My Test Cricket Ratings to the end of 2007

I have mucked about with my ratings throughout this year, and have finally settled on a formula I am happy with. Here are my test ratings to the end of the Sri Lanka/England series. Includes batsmen, bowlers, and allrounders.

Top 100 Test Batsmen
1 Bradman 1414
2 Hobbs 928
3 Ponting 903
4 Kallis 871
5 Tendulkar 869
6 Hammond 857
7 Sobers 845
8 Hutton 843
9 Headley 843
10 Lara 835
11 Sutcliffe 834
12 Gavaskar 832
13 Hussey 822
14 Barrington 818
15 Mohammad Yousuf 807
16 Dravid 807
17 Pollock 804
18 Weekes 802
19 Chappell 787
20 Jackson 786
21 Walcott 786
22 Hayden 784
23 S. Waugh 774
24 Richards 764
25 Javed Miandad 761
26 Compton 758
27 Inzamam-Ul-Haq 757
28 Border 754
29 Nourse 753
30 Sangakkara 749
31 Jayawardene 733
32 Boycott 720
33 Harvey 717
34 Walters 691
35 Mitchell 686
36 Younis Khan 677
37 Gilchrist 676
38 Pietersen 676
39 Langer 670
40 Hassett 667
41 Kirsten 666
42 Azharuddin 666
43 Flower 665
44 Lloyd 664
45 Ranjitsinhji 663
46 Barlow 662
47 Cowdrey 659
48 Hill 655
49 Kanhai 653
50 Gooch 651
51 Lawry 649
52 Paynter 648
53 M.E. Waugh 647
54 Chanderpaul 645
55 Mccartney 643
56 Trumper 641
57 Gower 639
58 Saeed Anwar 639
59 Taylor 638
60 Crowe 637
61 Boon 637
62 Worrell 636
63 Sehwag 635
64 Morris 634
65 Greenidge 633
66 H.W. Taylor 632
67 May 629
68 De Silva 628
69 Richardson 625
70 Martyn 625
71 Vaughan 624
72 Thorpe 623
73 Trescothick 614
74 Dexter 612
75 Bardsley 610
76 Smith 610
77 Woodfull 608
78 Hazare 607
79 Simpson 606
80 D.M. Jones 605
81 Brown 604
82 Hardstaff 602
83 I.M. Chappell 602
84 Haynes 601
85 Cullinan 601
86 Ponsford 599
87 Saleem Malik 598
88 Viswanath 596
89 Slater 595
90 Ganguly 594
91 Amiss 593
92 Hendren 593
93 Vengsarkar 593
94 Leyland 592
95 Kallicharran 591
96 Hanif Mohammad 591
97 Nurse 589
98 J.H. Edrich 587
99 Mead 586
100 Zaheer Abbas 586


Top 100 Test Bowlers
1 Muralitharan 1242
2 Barnes 996
3 Hadlee 926
4 Warne 914
5 McGrath 912
6 Marshall 886
7 Ambrose 859
8 Lillee 822
9 O'Reilly 821
10 Grimmett 815
11 Trueman 804
12 Imran Khan 793
13 Kumble 791
14 Donald 786
15 Davidson 780
16 Wasim Akram 769
17 Waqar Younis 766
18 Garner 764
19 Walsh 747
20 Lohmann 743
21 Laker 720
22 S.M. Pollock 713
23 Bedser 698
24 Turner 698
25 Blythe 685
26 Holding 677
27 Wardle 675
28 Adcock 655
29 Tayfield 644
30 Tyson 644
31 Fazal Mahmood 641
32 Lindwall 634
33 Botham 631
34 Underwood 630
35 P.M. Pollock 619
36 Peel 619
37 Ntini 615
38 Willis 613
39 Roberts 613
40 Johnston 610
41 Bowes 601
42 Miller 597
43 Statham 595
44 Ironmonger 590
45 Shoaib Akhtar 589
46 MacGill 585
47 Procter 583
48 Croft 581
49 Spofforth 580
50 Kapil Dev 577
51 Benaud 574
52 McDermott 569
53 Alderman 566
54 Harbhajan Singh 564
55 Higgs 563
56 Bishop 561
57 Gibbs 561
58 Lock 559
59 Snow 558
60 Briggs 556
61 McKenzie 555
62 Hall 554
63 Verity 554
64 Chandrasekhar 554
65 Reid 553
66 Bates 552
67 Bedi 551
68 Fraser 548
69 W. Barnes 547
70 Saqlain Mushtaq 543
71 Gillespie 542
72 Tate 535
73 Trumble 526
74 Bond 523
75 Ferris 519
76 Gupte 515
77 Gough 514
78 Caddick 510
79 Hughes 508
80 Walker 505
81 Vass 503
82 Thomson 501
83 Richardson 497
84 Ramadhin 494
85 Cairns 492
86 Toshack 491
87 Clark 489
88 Taylor 488
89 Lawson 488
90 Danish Kaneria 483
91 Lee 481
92 Prasanna 481
93 Abdul Qadir 480
94 Fleming 477
95 Iqbal Qasim 476
96 Saunders 475
97 Hearne 472
98 Hoggard 469
99 Srinath 467
100 Streak 467

Top 100 Test Allrounders
1 G.S. Sobers (WI) 967
2 J.H. Kallis (SA) 917
3 Imran Khan (P) 866
4 I.T. Botham (E) 855
5 K.R. Miller (A) 822
6 G.A. Faulkner (SA) 794
7 R.J. Hadlee (NZ) 691
8 A.W. Greig (E) 667
9 S.M. Pollock (SA) 665
10 N. Kapil Dev (I) 660
11 C.L. Cairns (NZ) 651
12 T.L. Goddard (SA) 644
13 W. Rhodes (E) 553
14 M.A. Noble (A) 550
15 A. Flintoff (E) 534
16 J.M. Gregory (A) 531
17 A.K. Davidson (A) 528
18 C. Kelleway (A) 524
19 Wasim Akram (P) 521
20 M.H. Mankad (I) 520

Of course, the biggest surprise is Kallis up at no.4 in the batsmen's list, and he looks set to stay there into 2008, as he faces the West Indies bowling attack next

So, the formula...?

Hmmm.

Lara is a bit too far down, Hussey too far up imo.

Hussey is bound to come down the list. He can't keep an average above 80 for too much longer. If he does, he's a dead set legend.

Neil Pickup said:

So, the formula...?

Click to expand...

POINTS ALLOCATED: BATSMEN

Average: x7.5

Runs:
8000+: 70
5000-7999: 45
3000-4999: 25
2000-2999: 17
1000-1999: 10
500-999: 5

Centuries: x4
Consistency in reaching fifty (%): x4
Centuries per match (%) (CPM): x350

Less than 25 matches: -5% of rating*
Less than 20 matches: -20% of rating
Less than 15 matches: -35% of rating
Less than 10 matches: -50% of rating
Less than 5 matches: -75% of rating
* players after 1970 get 5% taken off their rating if they
played between 20 and 30 matches.

Played entire career before 1900: +35% of rating
Less than 20 matches: -5% of rating
Less than 10 matches: -20% of rating

Played between 1900-1914: +20% of rating

Career interrupted by WWI/WWII: +8% of rating

South African players: Career ended by isolation

Played first-class cricket for 5 or more years
after isolation: +10% of rating
Played first-class cricket for less than 5 more
years after isolation: +5% of rating


Batting example: Sir Clyde Walcott
Average: 56.68 x7.5 = 425.10
Runs: 3798 = 25
Centuries: 15 x4 = 60
Consistency in reaching fifty (%): 39.19 x4 = 157
Centuries per match: 0.34 x350 = 119.32
Final Rating: 786

Trueman is ridiculously over rated

lindwall at 32?

Failed

POINTS ALLOCATED: BOWLERS

Wickets: x0.4

Average:
0-15: 675 16: 612 17: 556 18: 506
19: 460 20: 418 21: 380 22: 345
23: 314 24: 285 25: 260 26: 236
27: 215 28: 195 29: 177 30: 161
31: 147 32: 133 33: 121 34: 110
35: 100 36: 91 37: 83 38: 75 39: 68
40: 62 41: 56 42: 51 43: 47 44: 42
45: 39 46: 35 47: 32 48: 29 49: 26
50+: 24

Wickets per match: (WPM): x50

5WI: x2
10WM: x5
%5WI per match: x1.5


Less than 25 matches: -5% of rating
Less than 20 matches: -20% of rating
Less than 15 matches: -30% of rating
Less than 10 matches: -40% of rating
Less than 5 matches: -50% of rating

Played entire career before 1900: -35% of rating
Played between 1900-1914: -20% of rating
Less than 20 matches: -5% of rating
Less than 10 matches: -20% of rating

Career interrupted by WWI/WWII: +8% of rating

South African players: see batsmen formula

bond21 said:

Trueman is ridiculously over rated

Click to expand...

bond21 said:

lindwall at 32?

Failed

Click to expand...

bond21 said:

Trueman is ridiculously over rated

Click to expand...

Explain.

How is it over rated when the "Finest bloody fast bowler to draw breath" is outside the top 10?

Speersy said:

Lara is a bit too far down, Hussey too far up imo.

Click to expand...

The about ratings is that they are not there to reaffirm our opinions but hopefully add information we can look at. Contrary to yourself, I would have Lara lower than 10 but something like this is impartial and provides an extra bit of evidence to look at when evaluating a player.

Ponting at 3 Legend.

I don't think I would rank Ponting at no.3 at the moment. Like Viv, his average could drop to the mid to low 50s once he finishes his career, which would mean he might drop to the bottom of the top 10. But, he is a great batsmen, that's for sure.

Trueman bowling without statham wouldve gotten only half his total wickets.

Lindwall is considered to be one of the best bowlers of all time, how you put him at 32 is beyond me and most other people i would imagine.

Anyone who puts Lindwall out of the top 5 doesnt have enough knowledge to be making over complicated lists.

Cool you are a good statistician, doesnt mean you know two bobs about cricket.

bond21 said:

Trueman bowling without statham wouldve gotten only half his total wickets.

Lindwall is considered to be one of the best bowlers of all time, how you put him at 32 is beyond me and most other people i would imagine.

Anyone who puts Lindwall out of the top 5 doesnt have enough knowledge to be making over complicated lists.

Cool you are a good statistician, doesnt mean you know two bobs about cricket.

Click to expand...

You're so biased it's not even funny. Any chance to place an Aussie high up is jumped upon with glee.

Has it ever occured to you that if Brian Statham wasn't at the other end that maybe Trueman might have picked up more wickets?

So, you watched Lindwall bowl did you?

If you didn't: how the hell can you just blindly assert that he would be as high as the top 5??

bond21 said:

Trueman bowling without statham wouldve gotten only half his total wickets.

Lindwall is considered to be one of the best bowlers of all time, how you put him at 32 is beyond me and most other people i would imagine.

Anyone who puts Lindwall out of the top 5 doesnt have enough knowledge to be making over complicated lists.

Cool you are a good statistician, doesnt mean you know two bobs about cricket.

Click to expand...

Have a day off you half-wit, even the Army Surplus Store closes on Sundays.

Without being hyper-critical, because you've put a shed-load of work into this, you must discount some performances from yesteryear.

For example, Barnes took 40-odd wickets against SA on MATTING wickets.

With all due respect, I'd back myself to trouble Jacque Kallis today on those minefields depite being retired for years and suffering from a buggered shoulder, back and knees

social said:

Without being hyper-critical, because you've put a shed-load of work into this, you must discount some performances from yesteryear.

For example, Barnes took 40-odd wickets against SA on MATTING wickets.

With all due respect, I'd back myself to trouble Jacque Kallis today on those minefields depite being retired for years and suffering from a buggered shoulder, back and knees

Click to expand...

That's why bowlers like Barnes, who bowled between 1900-1914, lose 20% of their rating, because, after analyzing the scores, I found that totals were usually about 20% lower then after 1914.

As for Kallis, well, as yet I haven't introduced a penalty for batsmen after 2000. I might do in the future, but only if I determine that conditions were to blame for the high totals, not the lack of good bowlers.

bond21 said:

Trueman bowling without statham wouldve gotten only half his total wickets.

Lindwall is considered to be one of the best bowlers of all time, how you put him at 32 is beyond me and most other people i would imagine.

Anyone who puts Lindwall out of the top 5 doesnt have enough knowledge to be making over complicated lists.

Cool you are a good statistician, doesnt mean you know two bobs about cricket.

Click to expand...

Mate you are a ****ing tosser. You're worse than my police rant post and that was dire. The mods will crucify me for this but it needs to be said.