LG has taken over sponsorship of the ratings system formally sponsored by Price Waterhouse Coopers and generally known as the PWC Ratings. At the same time the ICC has announced that the ratings system will be recognised as "official".
I have been discussing this move some friends. We all agree that the worst aspect of this is that the excellent PWC ratings website has been shut down and replaced by a very unexciting ICC website. The ICC website promises that it will be improved shortly - and I noticed that it was better today than it was yesterday - but unless it undergoes radical improvement, I can't see it ever beating the old PWC website for style and functionality.
Ben doesn't like the fact that the ratings are now "official" at all. He thinks the ratings are great, but should be just for fun. I disagree, mainly because the popularity of other rating systems are on the rise - particularly in the subcontinent where systems like CEAT are starting to overtake the PWC ratings in terms of popularity. The problem with these new rating systems is that they generally award points for player performances. For example under CEAT a player gets 1 point for every 35 runs they score with additional points depending on things like match outcome (see here for more on how CEAT works). The problem with this is that a player who plays 20 matches a year will generally outscore a player who only plays 10 matches - meaning that the ratings favour Indian players above the others because Indian cricketers play more games than anyone else. Recognition of the PWC ratings by the ICC should keep them at the top of the pile and do away with demand for these lesser systems.
Friday, 21 January 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm still not convinced the ratings should be made official. Cricket is not an individual game and just doesn't need official individual ratings. Just who the best player is should always be under contention and that there are competing ratings systems adds to this.
The ratings-formerly-known-as-the-PwC-ratings isn't necessarily the best system by all measures anyway. It is after all almost completely opaque. The CEAT system has the advantage of being transparent, which lets us debate its merits. We can claim for example that New Zealand players are disadvantaged in ratings because it is supposedly be harder to score on New Zealand pitches. We would never know however whether the old PwC accounted for this.
Post a Comment