I don't take much notice of the rankings. We all know who the best players are without a computer telling us.

What's more alarming is that after 2 decents tests Broad gets in the top 10 bowling rankings when before that he could not buy a wicket. Just shows how bad test match bowling is that Broad and Sharma make the top 10.

"Just shows how bad test match bowling is that Broad and Sharma make the top 10."

Broad is a quality bowler, it's just that he was out of form & hitting the wrong length.

He deserves to be in the top 10 easily

The ranking system for individual performances are altered after every innings. As only India and England are engaged in a test series, the players from these teams are the only ones affected. This exagerates the moment of these players up and down the rankings.
A classic example is that of Bell who jumped from 17th to 5th on the back of one innings.

Crazy - I'm not disputing that but in the 80s and 90s you would have needed a run of 10 games where you took a load of wickets to just make it in the top 10 which highlights the lack of quality bowling in test cricket a long with batsman friendly pitches.

very true Kash.

There seems to be a lack of "special" world class players ATM, probably one of the reasons why England seem to be dominating

Why is it when Australian, India and SA players dominate these rankings they are glorified but the moment the performance of England players is recognised, the rankings are rubbish?

I said that they were rubbish because I noted that Cook had dropped out of them so I was actually recognising the fact that an English player was there! So I don't get your comment?

Bell has an average in 2011 exceeding 100, which includes games against Australia, SL and India. Is that not world class enough for you.
This English habit of holding our sportsmen to a higher standard than those of other nations is pathetic.

So you honestly believe Bell is as good a batsman as Ponting was in his prime?

I don't remember mentioning Ponting or any other player but I'm sure that Bell's 2011 performance ranks as world class.

hope
Most of us on here would rate Bell's from since he came as world class?

So you honestly believe Bell is as good a batsman as Ponting was in his prime?

Who said anything about Ponting?? Bell averages over 100 in 2011 & fully deserves his place in the rankings.

Irrelevant if you mentioned Ponting or not, but yes some of Bell's performances recently have been very very good.

But when you put the tag of world class on him I'm not sure he deserves that quite yet, in 3 to 5 years if he can keep to this level or there aborts then yes he probably will be.

Being world class is different to being a real great player/

The saying world class is very subjective, and has different weightings for different people.

Please read what I am writing carefully before jumping. I said Bell's 2011 performance can be ranked as world class. I did not claim he was a world class cricketer, although if he continues to play as he is currently, he will deserve to be seen that way. The chances of him becoming a world great would require a remarkable effort on his part.

World class would seem to mean that they would make a current 'World XI' team. On current form I would say Bell would do that.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/TopTen.asp

Just shows how rubbish the rankings are.
--------------------------
So true.Even if England secure the top spot, the truth is only India deserve to be at the top.

so yes he would probably get it to a current world XI.

Supa
Doug Bollinger is world class then?

lol

Player rankings are meaningless, just a bit of fun for excitable fans.
Team rankings are in general the same but are used in qualification for ICC organised events.

Your probably right, we don't really need them.