*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Eclipse]

Funny how there's only one person who seems to disagree with it, and the same person who seems to be at odds with the rest of us on almost anything.

Spot a link there?

If you don't like them, I challenge you to find a better method of ranking players, I guarantee you will fail.

I think marc is right here.

God it's good you turnt up Richard or there is no way I would ever agree with marc on anything lol.

 

[Eclipse]

Vaas may be inconsistent as far as taking wickets with good bowling is concerned, but his accuracy rarely wavers from faultless. That's all you need against Flintoff; he'll get himself out before too long.

What about S Pollock he is about as accurate as they get and Filntoff did allright against him.

 

[marc71178]

And what if he came up with a better system then the PwC?

Considering he places more reliance on opinion rather than results, I very much doubt he can come up with anything that can remove all traces of opinion from it.

 

[Richard]

So irrelevant that it's accepted amongst the world media as official?

Funny how there's only one person who seems to disagree with it, and the same person who seems to be at odds with the rest of us on almost anything.

Spot a link there?

If you don't like them, I challenge you to find a better method of ranking players, I guarantee you will fail.

I find it wholly pointless to "rank" players exactly; I just rate approximate "groups" of players as roughly equal.
Not generalisation; approximate grouping. There is a difference.
It is "official" only because people want something that is not possible. It is as inaccurate as those all-time Wisden things a year or so ago.

 

[Richard]

*notes that the PWC rankings are based on form and despite Sachin's marvellous Test match form of late (8,7,55,1 :rolleyes, Trescothick's recent performances have been better*

The PWC rankings are accurate at what they do - rank players on form.

All very well except that they supposedly "take into account quality of opposition".
How do you explain one very good innings and a series against a popgun attack as overriding four bad innings?
They are accurate at what they do, yes - prove the ludicrousy of the term "form". It is not possible to define, and I really do have my doubts about it's equality if 6 and 4 innings can make such a massive difference (Tendulkar 2 - 8; Trescothick about 30 - 7).
PWC is a farce as far as I'm concerned and I frankly don't give a damn who places what value on it, because I see inaccuracies even if I don't see their causes.

 

[Richard]

Considering he places more reliance on opinion rather than results, I very much doubt he can come up with anything that can remove all traces of opinion from it.

No, I can't - and you or anyone else can't come-up with something that removes all traces of generalisation and short-term bias.
Sorry, but what PWC attempts to do is simply not possible to do *fairly* or *accurately*. Therefore they are not of value in "so-and-so's better than so-and-so" arguments.

 

[Richard]

What about S Pollock he is about as accurate as they get and Filntoff did allright against him.

No, he did all right against a team including him. There is a difference, and I'm not claiming he'll face any more of Vaas than he did Pollock, but I can't remember Flintoff coming-in very early in The NatWest Series, which if the top-order folds as their averages suggest they should may well happen now.

 

[badgerhair]

No, I can't - and you or anyone else can't come-up with something that removes all traces of generalisation and short-term bias.
Sorry, but what PWC attempts to do is simply not possible to do *fairly* or *accurately*. Therefore they are not of value in "so-and-so's better than so-and-so" arguments.

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any figure at all which you would feel relevant to a discussion of player merit, or whether you are wholly on the side of subjective impression.

I'm more of a never-mind-the-numbers man myself, but I have to say that PwC's numbers are much the best approximation I've seen. I've found that the relative ratings assigned by PwC agree with my view about 90% of the time, so I tend to trust it as a first stab, especially about players with whom I'm unfamiliar.

The more so if a consistent picture emerges. Trescothick appearing above Tendulkar in the current ratings says that he's in better form than SRT this week. It doesn't require any response from the enver-mind-the-numbers faction.

But if one player's PwC rating is substantially ahead of another's for a substantial period, like a year, say, then we subjective judges are I think obliged to come up with some more convincing justification of our view than "I think so and anyway PwC is crap".

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

Yes, you're quite right - all I object to is the attempted and interpreted exactness of it - I don't think many people would dispute that the top 30 are all there or thereabouts, but for me it's simply a case of SRT, BCL, SRW - small gap - a few more - small gap - a few more - etc. MLH, incidentally, would not be in my top 30.
They're also too biased towards short-term in some cases and not enough in others. This suggests inconsistency to me. Graeme Smith and Trescothick are recent examples.

 

[luckyeddie]

One vital factor which no-one seems to consider - 11 individuals need not necessarily gel as a team.

 

[Rik]

There have been some confusing ratings in the PWC lately though. However biased people think I am, how can Steve Harmison get into the top 20 on the basis of those 9 wickets against Bangladesh after that series against South Africa? They must be rating Bangladesh a little high or the South Africa series as not that important for someone to get into the top 20 on a good performance against such a weak batting team.

 

[badgerhair]

There have been some confusing ratings in the PWC lately though. However biased people think I am, how can Steve Harmison get into the top 20 on the basis of those 9 wickets against Bangladesh after that series against South Africa? They must be rating Bangladesh a little high or the South Africa series as not that important for someone to get into the top 20 on a good performance against such a weak batting team.

It's not the ratings which are particularly confusing in that case, but the rankings.

The situation is that there have been a vast number of retirements and other career ends in the last year or two, plus a pretty severe epidemic of Fast Bowler Injury Virus, and just about every country's attack in any given game now consists of four blokes with 20 Tests between them, so they all rate pretty damn low.

Harmison's actual rating of 575 isn't all that special. In most recent years, it would not have got him into the top 20.

What we currently have is basically a top 12 bulked out to a top 20 with 8 of the less embarrassing of the rest, and on very recent form, Harmison is as least-worst as anyone else I can think of.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

MLH, incidentally, would not be in my top 30.

Assuming MLH is not Hayden, because if so, you've just topped all your previous efforts.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Right, 30 who could even be argued with any solidity to be better than the man who has 3509 runs at 70.18 with 15 centuries and 9 fifties in the period 2001-03?

Here's the PwC Top 100 - Starred are those who I think may come close...

Matthew Hayden
*Brian Lara
*Ricky Ponting
*Rahul Dravid
*Adam Gilchrist
*Inzamam-ul-Haq
*Marcus Trescothick
*Sachin Tendulkar
*Mark Richardson
*Michael Vaughan
*Herschelle Gibbs
*Gary Kirsten
Kumar Sangakkara
*Steve Waugh
*Mahela Jayawardene
Taufeeq Umar
*Jacques Kallis
*Venkata Laxman
*Mark Butcher
*Nasser Hussain
*Yousuf Youhana
Justin Langer
*Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Craig McMillan
*Nathan Astle
*Damien Martyn
*Graham Thorpe
*Ramnaresh Sarwan
Stephen Fleming
Hashan Tillekeratne
Habibul Bashar
*Graeme Smith
*Marvan Atapattu
*Sanath Jayasuriya
*Carl Hooper
Wavell Hinds
Sourav Ganguly
Shaun Pollock
Virender Sehwag
Chris Gayle
Younis Khan
Mark Boucher
Neil McKenzie
Andrew Flintoff
Mathew Sinclair
Lou Vincent
Thilan Samaraweera
Darren Lehmann
Ridley Jacobs
Imran Farhat
Grant Flower
Yasir Hameed
Russel Arnold
Marlon Samuels
Stuart Carlisle
Daren Ganga
Scott Styris
Dion Ebrahim
Moin Khan
Hannan Sarkar
Craig Wishart
Asim Kamal
Abdul Razzaq
Heath Streak
Mark Vermeulen
Al Sahariar
John Crawley
Rashid Latif
Trevor Gripper
Javed Omar
Boeta Dippenaar
Matthew Horne
Andy Blignaut
Travis Friend
Hasan Raza
Imran Nazir
Akash Chopra
Anthony McGrath
Romesh Kaluwitharana
Rajin Saleh
Tatenda Taibu
Chaminda Vaas
Mohammad Ashraful
Sanjay Bangar
Daniel Vettori
Alok Kapali
Andrew Hall
Omari Banks
Brett Lee
Sanuar Hossain
Nicky Boje
Faisal Iqbal
Jacques Rudolph
Ashley Giles
Khaled Masud
Aminul Islam
Devon Smith
Jacob Oram
Rikki Clarke
Hamilton Masakadza

That's 27 stars. And I was pushing myself at the end to get close. Are you suggesting that those 27, plus, say, Sangakkara, Fleming and McMillan are all Hayden's superiors?

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, you're quite right - all I object to is the attempted and interpreted exactness of it - I don't think many people would dispute that the top 30 are all there or thereabouts, but for me it's simply a case of SRT, BCL, SRW - small gap - a few more - small gap - a few more - etc. MLH, incidentally, would not be in my top 30.
They're also too biased towards short-term in some cases and not enough in others. This suggests inconsistency to me. Graeme Smith and Trescothick are recent examples.

Have you ever considered comedy as a career?

 

[Rik]

It's not the ratings which are particularly confusing in that case, but the rankings.

The situation is that there have been a vast number of retirements and other career ends in the last year or two, plus a pretty severe epidemic of Fast Bowler Injury Virus, and just about every country's attack in any given game now consists of four blokes with 20 Tests between them, so they all rate pretty damn low.

Harmison's actual rating of 575 isn't all that special. In most recent years, it would not have got him into the top 20.

What we currently have is basically a top 12 bulked out to a top 20 with 8 of the less embarrassing of the rest, and on very recent form, Harmison is as least-worst as anyone else I can think of.

Cheers,

Mike

Makes sense. With the retirements of Wasim, Curtley and Courtney, Waqar being pushed out of the spotlight, Srinath retiring, great or very good bowlers all leaving the stage then it sort of takes down the prestige of getting into the top 20, because you need less points than you did before. So it's not the ratings, it's the rankings. Ta for that Mike!

 

[Craig]

Have you ever considered comedy as a career?

I dont think he has.

 

[iamdavid]

MLH, incidentally, would not be in my top 30.

Mate , when someone has scored as many runs as he has in the last 3 years then he is fair enough guarenteed a place in the top 10.

Have you ever considered comedy as a career?

:P I agree , if that was you're sincere opinion then comedy is the best option

 

[gibbsnsmith]

since coming to this damned forums, it has been very interesting for me..
First Chris.Hinton bombards everyone with his flighted spin is god, and flat spin is hit etc. and now Richard here has repeatedly claimed in his opinions (which are wrong IMO) some of THE most ridiculous comments i have EVER seen, and ranks up to my PE teacher who claims Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Botham are all VERY overrated and doesnt think much of allrounders.

*gets a medal out for Richard and Chrs.Hinton*













..unless you have been sarcastic.....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

his opinions (which are wrong)

IMO an opinion can't be wrong because it is what that person believes. An opinion can be changed, but as long as that person has that opinion, it can't actually be wrong. Misguided? Perhaps... (but that's just my opinion )