LG have finally sorted their act out...

[Rachael]

It's taken long enough.... but the LG sponsored ICC cricket-rankings site is now able to offer the sort of functionality that we were used to when PWC were involved. See http://www.lgiccrankings.com

[Vrock]

That's at least 4x better, seen as you get all four rankings lists up on one page.

It's much better now, I used to get confused when trying to find ODI's. I always ended up back at tests for some reason.

The only thing they need now though is to actually state the points on those front tables.

[darksideofthemoon]

I am still waiting for the players averages to be included.

[Ninjaman]

What is the fascination with these rankings?

[darksideofthemoon]

Well if you have a favourite player you want to see their progress up the rankings. Also you want your team have have as many players in the top 20 as possible and see how other players are doing.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

What is the fascination with these rankings?

No facination in the rankings as such... but the ratings, through time, can be revealing: compare and contrast the bowling of Wasim and Waqar on a match-by-match basis... or follow the peaks and troughs in the careers of a player like Gatting... and you get a starting point for understanding their career.

Nothing substitutes for going through the career with a fine tooth comb, reading match reports and profiles and the liek... but so long as you understand how the ratings are put together they don't hurt at all as a guide to sustained performance levels.

[Wanderer]

Definitely much better than before. A lot more to see at one look.

Once your eyes get used to the different colours, the future test schedule is great. You can see at a glance who's playing who when...

And I must admit, I am a sucker for the "prediction" thing. So I'm glad that's still there...

[Lemming]

I've enjoyed looking at historical rankings today.

Viv Richards was world number one batsman when I was born.

[Zainub]

Greenidge and Hadlee were the best bowlers and batsmen in test cricket respectively when I was born, but it wouldn't give me the one-day results for some reason, kept taking me to the test results. And I am not really sure about the rating systems you know...Jag opened my eyes here.

Originally Posted by S.Jagdish, Cricket 24 x 7

To determine the 'best ever' batsmen and bowlers, the site uses the highest rating at a given point in time. Wouldn't it have been better, and a fairer judgement of who the best really is/was, if the players' ratings had been averaged over their career? If Sunil Gavaskar is ahead of Lara, Miandad, Haynes & Tendulkar in the all-time one-day batting list, Peter May and Matthew Hayden are ahead of Richards, Gavaskar & Lara in the all-time test batting list and Tony Lock is ahead of Warne, Lindwall and Trueman in the test bowling list and Ewen Chatfield is ahead of Kumble, Vaas & Wasim in one-dayers, then David Lloyd's backside is indeed a fire engine.

[Lemming]

If the current ranking only really give a small indication of how players are ranked, then comarison across eras are sort of useless.

I like the ranking, but would never take them too seriously. There's no chance that anybody can convince me that Tendulkar is not a top ten batsman, or that Lara is not the best. But they do give a nice gesture as to who is playing better than others, they are a fair reflection but are far from gospel.

The LG ratings have been going weird sometimes though. There are still a few gremlins in the website, so try to make sure they seem sensible before stating anything stupid like Adam Gilchrist had a rating of 675 after the 1930 Ashes series. You might have to reset if anomalies occur.