ICC Test Ratings.

[Donny]

So, why keep inferring there is human opinion input ?

[K]

'Cos there is human opinion!

They don't tamper with it once it's been decided on (until they "update" the formula --- e.g. DLS is updated regularly). But the human opinion determines the "formula" decided upon in the first place.

Just like Ritchie did not tamper with the Ritchie Benaud Rule for estimating the ODI innings total after 50 overs (twice the score after 30 overs). Ritchie did not randomly claim it was actually twice the score after 32 overs or 28 overs, just to make it fit the current match better. But that doesn't mean it's reliable or free from human opinion.


In practice, for player rankings, it means they play around with things that make sense to them to put in the "formula". Then they see whether the results match their beliefs okay, and tweak until it does. Then they give the final formula to the ICC, who claims it's "objective", etc., just because no one then tampers with this man-made formula.

[Donny]

Just checking Smithy's stats.

Teams he's played for: Australia, Antigua Hawksbills, Australia A, Australian Institute of Sports, Australian XI, Barbados Tridents, Comilla Victorians, Graeme Hick XII, Kent 2nd XI, Kochi Tuskers Kerala, New South Wales, New South Wales Second XI, New South Wales Under-19s, Pune Warriors, Rajasthan Royals, Rising Pune Supergiants, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Surrey 2nd XI, Sutherland, Sydney Sixers, Sydney South East, Toronto Nationals, Worcestershire.

When does he get time to eat ?

His Test average has returned to the 60s - 62.07 - after his 131 & 81 in the SCG Test.

[Pies4shaw]

I see that the ICC keeps a list of the all-time greatest batting rankings. Unsurprisingly, the top 2 is Bradman, followed by Bradsmith. Bradsmith is, of course, the only current player who is in the top 10.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/me ... me-batting

[K]

P4S, you need to read all my previous posts in this thread about why these made-up algorithms are largely meaningless.

For fun cricket rankings, taking this stuff too seriously is probably mostly harmless, but in the real world it can lead to terrible social injustice and death.


There is now a huge and growing body of evidence that Smith is a Flat-Track Bully -- easily enough for me to make a thread on when I have the time and mood for it.

[Donny]

After the SCG Test.

Batsmen.

1. Kane Williamson 919
2. Steve Smith 900
3 Virat Kohli 870
4 Marnus Labuschagne 866
5 Babar Azam 781
6 Ben Stokes 760
7 Ajinkya Rahane 756
8 Cheteshwar Pujara 753
9 Henry Nicholls 747
10 David Warner 745

[Donny]

Bowlers.

1 Pat Cummins 908
2 Stuart Broad 845
3 Neil Wagner 825
4 Tim Southee 811
5 Josh Hazlewood 805
6 Kagiso Rabada 786
7 James Anderson 781
8 Mitchell Starc 806
9 Ravi Ashwin 768
10 Jasprit Bumrah 765

[Donny]

Interesting, that Williamson's recent run glut was against the Windies and Pakistan - with neither team having even 1 bowler rated in the top 10, in the World.

[Pies4shaw]

It's not "interesting", Donny - it's the only reason the guy has been making runs. He's very, very average - even by modern day standards. No technique and no footwork. He is - oh the irony - your actual "flat-track bully".

[K]

As Geoff Lawson noted in his article, NZ has bowler-friendly conditions (by modern standards, unlike Oz.

Smith averaged 13.5 against Pakistan last time they played Oz on very flat pitches.

[Lazza]

Pies4shaw,

^^^^^^

Very harsh assessment mate. Williamson is a gun and has a lot of cricket left in him. He can score runs anywhere and he no doubt will. Love to revisit this in a few years and check real figures and stats. I’m confident that my opinion of hm would have been right. If not, so be it but as usual time will tell the real story.

[K]

Lazza, Kane Williamson has clearly been the best Test batsman in the world for a number of years now. What makes me sad is that Test pitches have become so flat that it does not allow those with Test technique to show their superiority over those with no Test technique.

If all pitches were sporting, not only would this be a huge relief for the poor bowlers who are falling over injured trying to battle flat pitches, but then we'd see how superior Williamson is. His numbers would decrease a bit, but his opposition batsmen's averages would tumble, and the comparison would show how superior Kane is.

[Pies4shaw]

Lawson was obviously paying no attention when he wrote that. First innings scores of 7/519, 431 and 6/659 do not, of course, occur in "bowler-friendly conditions".

I'm being unfair, of course - Williamson obviously has good concentration, if nothing much else, going for him. It isn't easy to stay awake long enough to make 251, 129 and 238 in successive Tests against such hopeless bowling.

[K]

I would not regard those NZ pitches as truly bowler friendly. But they are bowler friendly by the standards of modern pitches, which are almost all extremely flat. It's sad this has happened in Oz. Every year, Cummins publicly begs for more life in the pitches, and they just ignore him.

I'm not sure why you try to sneer at Pakistan's bowling when Smith averaged 13.5 against Pakistan last time they played (on very flat home decks).

[Donny]

Lazza, Kane Williamson has clearly been the best Test batsman in the world for a number of years now.

Are you completely ignoring this, K ?

He did rate 915 after his 200 n.o. against Bangladesh, 2 years ago.

Subsequent innings of 0, 4, 20, 51, 4, 34, 14, 9, 0, 3 & 5 brought him back to the mere mortals.