mcgillianaire: (Default)
[personal profile] mcgillianaire
Is there a dearth of young cricketing talent?

"According to the LG ICC rankings, of the world’s top 15 Test batsmen, only Kevin Pietersen is under 29. On the same day ten years ago, only Steve Waugh of the top eight batsmen was over 29. Eight of the present top ten bowlers are in their thirties. In September 1997, seven of the top ten were under 30. And of the top ten ranked batsmen and bowlers in one-day international cricket, only Lasith Malinga, the Sri Lanka pace bowler, is under 25." -Andy Zaltzman for The Times

Date: 2007-09-07 10:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kapitankraut.livejournal.com
What I'd be interested to know in relation to that is how many of the members of today's lists are present on the list a decade ago. If the majority of them are the same, might it just be due to legends of the game progressing through their career and preventing the new talent from getting in?

Date: 2007-09-07 10:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com
I thought about that as well, and I think you'll find a lot of the same names, with the possible exception of Mike Hussey, and maybe a few others.

Date: 2007-09-07 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com
Actually, it is possible to find out who they are. Gimme about 10-15 minutes and I'll try and produce the results here. :)

Date: 2007-09-07 11:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com
I used 5 September as my control date for 1997 and 2007. My findings for Top 15 Batsmen/Bowlers:

Tests: Batsmen - 3 are the same in both lists (Chanderpaul, Inzi & Dravid). Bowlers - 2 are the same (Murali & Vaas).

ODIs: Batsmen - 0 are the same. Bowlers - 3 are the same (Murali, Vaas & Pollock).

Date: 2007-09-08 12:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kapitankraut.livejournal.com
Now that's quite interesting. It seems to suggest an aging game, rather than an aging era of legendary players.

Date: 2007-09-08 04:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappubahry.livejournal.com
Yeah, but I wouldn't read too much into that. The rankings measure performance over the previous 18 months, and legends are made over careers. There is definitely an era of aging/retiring great players. This is clearest in Australia: back in the early to mid 90's, I can remember thinking that we were about to have a golden era of Australian cricket, with Martyn, Langer, Slater, Hayden, Lehmann, Warne. We've had that golden era, and now we're about to fall back a bit. If you look at the young players in Australia today, you see Michael Clarke, some good young keepers, and not much else. We've got players to hold the fort for another five years, but after that we'll want some 20-year-old superstars.

Date: 2007-09-08 04:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kapitankraut.livejournal.com
Good point. I didn't know the ratings measured over 18 months. Surely 12 would be a more sensible length?

Date: 2007-09-08 10:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappubahry.livejournal.com
Firstly, I think it's 18 months - I haven't actually checked in years. Secondly, 12 months isn't more sensible, because of the inconsistency in the number of Tests played each year. In the long run, the big teams play a similar number of Tests to each other (these days, at least), but over a period as short as a year, there is big variation.

Date: 2007-09-08 11:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kapitankraut.livejournal.com
Well there you go. I'd somehow had it in mind that it was intended to be roughly even (with some variation for 5-test Ashes series and so forth) over a 12-month period unless you were Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. I guess it would be kind of unsustainable to do it that way.

Date: 2007-09-08 03:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com
>I think it's 18 months
Apparently, it's 3 years for Tests and 2 years for ODIs. (Link 1 (http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/faq/test_faq.html), Link 2 (http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/faq/odi_faq.html))

Date: 2007-09-08 09:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappubahry.livejournal.com
Heh. Well, I still think of them as the PwC ratings, so I'm a bit behind the times....

Date: 2007-09-09 12:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com
And before their merger, the Coopers & Lybrand ratings! Did the ICC ratings takeover from the PwC ratings?

Date: 2007-09-09 09:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappubahry.livejournal.com
Did the ICC ratings takeover from the PwC ratings?
I'm pretty sure they did. I think I would have noticed if everyone suddenly switched to a completely new rankings system.

Date: 2007-09-10 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcgillianaire.livejournal.com
You're right! (http://cricketratings.pwcglobal.com/cricket/cricket.htm)

Profile

mcgillianaire: (Default)
mcgillianaire

2025

S M T W T F S

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 05:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios