The way the ICC weight new players sheds light on why, for instance, Monty is only 26th at present:
Quote:
|
New players start at zero points, and need to establish themselves before they get full ratings. There is a scale for calculating qualifications. For example, a batsman who has played 10 Test innings gets 70% of his rating (i.e. his rating will be between 0 and 700 points). He doesn’t get 100% until he has played 40 Test innings. A bowler who has taken 30 wickets also gets 70% of his full rating. He doesn’t get 100% until he has taken 100 Test wickets. This means that successful new players can enter the top 30 after just a few Tests, but are unlikely to reach the world top 5 until they have many Test matches under their belts.
|
I can't help feeling that the rankings are more favourable to batsmen than bowlers. Batsmen only have to bat 40 innings to get their full quota (100%) - their actual performances have no bearing on receiving that 100%, whereas bowlers have to take 100 wickets, irrespective of how many innings they bowl in. I cannot see why the same rule doesn't apply (or at least overs bowled rather than wickets taken).
Here's an interesting one:
Quote:
|
This means that successful new players can enter the top 30 after just a few Tests, but are unlikely to reach the world top 5 until they have many Test matches under their belts.
|
Applying the above ICC logic Stuart Clark makes interesting reading, having played only nine tests and is rated 6th. He deserves that position on merit (and probably higher) but should there be such a wide discrepancy between him (6th with 47 wickets after 9 matches) and Monty (26th with 49 wickets after 15 matches). Where I'm coming from is that Clark has bowled against SA (6th ranked test team), Bangladesh (10th) and England (2nd) whereas Monty has bowled against Australia (1st) Pakistan (3rd) India (4th) Sri Lanka (5th) and the Windies (8th). Something a bit odd there.