Australia news

Clarke rises to second in batsmen rankings

ESPNcricinfo staff

August 6, 2013

Comments: 47 | Text size: A | A

Michael Clarke went past a half-century in the afternoon session, England v Australia, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 1st day, August 1, 2013
Michael Clark's 187 at Old Trafford moved him up to second in the ICC rankings for Test batsmen, behind Hashim Amla © PA Photos
Enlarge
Related Links

Michael Clarke has jumped three places to second in the ICC rankings for Test batsmen, following his 187 at Old Trafford against England for which he was also named as the Man of the Match.

Clarke, who had earlier topped the rankings during the 2009 Ashes, is now just 20 ratings points behind South Africa batsman Hashim Amla, whom he can overtake with another strong performance in the fourth Test in Chester-le-Street.

England batsmen Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen have also moved up in the rankings. Bell, who is leading the batting charts in the Ashes with 381 runs, is now placed 10th, while Pietersen's century at Old Trafford helped him jump two places and he is now 14th on the list.

In the bowlers rankings, Australia fast bowler Ryan Harris leaped four places to achieve a career-best ranking of 11th, while Graeme Swann's match figures of six for 233 took him to sixth, ahead of team-mate James Anderson.

South Africa's Dale Steyn continues to head the bowlers' table with teammate Vernon Philander in second place, and Sri Lanka's Rangana Herath in third position.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Liquefierrrr on (August 7, 2013, 23:34 GMT)

@(August 7, 2013, 10:47 GMT) - of course, I'd take Anderson over Siddle every day of the week, however Siddle outranking Anderson adds context to the 'Anderson is the greatest bowler of the modern era' that some English fans seem to genuinely believe.

If he can't even outrank a stock bowler like Siddle when he (Anderson) is allegedly at his 'peak', then it reaffirms that he's very good now but will never be considered a great by anyone in any official capacity or anyone with any perspective.

England's lineup are VERY solid. They have one explosive player, in KP, who can turn an entire game in an hour. Aside from him they have good, solid players who are reasonably realiable. I did notice that Trott's first 1800 runs came at 66, his last 1700 have come at 36, so playing a lot of Test cricket also helps your rank.

@(August 7, 2013, 8:38 GMT) - Swann's last 101 wickets have come at 29.66 and Ajmal's last 100 wickets have come at 23.60. Swann's good, Ajmal is better, clearly.

Posted by Unomaas on (August 7, 2013, 16:01 GMT)

If you are going to do comparisons, then do them based on batting position. If Clarke is going to persist at 5 then compare him to the other premiere number 5 batsman who is Chanderpaul. If Clarke is gonna bat 4, then compare him to Kallis and Tendulkar. When Clarke starts batting first drop, then comparisons can be made between Amla, Sanga and Clarke.

Additionally, the speculations about Clarke and the Aussie team batting prowess (or lack there of) is speculative hence we can't infer any conclusions.

I would also like to say that I have a lot of respect for batters that bat at 3. Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis started their careers there and then moved down to 4. One of the reasons that I rate them above Tendulkar.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 14:57 GMT)

Trott ranked world no 5 as an ODI batsman? These rankings must NOT take into account the strike rate, a MAJOR component of the greatness of the batsman, especially so in ODIs. Slowpoke Chanderpaul will plummet in test rankings when we multiply everyone's average by their strike rate. Also, averages must matter more than the sheer number of runs, otherwise how can Prior be ranked so far ahead of so many greats of the game? These things have to be measured over 2 years at least. Ajmal & Herath are good, almost as good as Swann but benefit from playing a lot of matches on vicious turners at home. Let's see take Ajmal take a 5 for at Old Trafford in the 1st innings. Herath flopped in Australia. Before we say Herath & Ajmal are better than Swann, let's see them take many wickets in SAf, England or Australia.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 12:08 GMT)

@Lliam Flynn

Correct, Anderson has received lavish praise, but he does win matches and can be unplayable. Siddle also wins matches but no one suggests he is unplayable. Anderson stats for

2010-2013 - 166 wickets at 25.39 2003-2005 - 35 wickets at 36.40

Peter Siddle 2010-2013 - 112 wickets at 26.19 2008-2013 - 166 wickets at 28.15

Given that Anderson has over 300 wickets, this is why he is lauded

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 11:11 GMT)

Funny thing,if we compare Anderson and Lehmann, Lehmann is considered a Part time bowler but yet has Better avg and economy than Anderson, ups,

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

@Liquefierrrr

What you say is correct, but the tables are a guide to form rather than class. Does this table means Siddle is a better bowler than Anderson? I dont think many commentators would make that statement. It does mean he has bowled better recently. The most important statistic to take from the tables is length of time at the top (or at a high score) as this denotes the level a batsman can reach. If you look at KP everyone would say he is an excellent bat and on his day can play innings that even Amla and Clark couldn't. His highest rating is 909 but currently is ~750 which shows he is not consistently playing those innings. The other point to note is that England, even with the poor series they are currently having with the bat, have 5 players in the top 20 batters (Cook, Pieterson, Trott, Bell, Prior) with a 6th (Root) rising fast just outside. This says the Englands batting line up is very reliable indeed. If they stay in to top 20-30 then they are consistent too.

Posted by dunger.bob on (August 7, 2013, 9:27 GMT)

Instead of either/or, can I have both Clarke and Amla please. Then give two more decent bats, 4 good bowlers and a wk who can catch. Take that lot on and see how you go.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 8:38 GMT)

@Liquefierrrr. Herath and Ajmal both play on far more wickets that help them than Swann. Ajmal and Swann are about the same level in my view. Herath on the other hand averages 24 at home and 40 away versus Swann averaging 28 home and away.

Too early to judge Philander as a great. 16 Tests is not enough and there is some evidence that suggests he's in a bit of a lull. Certainly he didn't pull up any trees in county cricket with Kent this year.

Posted by Tumi_tlhomz on (August 7, 2013, 8:20 GMT)

Sorry i just noted the 44 innings and 31 innings comparison which exemplifies my point.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days
Sponsored Links

Why not you? Read and learn how!