J. Kallis in his true light.

[flanflinger]

The Old PWC system rewards the consistent not the fly by night..

The best rated bowler McGrath, the best Batter Kallis. Neither are "prima donnas" far from it McGrath relies on line and length, while Kallis looks at batting as an excersise of staying in rather than scoring runs. If anything, Rachael, the system should be applauded by you rather than rubbished.

To get a good rating you need to perform consitstently. New Entrants have to achieve a certain volume of innings or wickets before they get a full rating.


Top 4 Bats at the moment Kallis, Lara, Ponting and Dravid

Top 4 Bowlers - McGrath, Warne, Murali and Flintoff

At the moment I would say they are spot on!!

http://www.cricketratings.com/

John, I disagree with your comments RE:Giles as he no longer bowls negativly but use the legside line to attack, but that is another debate.

How they are devised - you can read about it here:-

Originally Posted by PWC

Before the arrival of computers, the only statistics to compare cricketers from different countries were the conventional averages which had existed since Victorian times. Conventional averages were vulnerable to criticisms such as "yes, but who did he score those runs against….?".

In 1987, Ted Dexter approached us to ask if we could apply our technical know-how and backing to help him to develop a better system for rating international cricketers. Over a period of six months we helped him to develop what became the 'Deloittes' Ratings, the first ratings ever developed for international cricket. (Both Deloittes in the UK and later Coopers & Lybrand joined what has become PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. So our name has changed, but we are the same people.)

Our original Ratings were for Test players only. However, the growing popularity of One-Day cricket led us in 1998 to launch separate One-Day Ratings.

Anomalies are almost inevitable in any ranking system, and in the early days the cricket ratings certainly had their fair share. In the first few years we did some fine-tuning to the system to ensure that players who reached the top ten had got there on merit. These days anomalous results in the PwC ratings are rare.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by John

Yes the present rating systems may give misleading impressions but until someone proposes a better replacement we will have to go by the present one.

I don't think there's anything seriously misleading with the current system but one things is true of all systems: they rely on those trying to interpret things from them understand how they are compiled.

[flanflinger]

The fact is that a 4 whether is is squeezed down towards fin leg, mis-hit over cow corner or creamed through the covers off the front-foot always counts the same.

Nasser Hussain used to be a great advoacte for occasionally playing an "ugly" innings. But the fact is that no ratings system can take into account the quality of an innings.

It can only take into account facts. These facts are have to be hard facts, such as runs and wickets, they cannot be subjective facts such as beauty of shot and grace in implementation