New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

Yeah the averages difference measure favours the guys who were average bowlers but all time great batsmen. Compare Kallis or Waugh with Hadlee. I'd say Hadlee was at least as good a bowler, if not better than those two were batsmen, and likewise I think he'd offer about as much with the bat as those two with the ball. Yet he's barely breaking even and they're plus 30 almost.

This measure hugely favours batsmen who did ok as bowlers then gave up or only chipped in when it suited. No way do Hammond and S Waugh deserve to be there, they're legends based on their batting alone, not as all rounders.

Have a look at Stephen Fleming's efforts as a test bowler ( not one over in 111 tests ) Probably about as good as Chris Martin was at batting but the difference being Martin HAD to bat quite often. No option to opt out cos he was shit.....

IMO number 2 in the test rankings means less than nothing . I am a big fan of the saying "to be the best you have to beat the best " and until we can play and actually win against India , Australia , South Africa and even England we are always going to be just an average team who gets put in our place every time we play one of the top teams .
As for all rounders , that table should be renamed Batting All Rounders , as the comparisons are so biased towards batsmen who bowled a bit .

@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.

@No-Quarter you mean England who lost to WI and Soith Africa who lost to Srilanka....

@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.

Part of that is NZC's fault thought. We deserve to be punished for not having a full test cricket programme. Until we can beat the top teams home and away then I don't see why our achievements should garner much respect. I'm enjoying having a good team but it would only take a few series for attitudes to change markedly.

@hydro11 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.

Part of that is NZC's fault thought. We deserve to be punished for not having a full test cricket programme. Until we can beat the top teams home and away then I don't see why our achievements should garner much respect. I'm enjoying having a good team but it would only take a few series for attitudes to change markedly.

Dunno if that's our fault. The holy trinity of India, Aus and England run world cricket now don't they?

@MajorRage said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@hydro11 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.

Part of that is NZC's fault thought. We deserve to be punished for not having a full test cricket programme. Until we can beat the top teams home and away then I don't see why our achievements should garner much respect. I'm enjoying having a good team but it would only take a few series for attitudes to change markedly.

Dunno if that's our fault. The holy trinity of India, Aus and England run world cricket now don't they?

Sure it's our fault. NZC have come out and said they generally don't want more than 4 home tests each summer. England have 7 as a baseline.

We will find out if we really deserve being number two over the next year:

Sri Lanka Away
England Home
Australia Away
India Home

At the moment I'd tend to agree with Cactus Jack as we failed to beat Australia or South Africa. Although he seems to have forgotten that we did actually beat England last year.

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).

@No-Quarter When we beat them we are better than them . Until that happens we are just a team that chokes whenever these teams are put in front of us .

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).

Smashing a chaotic and very occasional half century ( five in 64 tests ) gets you to number 10 ?!?!?!

Dubious is being kind.....

I'm assuming the list is topped but Al Hasan, Holder, Stokes etc ?

@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).

Smashing a chaotic and very occasional half century ( five in 64 tests ) gets you to number 10 ?!?!?!

Dubious is being kind.....

I'm assuming the list is topped but Al Hasan, Holder, Stokes etc ?

Quiet day of paperwork so will reply to my own post....

Wagner and Boult with one test fifty between them will be thrilled they're on a list of all rounders.....well and truly about @NTA s favourite Mitch Marsh....

@MN5 EABOD.

This thread is cute - 2nd is your highest ever CWC finish, too. Well done.

@NTA said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@MN5 EABOD.

This thread is cute - 2nd is your highest ever CWC finish, too. Well done.

( inserts predictable sandpaper related meme in response )

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).

I would say on recent evidence Pat Cummins is a genuine all-rounder. A gun with the ball who is more than handy with the bat. At times over the summer he looked the most at ease against the Indian attack.

@mariner4life said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).

I would say on recent evidence Pat Cummins is a genuine all-rounder. A gun with the ball who is more than handy with the bat. At times over the summer he looked the most at ease against the Indian attack.

If Cummins is then so is Kane. Cummins is a handy batsman but well short of the standard needed to be a genuine all-rounder. He's the bowling equivalent of a part timer.

Just to add, that's not meant as a criticism of Cummins who is a fantastic player.

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@mariner4life said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.

Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)

India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)

Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)

Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).

I would say on recent evidence Pat Cummins is a genuine all-rounder. A gun with the ball who is more than handy with the bat. At times over the summer he looked the most at ease against the Indian attack.

If Cummins is then so is Kane. Cummins is a handy batsman but well short of the standard needed to be a genuine all-rounder. He's the bowling equivalent of a part timer.

Just to add, that's not meant as a criticism of Cummins who is a fantastic player.

fair enough, a quick squiz at his record shows my impression is a little higher than his stats back up. Probably needs to improve his average by 8 runs to really qualify.

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

If Cummins is then so is Kane. Cummins is a handy batsman but well short of the standard needed to be a genuine all-rounder. He's the bowling equivalent of a part timer.

Just to add, that's not meant as a criticism of Cummins who is a fantastic player.

This is how they measure it:

To obtain the index, simply take the player's batting and bowling points, multiply them together and divide by 1000. So a player with 800 batting and 0 bowling gets an index of zero (because he can't bowl and therefore isn't an all-rounder!), 600 batting/200 bowling gets a rating of 120, and 400 batting/400 bowling points gets a rating of 160. An index of 300 plus is world class.

The bowling rankings are more skewed towards specialists with a bigger drop off in points to the non specialists

Cummins is the 93rd batsman and has 360 batting points
Williamson is the 84th bowler with 129 bowling points

The ~90th batsman will still bat twice in most Test matches. The ~90th bowler won't bowl that often so won't accumulate points.

@Duluth said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:

If Cummins is then so is Kane. Cummins is a handy batsman but well short of the standard needed to be a genuine all-rounder. He's the bowling equivalent of a part timer.

Just to add, that's not meant as a criticism of Cummins who is a fantastic player.

This is how they measure it:

To obtain the index, simply take the player's batting and bowling points, multiply them together and divide by 1000. So a player with 800 batting and 0 bowling gets an index of zero (because he can't bowl and therefore isn't an all-rounder!), 600 batting/200 bowling gets a rating of 120, and 400 batting/400 bowling points gets a rating of 160. An index of 300 plus is world class.

The bowling rankings are more skewed towards specialists with a bigger drop off in points to the non specialists

Cummins is the 93rd batsman and has 360 batting points
Williamson is the 84th bowler with 129 bowling points

The ~90th batsman will still bat twice in most Test matches. The ~90th bowler won't bowl that often so won't accumulate points.

So kind of the opposite of the batting average - bowling average lists we were all looking at a week or two ago.

So really you need to adjust the scores to reflect the respective availability of each discipline. Maybe divide batting score by 11 and bowling score by 6 before multiplication to reflect that.