PDA

View Full Version : ICC "Best Ever" ratings


Adlerhorst
01-06-2006, 08:29 AM
We all know this is impossible but the ICC have tried to do it anyway

Here are their "official" all time rankings

LEADING BATSMEN

1 D Bradman (Aus) 961 pts
2 L Hutton (Eng) 945
3 J Hobbs (Eng) 942
4 P May (Eng) 941
5 V Richards (WI) 938
5= C Walcott (WI) 938
5= G Sobers (WI) 938
8 R Ponting (Aus) 937
9 M Hayden (Aus) 935
10 Z Abbas (Pkn) 930

LEADING BOWLERS

1 J Garner (WI) 940 pts
2 S Barnes (Eng) 932
3 G Lohmann (Eng) 931
4 R Hadlee (NZ) 923
5 Imran Khan (Pkn) 922
6 M Muralitharan (SL) 915 - No Ball!
7 G McGrath (Aus) 914
8 T Lock (Eng) 912
8= C Ambrose (WI) 912
10 I Botham (Eng) 911

Some interesting ommissions, Marshall, Shazza, Lara, Tendulkar, Gavakskar, Lillee.

ICC rep got it right when he said "Some players have a peak in their careers like Kilimanjaro, whereas for others it's more like Table Mountain"

ReadingPalace
01-06-2006, 08:31 AM
I think that Walcott batsman is related to Theo.

Oddjob
01-06-2006, 08:33 AM
No Shane Warne? Thats bizarre

nathe
01-06-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Oddjob
No Shane Warne? Thats bizarre

I was just thinking the same

oz_da II
01-06-2006, 08:37 AM
They should be adding another digit to Bradman's total points.

Mr C
01-06-2006, 11:48 AM
Can't believe no Warne and can't believe that Bradman is not further ahead, ....how can Hutton be on 16 points behind when he is around 40 runs behind per innings? Bradman is 40 runs better than the best of the rest of test cricket?

chelmsfordeagle
02-06-2006, 09:38 AM
the score on their is apprently a score they achieved at their peak.

James Melody
02-06-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by chelmsfordeagle
the score on their is apprently a score they achieved at their peak.

But Bradman's peak was his entire career!

AJ1969
02-06-2006, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by oz_da II
They should be adding another digit to Bradman's total points.

He wasn't that good - different era. He wouldn't cut it now

oz_da II
02-06-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by AJ1969
He wasn't that good - different era. He wouldn't cut it now

Oh dear.....

Quite possibly the craziest thing I've ever heard. Where do you get that from?

Let's not forget Bradman played on uncovered pitches.

You're entitled to your opinion but that is madness.
He'd probably average 150 on the belter pitches they prepare these days.

Wouldn't cut it now.... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

James Melody
02-06-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by oz_da II
Oh dear.....

Quite possibly the craziest thing I've ever heard. Where do you get that from?

Let's not forget Bradman played on uncovered pitches.

You're entitled to your opinion but that is madness.
He'd probably average 150 on the belter pitches they prepare these days.

Wouldn't cut it now.... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Agreed, Bradman was an astounding talent to say he would not cut it today is just crazy.

Bobby Woodruff
02-06-2006, 02:17 PM
I'm surprised Lock is in but not Laker.

AJ1969
02-06-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by James Melody
Agreed, Bradman was an astounding talent to say he would not cut it today is just crazy.

So where's the proof then? If you look at some of the greatest ever footballers (Pele, Cruyff, Best, Pushkas, Di Stefano) I doubt any of them could deal with the pace / technique of the modern game... admittedly given training, maybe, but likely not. In fact the same applies across all sport (athletics, golf, tennis etc, the list is endless). So why wouldn't the same apply to cricket? The game has changed significantly e.g. pitches, speed, ODI's, fielding limitations, fitness etc but why suggest that would suit Bradman? Bradman was a great batsman in his era, no more, no less.

Some stats (from ICC) - don't really plead the brad's case do they?

Strike Rate

sr player team mat inns runs bf ave
85.95 Shahid Afridi Pak 24 43 1634 1901 38.90
81.59 AC Gilchrist Aus 85 123 5124 6280 48.79
79.33* N Kapil Dev Ind 131 184 5248 5192+ 31.05
74.89 V Sehwag Ind 45 74 3709 4952 52.23
70.97 KP Pietersen Eng 13 25 1203 1695 50.12
68.83* IVA Richards WI 121 182 8540 9744+ 50.23
68.65 M Muralitharan SL 105 136 1058 1541 12.16
65.09 A Flintoff Eng 61 98 3126 4802 33.61
64.62* ST Jayasuriya SL 102 173 6613 10141+ 41.59
63.17 IDS Smith NZ 63 88 1815 2873 25.56
63.01 Kamran Akmal Pak 23 39 1152 1828 31.13
62.56 BB McCullum NZ 23 35 1083 1731 32.81
62.38* SM Patil Ind 29 47 1588 2103+ 36.93
62.06* K Srikkanth Ind 43 72 2062 2697+ 29.88
61.80 DS Lehmann Aus 27 42 1798 2909 44.95
60.71 IT Botham Eng 102 161 5200 8565 33.54
60.60 BC Lara WI 124 219 11294 18636 53.02
60.40 Habibul Bashar BD 42 83 2838 4698 34.60
60.34 RS Kaluwitharana SL 49 78 1933 3203 26.12
60.09 ML Hayden Aus 84 150 7326 12190 53.08
60.02* SJ McCabe Aus 39 62 2748 3217+ 48.21
59.84 GC Smith SA 48 84 3891 6502 49.25
59.80 L Klusener SA 49 69 1906 3187 32.86
58.86 RT Ponting Aus 105 175 8792 14937 58.22
58.75 Yasir Hameed Pak 17 33 1168 1988 38.93
58.61* DG Bradman Aus 52 80 6996 9798+ 99.94

Highest Scores:

runs player match season
400* BC Lara West Indies v England at St John's 2003/04
380 ML Hayden Australia v Zimbabwe at Perth 2003/04
375 BC Lara West Indies v England at St John's 1993/94
365* GS Sobers West Indies v Pakistan at Kingston 1957/58
364 L Hutton England v Australia at The Oval 1938
340 ST Jayasuriya Sri Lanka v India at Colombo (RPS) 1997
337 Hanif Mohammad Pakistan v West Indies at Bridgetown 1957/58
336* WR Hammond England v New Zealand at Auckland 1932/33
334* MA Taylor Australia v Pakistan at Peshawar 1998/99
334 DG Bradman Australia v England at Leeds 1930

Most runs:

player team mat inns no runs hs 100 ave
BC Lara WI 124 219 6 11294 400* 31 53.02
AR Border Aus 156 265 44 11174 205 27 50.56
SR Waugh Aus 168 260 46 10927 200 32 51.06
SR Tendulkar Ind 132 211 22 10469 248* 35 55.39
SM Gavaskar Ind 125 214 16 10122 236* 34 51.12
GA Gooch Eng 118 215 6 8900 333 20 42.58
Javed Miandad Pak 124 189 21 8832 280* 23 52.57
RT Ponting Aus 105 175 24 8792 257 31 58.22
R Dravid Ind 100 169 21 8553 270 22 57.79
IVA Richards WI 121 182 12 8540 291 24 50.23
AJ Stewart Eng 133 235 21 8463 190 15 39.54
Inzamam-ul-Haq Pak 109 180 19 8266 329 25 51.34
DI Gower Eng 117 204 18 8231 215 18 44.25
G Boycott Eng 108 193 23 8114 246* 22 47.72
JH Kallis SA 102 172 28 8033 189* 24 55.78
GS Sobers WI 93 160 21 8032 365* 26 57.78
ME Waugh Aus 128 209 17 8029 153* 20 41.81
MA Atherton Eng 115 212 7 7728 185* 16 37.69
MC Cowdrey Eng 114 188 15 7624 182 22 44.06
CG Greenidge WI 108 185 16 7558 226 19 44.72
MA Taylor Aus 104 186 13 7525 334* 19 43.49
CH Lloyd WI 110 175 14 7515 242* 19 46.67
DL Haynes WI 116 202 25 7487 184 18 42.29
DC Boon Aus 107 190 20 7422 200 21 43.65
JL Langer Aus 100 173 10 7393 250 22 45.35
ML Hayden Aus 84 150 12 7326 380 26 53.08
G Kirsten SA 101 176 15 7289 275 21 45.27
WR Hammond Eng 85 140 16 7249 336* 22 58.45
GS Chappell Aus 87 151 19 7110 247* 24 53.86
DG Bradman Aus 52 80 10 6996 334 29 99.94

oz_da II
02-06-2006, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by AJ1969
So why wouldn't the same apply to cricket? The game has changed significantly e.g. pitches, speed, ODI's, fielding limitations, fitness etc but why suggest that would suit Bradman? Bradman was a great batsman in his era, no more, no less.



The pitches are 100x better these days as they are now covered. I've seen photos of 1930's pitches where you struggle to see the batsman's ankles.

Strike rate? You've got batsman on that list with averages of 12. Also in the 30's you could bowl as many bouncers as you liked, bit difficult to keep the strike going when every ball is around head height (bodyline days).

You mention fielding limitations, they brought rules in (no more than two fielders behind square leg) because teams could find no other way to get him out than to pack the field behind square leg and constantly dig it in short for a catch on the leg side.

Your list of total runs is pretty meaningless. They've all played double or treble the amount of tests Bradman has played.

Your high score list is pretty meaningless as well. You can't class a player on one fantastic innings. Gillespie would be up in that category with his double ton.

Can't believe I'm arguing the case of Bradman...

oz_da II
02-06-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by AJ1969
So where's the proof then? If you look at some of the greatest ever footballers (Pele, Cruyff, Best, Pushkas, Di Stefano) I doubt any of them could deal with the pace / technique of the modern game... admittedly given training, maybe, but likely not.

This is baffling as well.

Cruyff and Pele for starters would have a field day.

Wouldn't deal with the technique of the modern game? Where are the players with better techniques in the modern game than these two?

stevek
02-06-2006, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by AJ1969
Some stats (from ICC) - don't really plead the brad's case do they?
DG Bradman Aus 52 80 10 6996 334 29 99.94

Were you being sarcastic? An average of 99.94 (would have been 100 if he'd scored 4 rather than a duck in his last innings) - pleads the case pretty bloody well if you ask me.

AJ1969
03-06-2006, 06:27 AM
Irony is dead, long live irony

stevek
03-06-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by AJ1969
Irony is dead, long live irony Sorry - difficult to pick up irony in posts. I assume you were also being ironic when you said he wasn't that good and wouldn't cut it now? :)

AJ1969
03-06-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by stevek
Sorry - difficult to pick up irony in posts. I assume you were also being ironic when you said he wasn't that good and wouldn't cut it now? :)

You guessed right... to argue against the Brad would be, well, a bit silly really. I haven't really see much footage of him, except for the bodyline tour, the England tour a few years after and his farewell ashes tour, but he did look special. Apparently quite a personality too and apparently became quite good mates with Larwood even after the debacle of leg-theory. However, if it's technique we're talking about then I go with Jardine every day of the week - the guy was a technical master at the crease - his back foot work was awesome - at least on the archives that survive.

Mr C
05-06-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by AJ1969
You guessed right... to argue against the Brad would be, well, a bit silly really. I haven't really see much footage of him, except for the bodyline tour, the England tour a few years after and his farewell ashes tour, but he did look special. Apparently quite a personality too and apparently became quite good mates with Larwood even after the debacle of leg-theory. However, if it's technique we're talking about then I go with Jardine every day of the week - the guy was a technical master at the crease - his back foot work was awesome - at least on the archives that survive.

Jardine's footwork was awful when played by Hugo Weaving in the Aussie TV series "Bodyline"