Cummins Overrated?

[Leeda]

ah well Mr Cummins deserves nothing less than total infatuation for his indomitable performance. ..
Git on with it little horsey..

 

[Kram]

Yes it is.
I hold that to a higher standard and won’t budge from it

https://https://www.foxsports.com.a...k=5184ba40713f81bab59e452ce649edc7-1550398405

Pat Cummins becomes first Aussie ranked #1 Test bowler in the world since Glenn McGrath
Australia

• February 17, 2019 5:51pm
• Source: FOX SPORTS

Pat Cummins has become the first Australian since February 2006 to be ranked as the world’s top Test bowler.
The 25-year-old moves past South African Kagiso Rabada into the number one spot on the latest ICC rankings update, following strong showings against India and Sri Lanka in recent months.
Rabada drops to third in the charts, with Englishman James Anderson also surpassing the young gun who returned figures of 3-145 in the first Test against Sri Lanka in Durban.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Oh Kram. You really do love taking the L.

 

[The Swans Blog]

19 wickets in 2 tests is ******* ridiculous

 

[Xtreme]

ICC World Rankins mean nothing when a currentlysuspended player is still listed as one of the best...

 

[PhatBoy]

ICC World Rankins mean nothing when a currentlysuspended player is still listed as one of the best...

No, they mean plenty as a player such as Smith has accumulated so many points as a result of his ridiculous form prior to his ban, as to still be around the mark.

 

[footyfan1978]

This thread just keeps on giving.

 

[Xtreme]

No, they mean plenty as a player such as Smith has accumulated so many points as a result of his ridiculous form prior to his ban, as to still be around the mark.

Which is why they should reset every year. A banned player doesn't deserve to be on the list

 

[footyfan1978]

Which is why they should reset every year. A banned player doesn't deserve to be on the list

He is actually suspended by our own admin. If ICC had their way he would have missed maybe one Test at most, just like Holder.

 

[PhatBoy]

Which is why they should reset every year. A banned player doesn't deserve to be on the list

If they reset every year, a player who has scored 2000 runs in 2018 but started 2019 with a couple of globes could be ranked 100th.

 

[Xtreme]

He is actually suspended by our own admin. If ICC had their way he would have missed maybe one Test at most, just like Holder.

Still cheated and got what he deserved.

If they reset every year, a player who has scored 2000 runs in 2018 but started 2019 with a couple of globes could be ranked 100th.

But that makes the climb back to number 1 more exciting.

 

[PhatBoy]

Still cheated and got what he deserved.



But that makes the climb back to number 1 more exciting.

No it doesn’t.

If Rafa Nadal or Roger Federer took a sabbatical from the game it got injured for a year they can return with a protected ranking.

Missing a bunch of games doesn’t make you s**t all of a sudden. So why should he have a ranking that would make him appear s**t?

 

[Xtreme]

If they reset every year, a player who has scored 2000 runs in 2018 but started 2019 with a couple of globes could be ranked 100th.

No it doesn’t.

If Rafa Nadal or Roger Federer took a sabbatical from the game it got injured for a year they can return with a protected ranking.

Missing a bunch of games doesn’t make you s**t all of a sudden. So why should he have a ranking that would make him appear s**t?

Because he hasn't played due to serving a suspension for being a bad boy

 

[footyfan1978]

The rankings are not about being a bad boy. If it was Rabada, Warner and a zillion of them would never be on it. It is simply about whatever the system works out what it considers one at any point in time in a role of the game. Be in batting, bowling or whatever rankings system covers for roles. I probably would have banned Steve Smith for longer. Does not change fact still consider him one of best bats in world. To take him off rankings just stupid unless out of game for good.

 

[big_e]

Wonder how many people actually know how the rankings work. Have bolded the but relevant to Smith and Warner. From http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/about.php

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 Kumar Sangakkara is worth more than that of Makhaya Ntini – but if Ntini's 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.

 

[Oaktree]

Wonder how many people actually know how the rankings work. Have bolded the but relevant to Smith and Warner. From http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/about.php

Quite a good read.

I was thinking why is Kusal Perera ranked 40 after his incredible innings. But he mustn't be able to get full points for his performance based on his career stats.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[corbies]

I actually think the ratings system is one of the better ones out there. Is usually pretty close to the mark I feel.

 

[Hamingja]

No it doesn’t.

If Rafa Nadal or Roger Federer took a sabbatical from the game it got injured for a year they can return with a protected ranking.

Missing a bunch of games doesn’t make you s**t all of a sudden. So why should he have a ranking that would make him appear s**t?

In tennis it is only for injury, and post Serena it now covers pregnancy more extensively, everything else doesn't count towards a protected ranking. If they choose to take time off that is their own decision. If they are banned (Sharapova & Cilic) then they start from scratch.

 

[big_e]

I actually think the ratings system is one of the better ones out there. Is usually pretty close to the mark I feel.

My only criticism, and this is purely in hindsight, is that there should be a bigger deduction for not playing. As good as Smith and Warner were, that they can be out for almost a year and still be two of the top seven just doesn't sit right. Mind you the top players are a way ahead of the rest so you could probably double or triple the deduction and they'd still be near the top.

 

[Leeda]

alrighty let me say that Mr cummins is a ripper bowler but he doesn't need the hyperbole of a total undeniable leg spin.. fast bowlers..

just putting that out there. non of them deserve accolades because they are not good enough on their own, but do well all together...

TOGETHER.... that is the point.. learn the lesson dudes..

 

[frenchcutforsix]

alrighty let me say that Mr cummins is a ripper bowler but he doesn't need the hyperbole of a total undeniable leg spin.. fast bowlers..

just putting that out there. non of them deserve accolades because they are not good enough on their own, but do well all together...

TOGETHER.... that is the point.. learn the lesson dudes..

Is this guy trolling? Wtf is this s**t??? I thought there were rules against spamming the boards?

 

[footyfan1978]

Not a troll. Just harmlessly unhinged a little.

 

[Kram]

One day series away v India

14 wickets @ 15 ,er 4.6

 

[Westend]

awesome tour from Patrick

really looking forward to seeing him bowl to the poms

 

[Doss]

Still a hack who shouldn’t be in the Manangatang thirds.