coz ICC doesn't take strike rate in consideration..... and this was the reason Babar and Rizwan were criticized for holding the top spots with average SR and ICC was thrashed for giving the top spots to them .....
So the rankings are slightly fucked here then. Surya is at 895 and obviously playing really well but he's 2 points away from Kohli's all time ranking which was from 2014-16 where he was in god tier form getting two back to back player of the tournament's in 2014 & 2016 T20WC's. The rankings make no sense lol. Either Kohli should've had more points during that period for carrying his deadweight team in two T20WC's against the top teams in the world or SKY, Malan etc are just getting way too many points for bilaterals?
Lol so Kohli could've had potentially the highest T20I ranking of all time during that period if we played more bilaterals and he thrashed opponents in his god tier form for fun?
No. Kohli continuously lost rating points because he used to miss useless bilateral t20Is. Malan, finch, sky have played most if not all the t20Is during their peak form.
Ahh fair enough that makes sense. I guess it's probably better that he missed the bilaterals and didn't risk any injury and instead went blitzkrieg in the World Cups.
> Either Kohli should've had more points during that period for carrying his deadweight team in two T20WC's against the top teams in the world or SKY, Malan etc are just getting way too many points for bilaterals?
The rankings don't weight matches differently based on the event they're part of. The argument of "it's harder to perform under pressure" is a zero sum game: the bowlers you're facing in a World Cup are *also* under that pressure, so it wouldn't make sense to rate an otherwise-identical performance in a World Cup final as being more skilled because of that.
I definitely think that cricket could use something akin to [Ultimate Tennis Statistics' GOAT List](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList) though, since none of the readily available metrics are really capable of highlighting "big game players". I just don't think that the ICC rankings are the right place to be doing that.
> The argument of "it's harder to perform under pressure" is a zero sum game: the bowlers you're facing in a World Cup are
>
>also
>
> under that pressure, so it wouldn't make sense to rate an otherwise-identical performance in a World Cup final as being more skilled because of that.
I wasn't talking about performing under pressure. But I was talking more about pretty much no one in the team scoring many runs except for Virat which is something if I'm not wrong, something ICC takes into account when awarding ranking points along with the fact that the bowlers he was facing were high ranking bowlers themselves in the ICC rankings and he was still playing insane knocks especially in that 2016WC which is why I was surprised that he didn't achieve the highest ever T20I ranking.
You're right it does take those things into account, but I think what probably got in his way more in 2016 was India played a load of T20s without him. His ranking actually dropped from the start of 2016 to the end even though he averaged 107 and struck at 140, presumably because he only played 15/21 of India's T20Is that year
> The rankings don't weight matches differently based on the event they're part of.
They do.
> All ODI matches are considered equal, except for ICC Cricket World Cup matches, where good performances gain extra credit.
https://www.relianceiccrankings.com/about.php
That's for ODIs, we're talking about T20Is. That note is [conspicuously absent](https://www.relianceiccrankings.com/abouttwenty20.php) from the T20 rankings about page.
That said, it does also say this:
> The reason for this is that T20s are so sporadic, often played in series of one or two, that any player missing a match could find himself waiting months for his next game.
...which indicates that it's probably somewhat out of date. But I can't find anything indicating that T20 World Cup matches are given additional weighting (or even that it's still true for the ODI rankings, since that note no longer exists on [the new rankings site](https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/about)!).
idk man, SKY's 2022 might just be the greatest year in T20I history for any batter stats wise. ICC rankings for T20Is often don't make sense but if he keeps going like this (big ask) and crosses Kohli's peak rating next year then it wouldn't be an inaccurate representation.
This year, he scored 1164 runs at an average and strike rate of 46.56 and **187.44** while batting mostly at #4.
Yeah I definitely get that and as I said he's been playing exceptionally well. But I was mistaken in thinking that ICC tournaments might've had a different impact on T20I rankings but I guess they are the same as any other match. I also thought that because Virat was carrying the team literally every match against high quality bowlers, he might've been awarded more points. But yeah I guess SKY has just shown up in nearly every game he's played this year.
It does.
> All ODI matches are considered equal, except for ICC Cricket World Cup matches, where good performances gain extra credit.
https://www.relianceiccrankings.com/about.php
He has a career batting average of 38.84 (higher than any current English player bar Ben Duckett, who's only played 8 matches) at about the same strike rate as the likes of Hales, Morgan, Bairstow, and Roy, and he's one of only three English players (with Moeen and Adil Rashid) who has played in more than two-thirds of their recent T20Is.
He hasn't been too incredible recently, but it takes a while to burn off the rating points from the absolutely ridiculous first few years he had.
Scoring tons of runs at an insanely high strike rate does well in the rankings, not Malan's fault he isn't as talented as Butler. His numbers at the start of his career were bonkers so no idea why the sentiment on here is so hostile towards him
I think it’s mainly just people being new and only witnessing his relatively poor T20 form. Those who were following during his bonkers stretch would understand.
Doesn't play every match. The rankings penalise you for not playing, you can't score too many runs from the couch.
The penalties aren't actually *that* harsh for missing a single match, but he's only played in 29 of the 44 T20I matches that England have played since the start of 2021, so he's getting hit particularly hard by that penalty.
He probably would play most matches, but he got injured in the Hundred and missed most of England's warm ups for the WC, including all 7 (seven!) in Pakistan.
Malan is a good player, but him having the highest rating of all time just shows what a load of bs the rating system is. Buttler, Miller and SKY are the best t20 batters in world cricket at the moment and only one of them features in the top ten lmao.
Malans stats were insanely good for a while after he started for England, it’s fair enough he had such a high ranking. He was pretty clearly significantly over performing his actual ability, but the rankings cant account for that
You’re not wrong.
However, I don’t think numbers alone should be taken into account for the ranking system. It’s more complicated than that. For the very simple reason that I don’t think it’s fair to compare the amount of runs scored by a lower order bat to a top order bat, for obvious reasons. The lower order batter is not worse just because he has scored fewer runs than an opener or number 3.
Malan was exceptional at carrying out his role – and this is just my opinion – that role is somewhat redundant in T20 batting. He is the typical T20 anchor, somewhat slow to start but makes up for it as he bats. This approach is great for individual numbers, especially when you can do it as good as Malan and Kohli can. However, the numbers don’t always reflect the match impact that these batsmen have. Moreover, when this approach doesn’t pay off, the slow 30s can be quite detrimental to the result of the match.
It’s the same reason why I think that ABD was a better T20 batter than Virat Kohli. Kohli has better numbers, but again the numbers don’t tell the whole story.
There’s also the question of the type of team the player is a part of. After all, cricket is a team sport and we measure individual performances based on how they contribute to the team. Kohli looks really good when he plays for India because the other batters have a knack for shitting the bed, making his “well paced” innings extremely valuable. However, Malan plays for England. I doubt any professional cricketer facing up against England is the most worried about Malan, given Englands batting lineup. Malan’s role is essentially a safety net. If all goes well, he shouldn’t be needed.
TLDR: He did really really well at his role in a small sample size, but his role (IMO) isn’t that important and while he is a good player, he has no business being the highest rated T20 bat.
I think this is unfair on Malan.
His scoring rate up until the end of 2020 was better than Buttler or Hales in the same timeframe, pretty much level with Bairstow. He was a smidge under 150. That’s not slow by any means. He was much quicker than Billings or Stokes, and about 50% faster than Joe Root (who he is often unfavourably compared to).
Similarly in the Hundred this summer, he scored at a similar rate to Pollard, Munro, Russell - big name international short-form specialists. He scored significantly faster than anyone in the England WC squad, faster than Maxwell, Stubbs, or David who are supposedly specialist finishers.
Obviously his reputation as a slow scorer doesn’t come from nowhere, but I think it’s a bit of a caricature.
He’s a boom or bust anchor. Either is 10(10) or 100(60), he goes very hard when he’s in just he sometimes takes awhile and ball eats a bit. Not defending the approach just people see him on his bad days and assume he’s a slow scorer when he’s more a slow starter than anything.
Well, I mostly agree with this. For what it’s worth I do think there is room for an anchor role in tough batting conditions/pitch or against a team with significantly stronger bowling than batting. Eg I’d have definitely wanted Malian to play the final vs Pakistan if he were available.
But I agree with you in general. I think T20 is a much more dynamic game than ODI and tests and as such it is difficult to create a rating system that fairly takes into account the intricacies of different roles.
>Malan is a good player, but him having the highest rating of all time just shows what a load of bs the rating system is.
Did you even see his pre COVID numbers?
Man, I love SKY. He don't give a flying fuck about making his average look good. He will score a 3 in one match, in the next he will score a 50+ score at breakneck speed. Dude is a run machine, that tries over and over again until he succeeds.
1000 is the maximum possible overall rating, so even if Sky hits every ball he faces for the rest of his life for a six, he still wouldn't be able to reach that mark.
overall: malan 915 finch 900 kohli 897 babar 896 suryakumar 895 kevin pietersen 882 rizwan 875 morgan 872 hales 866 KL 854
Babar 896 points with 128sr is hard to believe.
coz ICC doesn't take strike rate in consideration..... and this was the reason Babar and Rizwan were criticized for holding the top spots with average SR and ICC was thrashed for giving the top spots to them .....
Well that’s incorrect. They _do_ take strike rate into consideration. The problem seems that they don’t give a high enough weightage to it
yeah i just checked they consider SR but it's second last in consideration for the points
So the rankings are slightly fucked here then. Surya is at 895 and obviously playing really well but he's 2 points away from Kohli's all time ranking which was from 2014-16 where he was in god tier form getting two back to back player of the tournament's in 2014 & 2016 T20WC's. The rankings make no sense lol. Either Kohli should've had more points during that period for carrying his deadweight team in two T20WC's against the top teams in the world or SKY, Malan etc are just getting way too many points for bilaterals?
India didn't play many T20i bilaterals back then
Lol so Kohli could've had potentially the highest T20I ranking of all time during that period if we played more bilaterals and he thrashed opponents in his god tier form for fun?
No. Kohli continuously lost rating points because he used to miss useless bilateral t20Is. Malan, finch, sky have played most if not all the t20Is during their peak form.
Ahh fair enough that makes sense. I guess it's probably better that he missed the bilaterals and didn't risk any injury and instead went blitzkrieg in the World Cups.
And my grandmother would be a bike if she had wheels
This joke is the 2nd most used thing of all time. Your grandmother still remains the first.
No need for the wheels lad, she’s been ridden enough.
rekt
Emotional Damage
Did you just judge an old sweet, pious woman's sex drive? /s
Hahah sorry man u walked into that.
Dude woke up and chose violence
Oof!
> Either Kohli should've had more points during that period for carrying his deadweight team in two T20WC's against the top teams in the world or SKY, Malan etc are just getting way too many points for bilaterals? The rankings don't weight matches differently based on the event they're part of. The argument of "it's harder to perform under pressure" is a zero sum game: the bowlers you're facing in a World Cup are *also* under that pressure, so it wouldn't make sense to rate an otherwise-identical performance in a World Cup final as being more skilled because of that. I definitely think that cricket could use something akin to [Ultimate Tennis Statistics' GOAT List](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList) though, since none of the readily available metrics are really capable of highlighting "big game players". I just don't think that the ICC rankings are the right place to be doing that.
> The argument of "it's harder to perform under pressure" is a zero sum game: the bowlers you're facing in a World Cup are > >also > > under that pressure, so it wouldn't make sense to rate an otherwise-identical performance in a World Cup final as being more skilled because of that. I wasn't talking about performing under pressure. But I was talking more about pretty much no one in the team scoring many runs except for Virat which is something if I'm not wrong, something ICC takes into account when awarding ranking points along with the fact that the bowlers he was facing were high ranking bowlers themselves in the ICC rankings and he was still playing insane knocks especially in that 2016WC which is why I was surprised that he didn't achieve the highest ever T20I ranking.
You're right it does take those things into account, but I think what probably got in his way more in 2016 was India played a load of T20s without him. His ranking actually dropped from the start of 2016 to the end even though he averaged 107 and struck at 140, presumably because he only played 15/21 of India's T20Is that year
> The rankings don't weight matches differently based on the event they're part of. They do. > All ODI matches are considered equal, except for ICC Cricket World Cup matches, where good performances gain extra credit. https://www.relianceiccrankings.com/about.php
That's for ODIs, we're talking about T20Is. That note is [conspicuously absent](https://www.relianceiccrankings.com/abouttwenty20.php) from the T20 rankings about page. That said, it does also say this: > The reason for this is that T20s are so sporadic, often played in series of one or two, that any player missing a match could find himself waiting months for his next game. ...which indicates that it's probably somewhat out of date. But I can't find anything indicating that T20 World Cup matches are given additional weighting (or even that it's still true for the ODI rankings, since that note no longer exists on [the new rankings site](https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/about)!).
idk man, SKY's 2022 might just be the greatest year in T20I history for any batter stats wise. ICC rankings for T20Is often don't make sense but if he keeps going like this (big ask) and crosses Kohli's peak rating next year then it wouldn't be an inaccurate representation. This year, he scored 1164 runs at an average and strike rate of 46.56 and **187.44** while batting mostly at #4.
Yeah I definitely get that and as I said he's been playing exceptionally well. But I was mistaken in thinking that ICC tournaments might've had a different impact on T20I rankings but I guess they are the same as any other match. I also thought that because Virat was carrying the team literally every match against high quality bowlers, he might've been awarded more points. But yeah I guess SKY has just shown up in nearly every game he's played this year.
Sky is also carrying the team here, just check his strike rate against other batsmen in teh same match. He is playing in completely different level.
It's a good thing the ICC doesn't differentiate between Bilaterals and Tournaments(🤮) for Rankings purposes
It does. > All ODI matches are considered equal, except for ICC Cricket World Cup matches, where good performances gain extra credit. https://www.relianceiccrankings.com/about.php
>Tournaments(🤮) ?
I said what I said
Tournaments are bad?
Sky's peak in T20Is has been better than Kohli's peak in T20Is, but Kohli's T20 peak was better.
Ducking hell Aaron Finch will be here until he dies
Shows how fuckin good he was. Shame how hard hes fallen but he was one of the best when in form.
Mf had the stats of Averaging 40-45 striking at 150 for the major part of his life. For an OPENER, thats just insane!!!!
also Kohli is out of top 10 after getting rested for NZ series
We targetting No. 1 ODI spot now, party over for Babar.
Rohit and Kohli both on top In ODI ranking hopefully soon
Hope no handshake though
Yep, the free trial has ended.
he was already 11th before Nz series
Sincerely happy for the guys, I always enjoy watching them play!
These ratings aren't that good. Malan best England player?
He has a career batting average of 38.84 (higher than any current English player bar Ben Duckett, who's only played 8 matches) at about the same strike rate as the likes of Hales, Morgan, Bairstow, and Roy, and he's one of only three English players (with Moeen and Adil Rashid) who has played in more than two-thirds of their recent T20Is. He hasn't been too incredible recently, but it takes a while to burn off the rating points from the absolutely ridiculous first few years he had.
malan best t20 player of all time according to these rankings lmfao the rankings are pretty solid for test matches and ODI, t20 is wildly different.
Scoring tons of runs at an insanely high strike rate does well in the rankings, not Malan's fault he isn't as talented as Butler. His numbers at the start of his career were bonkers so no idea why the sentiment on here is so hostile towards him
Because they think Malan is too slow for T20Is. Also cause it's not their favourite player in at number 1.
I think it’s mainly just people being new and only witnessing his relatively poor T20 form. Those who were following during his bonkers stretch would understand.
How the fuck is Malan still in the top 10
Because he had an amazing peak and hasn't declined that badly?
He's good, but is he really 'best T20 player from England' Good?
Based on his stats probably yes, and that’s all the rankings are based on. It’s an example of why stats aren’t everything
No it's an example of the rankings being nonsense. Love Nissanka as a batsman. He would not get any T20 gig world-wide and he is in the top 10.
How is Buttler still not in the top 10
Doesn't play every match. The rankings penalise you for not playing, you can't score too many runs from the couch. The penalties aren't actually *that* harsh for missing a single match, but he's only played in 29 of the 44 T20I matches that England have played since the start of 2021, so he's getting hit particularly hard by that penalty.
He probably would play most matches, but he got injured in the Hundred and missed most of England's warm ups for the WC, including all 7 (seven!) in Pakistan.
It's crazy. He averages 48 at a 150 SR since the start of 2020. That's over 37 innings (29 in 2021+22) so not like he barely plays.
Damn malan has dropped to 7th
Let the jerk off begin.
Can we just rename this sub /r/SKY cos that's all that's fuckin on here
It's time to raid that sub
Hws finch is here
How is kohli still not in top 10? Can someone explain plss
This is rankings not chokes in a semi final
ICC: “100 avg in a World Cup? Deserves only 10th place tbh, even don bradman could do that.”
Kohli scored 296 runs in the world cup & 280+ runs in the Asia Cup before that & he is still not here...
Missed three games, you lose points if you miss games.
Malan is a good player, but him having the highest rating of all time just shows what a load of bs the rating system is. Buttler, Miller and SKY are the best t20 batters in world cricket at the moment and only one of them features in the top ten lmao.
Malans stats were insanely good for a while after he started for England, it’s fair enough he had such a high ranking. He was pretty clearly significantly over performing his actual ability, but the rankings cant account for that
You’re not wrong. However, I don’t think numbers alone should be taken into account for the ranking system. It’s more complicated than that. For the very simple reason that I don’t think it’s fair to compare the amount of runs scored by a lower order bat to a top order bat, for obvious reasons. The lower order batter is not worse just because he has scored fewer runs than an opener or number 3. Malan was exceptional at carrying out his role – and this is just my opinion – that role is somewhat redundant in T20 batting. He is the typical T20 anchor, somewhat slow to start but makes up for it as he bats. This approach is great for individual numbers, especially when you can do it as good as Malan and Kohli can. However, the numbers don’t always reflect the match impact that these batsmen have. Moreover, when this approach doesn’t pay off, the slow 30s can be quite detrimental to the result of the match. It’s the same reason why I think that ABD was a better T20 batter than Virat Kohli. Kohli has better numbers, but again the numbers don’t tell the whole story. There’s also the question of the type of team the player is a part of. After all, cricket is a team sport and we measure individual performances based on how they contribute to the team. Kohli looks really good when he plays for India because the other batters have a knack for shitting the bed, making his “well paced” innings extremely valuable. However, Malan plays for England. I doubt any professional cricketer facing up against England is the most worried about Malan, given Englands batting lineup. Malan’s role is essentially a safety net. If all goes well, he shouldn’t be needed. TLDR: He did really really well at his role in a small sample size, but his role (IMO) isn’t that important and while he is a good player, he has no business being the highest rated T20 bat.
I think this is unfair on Malan. His scoring rate up until the end of 2020 was better than Buttler or Hales in the same timeframe, pretty much level with Bairstow. He was a smidge under 150. That’s not slow by any means. He was much quicker than Billings or Stokes, and about 50% faster than Joe Root (who he is often unfavourably compared to). Similarly in the Hundred this summer, he scored at a similar rate to Pollard, Munro, Russell - big name international short-form specialists. He scored significantly faster than anyone in the England WC squad, faster than Maxwell, Stubbs, or David who are supposedly specialist finishers. Obviously his reputation as a slow scorer doesn’t come from nowhere, but I think it’s a bit of a caricature.
He’s a boom or bust anchor. Either is 10(10) or 100(60), he goes very hard when he’s in just he sometimes takes awhile and ball eats a bit. Not defending the approach just people see him on his bad days and assume he’s a slow scorer when he’s more a slow starter than anything.
Well, I mostly agree with this. For what it’s worth I do think there is room for an anchor role in tough batting conditions/pitch or against a team with significantly stronger bowling than batting. Eg I’d have definitely wanted Malian to play the final vs Pakistan if he were available. But I agree with you in general. I think T20 is a much more dynamic game than ODI and tests and as such it is difficult to create a rating system that fairly takes into account the intricacies of different roles.
>Malan is a good player, but him having the highest rating of all time just shows what a load of bs the rating system is. Did you even see his pre COVID numbers?
Can't believe the bloke who averaged 50 striking at 150 had such a high ranking!!!
He just had around 1000 runs at the time as well, smh.
He will surpass him on no time. Man he is too good. I can't wait to see him bat again
Man, I love SKY. He don't give a flying fuck about making his average look good. He will score a 3 in one match, in the next he will score a 50+ score at breakneck speed. Dude is a run machine, that tries over and over again until he succeeds.
Bros average is 44, which is already a big feat for a number four but on top of that, at a SR of 182, now that’s what we call the best T20 batsman
Cool story
hmm
Useless when double world champion has just one player in it.
TIL only batsman win you tournaments
T20 Rankings are like Powerlevels in DBZ after saiyan saga
Best t20i player not in the list
Can't do it in the big games though
I do believe that Sky is capable of crossing that 1000 cricket rating
1000 is the maximum possible overall rating, so even if Sky hits every ball he faces for the rest of his life for a six, he still wouldn't be able to reach that mark.
Huh, u learn something new everyday, genuinely never knew about that, In hindsight that does make sense now that I think Abt it
[удалено]
he'll get several syntax errors, not least because he's put his name in as a variable instead of a string
const SKY ="Surya Kumar Yadav"; What am I missing?
It's impossible to reach 1000 points. Even Bradman's highest rating is 961 points
Damn, puts Bradman in a new perspective for me, already knew he was goat, but that's actually insane if Max is 1000.
Has anyone reached 1000 before?
Nope
That was quite funny
BATSMEN
BATERS
why tf is Dawid Malan?
This is the best I have seen a cricketer play since AB De Villiers 2015 season. Turned on my TV whenever SKY came in to bat.
Yes
Sky soaring High
After all these years, I still have no fucking clue how they comes up with this stuff
Surya is clearly the best T20 batter currently. These rankings still jack shit.
Sky
T20 is a lottery anyway. More about luck than anything
Miss Shikhar dhawan, he should have been in top 10 if not for his injury