Highest ever test batting rankings

What happens to a player's rating if they suffer a long-term injury?
A player who misses a game for his country is treated exactly the same whatever the reason (injury, poor form etc). In Tests, the player loses 1% of his points for each match missed, and a similar amount in ODIs.

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/faq.php

JGK wrote:So with 178 runs for once out in the match, Smith is likely to go to outright all time second when the next rankings are released.

Cracking stuff from the twitchy little Spiv.

Cheers taips. 1% doesn't seem much, but a missed series for a 600-odd point player could easily knock the better part of 50 points off the rankings, hence Mr K's point regarding the three he mentioned - and obviously others too.

Your rating drops by 1% I think for every Test match you miss.

skully wrote:

JGK wrote:So with 178 runs for once out in the match, Smith is likely to go to outright all time second when the next rankings are released.

Cracking stuff from the twitchy little Spiv.

It's interesting, in decades to come, he may well be regarded as the greatest ever after Bradman, yet thousands walked out while he was batting on day one. Will they tell their grandchildren one day that they saw Smith bat but didn't enjoy his innings?

JGK wrote:Your rating drops by 1% I think for every Test match you miss.

Nice mammary glands

Outright second it is:

1 961 D.G. Bradman
2 947 S.P.D. Smith
3 945 L. Hutton ENG
4 942 J.B. Hobbs ENG
4 942 R.T. Ponting
6 941 P.B.H. May EN
7 938 C.L. Walcott WI
7 938 I.V.A. Richards WI
7 938 K.C. Sangakkara
7 938 G.S. Sobers WI

Red wrote:

skully wrote:

JGK wrote:So with 178 runs for once out in the match, Smith is likely to go to outright all time second when the next rankings are released.

Cracking stuff from the twitchy little Spiv.

It's interesting, in decades to come, he may well be regarded as the greatest ever after Bradman, yet thousands walked out while he was batting on day one.  Will they tell their grandchildren one day that they saw Smith bat but didn't enjoy his innings?

of course not ...they are lying vomits

It is pretty remarkable given early woeful efforts when his nickname was Specialist Fielder.

Cue Embee to big up the four Worriers, who with NCN will form the backbone of the Oz team for the next decade.

horace wrote:It is pretty remarkable given early woeful efforts when his nickname was Specialist Fielder.

'The Mascot', and weren't there some schoolyard inferences re superfluous chromosomes?

JGK wrote:Outright second it is:

1 961 D.G. Bradman
2 947 S.P.D. Smith
3 945 L. Hutton ENG
4 942 J.B. Hobbs ENG
4 942 R.T. Ponting
6 941 P.B.H. May EN
7 938 C.L. Walcott WI
7 938 I.V.A. Richards WI
7 938 K.C. Sangakkara
7 938 G.S. Sobers WI

3 God-damn Aussies in the top 5. Grouse as.

skully wrote:

JGK wrote:Outright second it is:

1 961 D.G. Bradman
2 947 S.P.D. Smith
3 945 L. Hutton ENG
4 942 J.B. Hobbs ENG
4 942 R.T. Ponting
6 941 P.B.H. May EN
7 938 C.L. Walcott WI
7 938 I.V.A. Richards WI
7 938 K.C. Sangakkara
7 938 G.S. Sobers WI

3 God-damn Aussies in the top 5. Grouse as.

And three West Indians, three poms and not a Tendulkar in sight.

No South Africans or Indians at all ... no Lara either ... bizarre.

Smith>Tendulkar/Lara. Just to get into the spirit of the holidays.

Peter May is the odd one out in that list. Good but never great. The others (bar Smith, early days) all have claims to greatness.

Actually May has always bothered me. But I think for periods of time (which this is apparently sposed to track) he was exceptional. Plus I think he may have suffered from the "Arthur" syndrome.

I umpired a bloke the other day called Bradman May

His batting didnt live up to either name

OK, some perspective on the start of Tweak's career, before the myth-making runs out of control and Everybody Knows it took him till his 30th Test to crack double figures:

I know in his first stint in the Test team the visuals were not great - he looked gormless and out of his depth, like a boy playing against men, which he basically was - but his actual maths weren't that bad, he bowled well in his first Test, made 70-odd batting at 8 in his second, then in the Ashes series he batted at least as well as Capt Clueless and the bloke that took over when CC broke his hand. Unconvincing, definitely, but never a complete non-contributor. He may not have matched Doug Walters in his first half-dozen Tests but he wasn't Kenny Rutherford either.

Fred Nerk wrote:OK, some perspective on the start of Tweak's career, before the myth-making runs out of control and Everybody Knows it took him till his 30th Test to crack double figures:

I know in his first stint in the Test team the visuals were not great - he looked gormless and out of his depth, like a boy playing against men, which he basically was - but his actual maths weren't that bad, he bowled well in his first Test, made 70-odd batting at 8 in his second, then in the Ashes series he batted at least as well as Capt Clueless and the bloke that took over when CC broke his hand. Unconvincing, definitely, but never a complete non-contributor. He may not have matched Doug Walters in his first half-dozen Tests but he wasn't Kenny Rutherford either.

I started rating him when Aus toured India in 2013. I think I posted at the time that he was the only Aussie bat showing some balls.

I always knew he'd be back, I just hoped like hell it wasn't too soon or against the wrong opponent, and 2 years and India wouldn't have been my first choice.