test Cricket from 1970 to 1990

Most Days Spent as #1 Bowler in Test Cricket from 1990 to 2020

If you want any stats video to be made then do comment below and i will make sure to post it (if it's possible)

Very cool visually but where didy ou get stats for these? The ICC rankings did not exist at that time period? If you used their method and worked back towards the 70s how did you learn about their algorithm which is not mentioned anywhere on the ICC website?

Really curious how that came to be.

 

[srbhkshk]

Very cool visually but where didy ou get stats for these? The ICC rankings did not exist at that time period? If you used their method and worked back towards the 70s how did you learn about their algorithm which is not mentioned anywhere on the ICC website?

Really curious how that came to be.

ICC released their own retrospective rankings.

FWIW it's very weird how ICC is okay releasing the factors on which their rankings are built but not okay with the exact formula, the rankings clearly work fine-ish and tend not to be absurd, at least in tests.

 

[Bolo.]

ICC released their own retrospective rankings.

FWIW it's very weird how ICC is okay releasing the factors on which their rankings are built but not okay with the exact formula, the rankings clearly work fine-ish and tend not to be absurd, at least in tests.

Very good move on their behalf to not release the exact formula. There would be a constant string of complaints from partisans and (less problematically) nerds if we knew the exact formula.

I have almost never had a problem with the results produced by the formula- whatever it is, it is excellent. But I am sure I would have a problem if I knew the formula itself.

 

[stephen]

Yeah, being secret is better because it can't be argued and it can't be gamed.

 

[Migara]

Gooch was among very few batsman in 90s to have 50+ avg. I think sachin, waugh & lara are the others.

And Aravinda, very close with average of 47, despite playing half the time for a minnow side.

 

[srbhkshk]

And Aravinda, very close with average of 47, despite playing half the time for a minnow side.

It's generally easier to maintain a high average over a lower number of games.

 

[cricketsavant]

ICC released their own retrospective rankings.

FWIW it's very weird how ICC is okay releasing the factors on which their rankings are built but not okay with the exact formula, the rankings clearly work fine-ish and tend not to be absurd, at least in tests.

I did not know the ICC released those, I will definitely give them a search.

And yes, it is odd that the formula is hidden but some of the factors are provided. I think the rankings work out OK but there are some irregularities, no Akram, not even once ranked as numero uno? A guy often regarded as the best or at least top 3 all time fast bowler. I also think the team rankings are often similarly flawed.

Anyway, good job on the videos!

 

[srbhkshk]

They aren't my videos.

 

[cricketsavant]

I just noticed the video maker was someone else haha

 

[a massive zebra]

I did not know the ICC released those, I will definitely give them a search.

And yes, it is odd that the formula is hidden but some of the factors are provided. I think the rankings work out OK but there are some irregularities, no Akram, not even once ranked as numero uno? A guy often regarded as the best or at least top 3 all time fast bowler. I also think the team rankings are often similarly flawed.

Anyway, good job on the videos!

The ICC rankings are purely statistically based and make no allowance for opinions and common consensus. Akram's failure to reach #1 on the rankings is a reflection of the fact that his stats (relatively low wickets per match, high proportion of tail end wickets, relatively few match winning performances etc) do not match his reputation, rather than any flaw in the system. Irrespective of how highly Akram may have been rated by his opponents, journalists and the general public, there was no sustained period of time in which he was statistically the world's best Test bowler.

Having said this, Akram isn't even in the top 75 bowlers ever according to the ICC rankings, which does seem an excessively low ranking, especially when you consider some of the people ahead of him such as Bert Ironmonger, Geoff Lawson and Ken Higgs.

All Time ICC Test Bowling Rankings : Best Ever Test Bowlers

ICC Player Rankings

www.relianceiccrankings.com

 

[ankitj]

Among current players even Hazelwood, Wagner, Abbas, Jadeja, Holder and Bumrah have topped Akram's career peak of 830 already (curiously Starc hasn't)! It is indeed weirdly low.