Talk:ICC Men's Player Rankings

Should this be at plain ICC Cricket Ratings, with a redirect from here? It seems likely that the ratings' sponsors will change at some point, but considerably less likely that they'll lose ICC backing. Loganberry (Talk) 18:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second this Dannow 10:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved to ICC cricket ratings. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that Sachin Tendulkar has now been removed from the peak of over 900 ratings, I just wanted to ask what the reason was and whether it was simply because Sachin didn't have a peak of over 900, something which I do find somewhat difficult to believe. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sachin's peak ICC rating is a little under 900. This is not uncommon even for great batsmen, he is right next to Hammond and Lara in the list. Sutcliffe who never averaged below 60 peaked lower than Sachin. It is simply a reflection that these guys havn't had extended runs of great form without interuption that the guys with higher scores have. Missing tests affects a players score as does team success (or lack of it). The strength of the opposition bowling attack and the number of total runs in a game also hit the final score. Sachin has at times had injury problems which will have dragged his score down. More importantly he has simply never had a run of form comparable to say Ponting's or Yousuf's recent form. The rating is a weighted average that while considering the whole career is more affected by recent matches. Without an uninterrupted run of great form he simply woon't be able to top 900. It is neither bias nor incorrect,merely a reflection of his and the other players career records. --LiamE 01:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

While it is true that Sachin did not cross 900 points. I am wondering why are some of the ratings incorrect? Unless the method to calculate the ratings was changed recently, In bowling George Lohmann peeked with 931 points, Tony Lock 912, Malcolm Marshal with 910 points, Shaun Pollock 909, Derek Underwood 907, Bill O'Reilly reached 901 points and Jim Laker did not cross 900. So basically the list is either incorrect or (more likely) outdated due to re-calculation, the same applies for batting.

I don't see any inconsistancy there at all. Those names listed without exception were exceptional bowlers. Laker would have joined them in the 900 plus league if his bowling was as consistently successful. After his 19 for match figures he only ever took 5 wickets in an innings again twice and not for another 15 matches or so. Had he had a few more good matches just after his 19 for his peak would certainly have topped 900. Laker, like Tendulkar as a batsman, peaked at a little under 900 and is in very good company - between Freddy Trueman and Ray Lindwall. So no, the list isn't wrong and the same calculation is used for everyone from the begining of test cricket till today. --LiamE 01:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

it'd be nice to know how they come up with the numbers, otherwise they seem mostly meaningless, any ideas? Pugsworth 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It could be referenced using this page. Ansell 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is blatently not true. DOn Bradman is the one with the highest all time ranking, not Tendulkar. And Irfan Pathan certainly isn't the highest ranked bowler of all time. Can we fix it?!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.48.114 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

Unfortunately articles get vandalised from time to time - its the price wikipedia pays for allowing anyone to edit, the payoff though is what is fast becomming the best encyclopedia in the world with thousands upon thousands of editors who generally catch these things pretty quick. This article has been put right, but if you see something like that again please feel free to correct it yourself. If you look at the article history you can almost always find a correct version to go back to. --LiamE 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can someone find out and add the peak ratings for all rounders? Maybe 500 and more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kniwor (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly counts as OR, but here you go for Tests (I checked 47 players with 75+wickets & 1500 runs):

1. Garfield Sobers 669 4/1/67
2. Ian Botham 646 19/2/80
3. Jaques Kallis 616 30/12/2002
4. Keith Miller 573 29/1/52
5. Richie Benaud 532 17/11/59
6. Imran Khan 518 18/1/83
7. Tony Greig 509 4/3/75
8. Aubrey Faulkner 501 11/1/11
9. Andrew Flintoff 501 16/11/05
10. Chris Cairns 500 23/9/2000

Spike 'em (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In case anyone cares, a longer list is in my Sandbox Spike 'em (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

edit due to page move, and now updated to include ODIs Spike 'em (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Tell about imrqn khan. Zeeshan rafiq (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Shahid afridi. Zeeshan rafiq (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, Imran Khan is 6th on the list above. Afridi had a peak Test all-rounder rating of 218 and never ranked above 9th in the World. In ODIs his peak rating was 383, though I have not checked how that would sit on an all-time list. Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to edit but can not, maybe it's a bug which isn't letting me to edit. Please fix it. Rasik01 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sponsor has changed to MRF (as can be seen on the ICC website). I can find a press release that announces them as GLobal Partner, but nothing that specifically states that they will sponsor both the player and team ratings. I have also removed the old logo, and whilst I can add the new one, I don't own the copyright to it. Can anyone help out here? Spike 'em (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why start this in 1998, and what does it add to the list that isn't in the players above 900 and end of year lists? it would also require quite a bit of WP:OR to make sure the list is complete. Spike 'em (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi from yesterday this wikipedia page has been edited upto three times from some unknown IP addresses. I am requesting to make this page semi-protected so that this kind of unregistred users can't cause any vandalism to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirzak (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I support for semi protection by autoconfirmed access to edit this page, to counter this repeated vandalism by IP address users. Mayankj429 (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This isn't really the place for this, you need to go to WP:RPP. There does seem to be intermittent disruptive editing, but I don't think the admins will protect the page for more than a few days at this level. Spike 'em (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Today again disruptive edits by IPs were made.I have requested for semi-protection on WP:RPP. Mayankj429 (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

as far as I can see, the only direct sponsors of the rankings system is MRF. The other sponsors of the ICC as a whole organisation are irrelevant to this article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

e.g. today's article states Joe Root,..., has regained the No.1 spot in the MRF Tyres ICC Men's Test player rankings for batting and CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL MRF TYRES ICC TEST RANKINGS. Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ICC Men's T20 World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply