Cricket Player Rankings

[JohnS]

I've been spending some rest and relaxation time this Summer Holidays trying to get my head around the (let's called it...sabermetric) International Cricket Council Player Rankings system which rates Cricketers' performance on an index of 1000. The reason this was first introduced in the 1980's was because Ted Dexter, the former England Captain thought that averages didn't always indicate a player's ability (and it's a fair point too). In layman's terms, a score of 700 would normally indicate a player would be in the Top Ten Batters or Bowlers internationally, a score over 800 would indicate outstanding recent form and over 900 would mean the player is in the upper echelon of performance in the game. Players who crack the 900 mark rarely stay there. However, Steve Smith's recent form in the last few years has bucked that trend. He has been consistently been above 918 points for the last 12 months and apart from three tests against South Africa last year, when his ranking points fluctuated between 886 and 897 points, he has been above 900 points every other instance for the last two years.

So what the ranking system measure? Well below is  a guideline directly from the ICC...

 ICC Player Rankings

The ICC Player Rankings are a sophisticated moving average. Players are rated on a scale of 0 to 1000 points. If a player’s performance is improving on his past record, his points increase; if his performance is declining his points will go down.

The value of each player’s performance within a match is calculated using an algorithm, a series of calculations (all pre-programmed) based on various circumstances in the match.

All of the calculations are carried out using pre-programmed formulae, using the information published in a Test match scorecard. There is no human intervention in this calculation process, and no subjective assessment is made. 

 

Test Match Rankings

For a batsman, the factors are:
• Runs scored
• Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion)
• The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings)
• Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus)
• The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)

For a bowler, the factors are:
• Wickets taken and runs conceded
• Ratings of the batsmen dismissed (at present, the wicket of Steven Smith is worth more than that of Matthew Wade – but if Wade’s batting rating improves, the value of his wicket will increase accordingly)
• The level of run-scoring in the match; bowling figures of 3-50 in a high-scoring match will boost a bowler’s rating more than the same figures in a low-scoring match
• Heavy workload; bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets;
• The result. Bowlers who take a lot of wickets in a victory receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams

Bowlers who do not bowl in a high-scoring innings are penalized.

The players’ ratings are calculated by combining their weighted performance in the latest match with their previous rating. This new ‘weighted average’ is then converted into points. Recent performances have more impact on a player’s rating than those earlier in his career, but all his performances are taken into account. A great player who has had a lean run of form will still have a respectable rating. Players who miss a Test match for their country, for whatever reason, lose one per cent of their points.

New players start at zero points, and need to establish themselves before they get full ratings. There is a scale for calculating qualifications. For example, a batsman who has played 10 Test innings gets 70 per cent of his rating (i.e. his rating will be between 0 and 700 points). He doesn’t get 100 per cent until he has played 40 Test innings. A bowler who has taken 30 wickets also gets 70 per cent of his full rating. He doesn’t get 100 per cent until he has taken 100 Test wickets. This means that successful new players can enter the top 30 after just a few Tests, but are unlikely to reach the world top five until they have many Test matches under their belts.

Source: https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/icc-rankings/player-rankings

If we have a quick look at the changes in the Rankings table from the 4th test in the current Ashes series at the MCG, Alastair Cook's 244 not out increased his ranking 98 points from 661 to 759, David Warner's 103 and 86 increased his ranking points from 801 to 831 and Steve Smith's 76 and 102 not out increased his points from 945 to 947. Why did Smith's ranking only increase 2 points? It is because the system is weighted against new performances being compared to a player's recent previous performances. Because Steve Smith has already score a Century and Double Century in this Ashes Series, it means his excellent results will not increase his rating as much as Alastair Cook's performance which added 244 runs to his series to his 83 previous runs from six innings. If a player cracks the 900 barrier, as a batsman it would generally mean they would have to consistently bat at an average of 70 to 75 runs per innings, which history suggests is unsustainable for a long period of time as few players have a career average above 60 runs per innings. Steve Smith's current ranking of 947 points is the second best of all time behind Don Bradman's peak of 961.

Below is a list of Test Batters and Bowlers who have scaled 900 points or above...

BATTING

ID	Rat.	Name	Nat.	Career Best Rating
1	961	D.G. Bradman	AUS	961 v India, 10/02/1948
2	947	S.P.D. Smith	AUS	947 v England, 30/12/2017
3	945	L. Hutton	ENG	945 v West Indies, 03/04/1954
4	942	J.B. Hobbs	ENG	942 v Australia, 23/08/1912
4	942	R.T. Ponting	AUS	942 v England, 05/12/2006
6	941	P.B.H. May	ENG	941 v Australia, 27/08/1956
7	938	C.L. Walcott	WI	938 v Australia, 15/06/1955
7	938	I.V.A. Richards	WI	938 v England, 31/03/1981
7	938	K.C. Sangakkara	SL	938 v England, 05/12/2007
7	938	G.S. Sobers	WI	938 v India, 17/01/1967
11	935	A.B. de Villiers	SA	935 v Australia, 24/02/2014
11	935	M.L. Hayden	AUS	935 v England, 11/11/2002
11	935	J.H. Kallis	SA	935 v New Zealand, 22/11/2007
14	933	Mohammad Yousuf	PAK	933 v West Indies, 01/12/2006
15	927	E.D. Weekes	WI	927 v New Zealand, 07/03/1956
15	927	R.G. Pollock	SA	927 v Australia, 23/02/1970
17	922	A.D. Nourse	SA	922 v England, 11/06/1951
17	922	K.D. Walters	AUS	922 v South Africa, 23/02/1970
19	921	R.N. Harvey	AUS	921 v South Africa, 10/02/1953
19	921	M.E.K. Hussey	AUS	921 v West Indies, 27/05/2008
21	917	D.C.S. Compton	ENG	917 v Australia, 12/07/1948
21	917	J.E. Root	ENG	917 v Australia, 10/08/2015
23	916	S.M. Gavaskar	IND	916 v England, 03/09/1979
24	915	G.A. Headley	WI	915 v England, 25/01/1948
25	914	K.F. Barrington	ENG	914 v New Zealand, 12/07/1965
26	911	B.C. Lara	WI	911 v South Africa, 06/01/2004
27	909	K.P. Pietersen	ENG	909 v West Indies, 01/06/2007
28	907	H.M. Amla	SA	907 v Pakistan, 17/10/2013
29	901	S. Chanderpaul	WI	901 v New Zealand, 23/12/2008
30	900	M.J. Clarke	AUS	900 v Sri Lanka, 30/12/2012

BOWLING

ID	Rat.	Name	Nat.	Career Best Rating
1	932	S.F. Barnes	ENG	932 v South Africa, 18/02/1914
2	931	G.A. Lohmann	ENG	931 v South Africa, 06/03/1896
3	922	Imran Khan	PAK	922 v India, 03/02/1983
4	920	M. Muralidaran	SL	920 v Bangladesh, 15/07/2007
5	914	G.D. McGrath	AUS	914 v England, 27/08/2001
6	912	G.A.R. Lock	ENG	912 v New Zealand, 28/07/1958
6	912	C.E.L. Ambrose	WI	912 v England, 29/03/1994
6	912	V.D. Philander	SA	912 v India, 22/12/2013
9	911	I.T. Botham	ENG	911 v India, 19/02/1980
10	910	M.D. Marshall	WI	910 v England, 04/07/1988
11	909	S.M. Pollock	SA	909 v England, 29/11/1999
11	909	Waqar Younis	PAK	909 v Zimbabwe, 13/12/1993
11	909	R.J. Hadlee	NZ	909 v Australia, 04/12/1985
11	909	D.W. Steyn	SA	909 v West Indies, 21/12/2014
15	908	A.K. Davidson	AUS	908 v West Indies, 17/01/1961
16	907	D.L. Underwood	ENG	907 v New Zealand, 09/03/1971
17	905	S.K. Warne	AUS	905 v England, 28/12/1994
18	904	R. Ashwin	IND	904 v England, 12/12/2016
19	903	A.V. Bedser	ENG	903 v Australia, 13/07/1953
20	901	W.J. O'Reilly	AUS	901 v New Zealand, 02/04/1946
20	901	C.V. Grimmett	AUS	901 v South Africa, 03/03/1936
22	900	W.A. Johnston	AUS	900 v West Indies, 04/01/1952

 

 

 

[Ken Gargett]

interesting stuff john. not something i take too seriously. but a great thing for fans to argue over.

what is interesting is that the bowling seems really odd. if we rule out chuckers, sorry murali, then the two greatest bowlers in history (yes, i said something to argue about) hardly rate. warnie - peaked at 17.

dk lillee - does not even make it.

to me, that is a system that has failed.

what might be interesting - a best ever team. new post coming....

[JohnS]

I always wondered why Doug Walters reached a high of 922 points during the disastrous 1970 Australian tour of South Africa and I think it represents one of the shortcomings of the ranking system. Because Mike Proctor was 'on fire' that series and Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards were scoring 'big' throughout the four tests, it meant that Walters' big score against the West Indies in 1968/69 were carried over. These scores had Gary Sobers results included in them, so effectively Walters scoring three fifties in South Africa lifted him to a high of 922 points. So, no Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Sachin Tendulkar, Dennis Lillee above 900 points indicates that all their performances, although outstanding, would have been better with players of the calibre of Garry Sobers, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath et al. I think Steve Smith's current high rating would assist James Anderson's current rating of 892 points also. Yes...it's not perfect.

[Ken Gargett]

8 minutes ago, JohnS said:

I always wondered why Doug Walters reached a high of 922 points during the disastrous 1970 Australian tour of South Africa and I think it represents one of the shortcomings of the ranking system. Because Mike Proctor was 'on fire' that series and Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards were scoring 'big' throughout the four tests, it meant that Walters' big score against the West Indies in 1968/69 were carried over. These scores had Gary Sobers results included in them, so effectively Walters scoring three fifties in South Africa lifted him to a high of 922 points. So, no Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Sachin Tendulkar, Dennis Lillee above 900 points indicates that all their performances, although outstanding, would have been better with players of the calibre of Garry Sobers, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath et al. I think Steve Smith's current high rating would assist James Anderson's current rating of 892 points also. Yes...it's not perfect.

no one had a great series there but i think walters got some runs. but there was a five test series in india on the way and he got at lest one ton and a couple of 50s but that is hardly enough to get that high? he also got a cracker ton in the test in brizzy - remember watching it - while stackpole got 207. he did have a bradman-like series v the west indies in 68/69. but odd.