DISQUS

Ramchandran Maharajapuram · 11 months ago

I went through that list too. It isn't just Sachin who didn't make it to that list!So does Brain Lara, Allan Border et al. On the other hand you had Sangakkara and Md. Yousuf making into the list. The bowlers list was a similar farce too. Dale Steyn is ahead of Akram, Donald. Warne is at 15. Kumble at 43. Come on, they must be kidding.

I bet that they aren't in their right frame of mind!

triplicani · 11 months ago

Ram,

I just took one sample as Sachin is dear to all of us and he was praised by none less than The Cricket God Sir Donald Bradman.

I read this interesting post on this farce: http://tcwj.blogspot.com/2009/01/fools-rule-gam...

Soulberry · 11 months ago

Fantastic work that Sam. ICC have painted themselves in vivid colours...there is no escape for them now...they cannot be missed for what they really are anymore...they have declared themselves to be fools of the nth degree.

The very illogical thought of picking a peak year to represent an entire career and base an all time rating system on it itself suggests that they are either stupid and belong to the corner of the classroom with duncecaps on, or lazy and do not care to exercise a single neuron other than what's required to summon some statistic out of a hat, or dastardly uncaring about the game to have made such a mockery of those who played it, watching it and supported it.

This entire set of CEOs and CFOs and whatever Os more are there need to be booted out forwith...if this were an investment company/bank it might have translated into a ponzi scam.

Jonathan · 11 months ago

Isn’t pointless if the point system takes into flashes but not consistent performance?

It is meant to be about consistent performance over a year or so. Comparing this to an all-time great list is like comparing a "most runs scored in a year" list to career totals.

This is why the ICC doesn't actually call it an "all-time great list". It looks like they didn't think about how it would be publicised and interpreted.

triplicani · 11 months ago

Jonathan,

Thanks for your comment. By now ICC must be aware that it is seen as an "all time great list". It will always hurt fans of great cricketers if they find such illogical rankings done and published. The timing was also so questionable. Why was it released just when Hayden retired?

Vijayasarathy R · 11 months ago

Hi Triplicani,

In fact I was about to write a very strong blog on this ICC rating. The same old saying needs to be repeated here (Bunch of Jokers). Seriously all of them should be jokers. We lost the due credit as soon as Gavaskar came out of the ICC Management.

Your analysis says it all. If all the ratings were just based on the peak performances, then there is no point in talking about more than 10 players. Because in a given point of time hardly four teams are playing cricket and one can easily pick up 10 players out of it.

rsathyamurthy · 11 months ago

Absolutely. All such "All time great" rankings should be based on career performances and not peak performances.

Tarun · 11 months ago

Any person who would have read it may have laughed.
It is a good list and pretty good apart from being achronistic.

The List should have been title, ICC top 50 (between 1950-1970)
Apart from that (Tendulkar) no bowler in top Twenty, Sobers is there coz of batting may be who knows.

I thin Vass summed it up beautifully.
Tendulkar doesnt need to be rated.

Prasanna · 11 months ago

With all due respect to hayden, Sachin is way-ahead. The inherent drawback of comparison of plain statistics is that, they dont take into the non-numerical factors. Its a fact that, in the last 10-12 years, hayden was the most successful and consistent player in the world cricket. And australia have been dominating the world cricket for a longtime and they did dominate during the aforementioned period mainly beacuse of their quality bowling attack. The period of hayden was definitely dominated by aussie bowlers and there were very few petrifying non-aussie quality bowlers. These factors are unrevealed when one talks about just statistics.