The ICC maintains and publishes a list of batting, bowling and all-rounder rankings for each format on their Rankings Website. Players are assigned ratings on a scale of 0 to 1000 based on their recent performances, and then ranked in decreasing order of rating.

These ratings (and therefore rankings) are updated regularly: usually at least once a week per format when international cricket is played in that format. At any given time, the top 100 ranked batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders and their ratings in each format can be viewed on the rankings website.

In our report on ICC Player Rankings, we took a deep-dive into historical ratings data.

• We looked at how the ratings data is distributed and how it changes over time.
• We then identified several quirks of the algorithm that can affect players' ratings in unexpected ways.
• Finally, we proposed several improvements to the ratings system to make it more reliable and better adapted to the modern game.

In this report, we will utilise all the insights we have gained from ratings data to answer a more casual question: Who are the greatest players of all time?.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the most detailed and numerically thorough report ever written on the topic. We hope you will enjoy it.

The ICC publishes a list of Best-ever Ratings for batsmen and bowlers in every format, but they merely list the top ratings achieved by each player at any time during their career regardless of their ratings during the span of their careers, or the ratings of their competition during that time.

For example: The best-ever ODI bowler of all time according to the ICC's list is Joel Garner (WI), who achieved a career-best rating of 940 on 1985-04-17.

A rating of 940 is an exceptional achievement, but we need to look at it in context.

In his 7-year long ODI career:

• Garner was the top-rated bowler in the World for only 2 years during 1985-1986.
• Dennis Lillee (AUS) had a higher rating than Garner for 3 years during 1980-1982.
• Richard Hadlee (NZ) had a higher rating than Garner in 1983, and was neck-in-neck with Garner for most of 1984.

Overall, while Garner did achieve a best-ever rating of 940, he was an outstanding top-rated bowler for only 2 out of 7 years (or ~30%) of his ODI career.

Moreover, 900+ ratings were all too common for ODI bowlers in the 1980s but today's top ODI bowlers rarely achieve a rating above 800.

This makes it impossible to compare today's Bumrah to yesterday's McGrath.

Clearly, the ICC's all-time ranking based on best-ever ratings can use some improvement.

And in this report we're going to do exactly that.

We are defining greatness in terms of players' ratings only.

This should go without saying, but ratings do not tell the full story about a player's career. A player's rating at any time is just a number between 0 and 1000 that indicates their current form based on the moving average of a secretive formula used by the ICC.

Cricket is so, so much more than that.

However, most articles about top players that we have read online (including those from reputed publications) are either completely subjective or they have used less sophisticated numbers like averages and strike rates in their analysis.

Ratings already account for many shortcomings of these basic statistics, by taking into account several additional factors about individual matches such as playing conditions and opposition strength.

With all our insights about the nuances of the ratings system from our deep-dive, we can use the 100+ years of ratings data at our disposal to create what we believe is a much more thorough all-time ranking system.

We will do the following:

• First, we will assume that a player's ratings on any date are the ground-truth of their ongoing form and performance on that date.
• Then, we will make adjustments and aggregations over time to the ratings data to account for some of the flaws in the ratings system that we identified in our deep-dive.
• Finally, we will apply a rigorously defined criteria to our adjusted and aggregated ratings data to identify the greatest players of all time in each format.

So, as long as we all agree that the ratings system is far from perfect, that greatness is subjective, and that this is just a silly list-making exercise, let's dive right into it.

---

To be considered one of the greatest, a player should meet the following criteria:

1. They must have been the best (or one of the best) players in the World at some point in their career,
2. They must have outperformed most of the competition at some point in their career, and
3. They must have done both of the above for a longer period of time than others.

We want to emphasise point 3 above: In our opinion, it is not enough for a player to achieve a top rating that is much higher than their contemporaries one or two times or for a short period in their careers.

It is consistency and longevity that make a player great.

This is why Sachin Tendulkar (IND) is remembered as a GOAT today but Kevin Pietersen (ENG) isn't.

Speaking of Sachin Tendulkar, here's how his rankings compare to the competition.

Figure 1.1 below shows Tendulkar's ODI batting ratings for the 22-year period span of his career (1991-2012). Ratings for seven other top ODI batsmen are also plotted for comparison.

About this Figure

This graph shows ODI battings ratings for Sachin Tendulkar (in blue) and seven other batsmen between 1991 and 2012.

• On the horizontal axis (bottom scale) is time. Ratings for each player on each date are plotted.
• On the vertical axis (left scale) are ratings.

  Note that the ratings scale starts at 500 since we are only looking at the top batsmen.

Show Figure 1.1

• ODI Batsmen: Sachin Tendulkar (IND) vs competition

  
  

Figure 1.1: ODI batting ratings for Sachin Tendulkar (IND) compared to seven top competitors during 1991-2012.

There were other top-ranked players like Mike Hussey (AUS), Sanath Jayasuriya (SL), AB de Villiers (SA) and many more for short periods during this time. We have only shown the 7 players that were at the top for the longest time here for comparison.

Note how Tendulkar hardly ever had the top rating among ODI batsmen.

Even his best-ever rating of 887 (on 1998-11-13) came at a time when Brian Lara (WI) had a near-identical rating of 886.

Table 1.1 below shows a summary of top-rated players from figure 1.1 compared to Tendulkar.

Years	Top Player(s)
1991-1992	Dean Jones (AUS) was top-ranked
1993-1998	Brian Lara (WI) was top-ranked
1999-2001	Michael Bevan (AUS) was top-ranked
2002-2004	Tendulkar jostled for top position with others
2005-2007	Adam Gilchrist (AUS) and Ricky Ponting (AUS) were both top-ranked
2008-2010	MS Dhoni (IND) was top-ranked
2011-2012	Hashim Amla (SA) was top-ranked

Table 1.1: Summary of players who had a higher ODI batting rating than Sachin Tendulkar from 1991 to 2012.

All this doesn't look great for Tendulkar until you consider this fact:

Sachin was among the World's Top 5 ODI batsmen for a total of 3878 calendar days during this time.

That's more than 10 total years during his 22-year career!

This is the kind of greatness we are trying to uncover in our analysis that a list of best-ever ratings never can.

Let's build towards it step-by-step.

---

Our first step towards finding the greatest players is to find players that were ranked amongst the best in the World for the longest time.

Let's begin by looking at only the top-ranked player on each day.

Figure 2.1 below shows batsmen and bowlers in all three formats who were ranked 1st for the most number of days.

About this Figure

These graphs show the players that stayed at Rank 1 for the longest total number of calendar days in their career. There is one graph each for batsmen and bowlers and for all three formats.

• On the horizontal axis (bottom scale) are players, ordered by total number of calendar days at Rank 1.

• On the vertical axis (left scale) are the total number of days each player spent at Rank 1.

  The higher the bar, the more calendar days that player spent at Rank 1.

  Bars for players are coloured the same as their national teams.

• The top 20 players with the most number of days at Rank 1 are shown on the graph, but only the top 10 are named (due to space constraints).

Show Figure 2.1

• Test Batsmen

  
  
• Test Bowlers

  
  
• ODI Batsmen

  
  
• ODI Bowlers

  
  
• T20I Batsmen

  
  
• T20I Bowlers

  
  

Figure 2.1: Players who were ranked 1st for the most number of calendar days. There is one graph each for batting and bowling ratings in each format (Tests, ODIs, T20Is).

• In Test cricket: Don Bradman (AUS), Len Hutton (ENG) and Bill o'Reilly (AUS) dominate the charts.

  Bradman and Hobbs were both at Rank 1 in Test batting ratings for more than 16 total calendar years each!

  Bill o'Reilly was at Rank 1 in Test bowling ratings for about 10 total calendar years.

• In ODIs: Viv Richards (WI) and Brian Lara (WI) are ahead of the pack in batting and Curtly Ambrose (WI) and Shaun Pollock (SA) in bowling.

  All four of these players were at Rank 1 for 5+ years.

• In T20Is: Babar Azam (PAK) and Virat Kohli (IND) outperform the competition in batting, while Rashid Khan (AFG) alone does it in bowling.

  Kohli and Azam were at Rank 1 for ~2.7 total calendar years each.

  Khan alone was at Rank 1 for ~4 total calendar years, almost 2x compared to the next best Samuel Badree (WI). Khan is the biggest outlier among the competition in all six graphs.

We note that players from the early days of each format seem to dominate these charts.

The reason is simple: There is a lot more cricket being played today and that gives more players the opportunity to rise to the top more frequently.

Consider Don Bradman's example. During his 20-year long career (1928-1948):

• Bradman played only 52 test matches.

  Sachin Tendulkar, for comparison, played 200 test matches in 24 years (1989-2013), while also playing 450+ ODIs.

• At the time when Bradman was playing cricket, an average of only 8 test matches were played every year worldwide.

  By contrast, 50+ test matches and 120+ ODIs were played in the year 2003 alone.

  Similarly, only 10 ~ 25 ODIs were played per year during 1975-80 when Viv Richards was in his prime, but 140+ were played in 2007 alone when Ricky Ponting was.

• Bradman was the top-ranked batsman in 1939 when World War 2 broke out. No international cricket was played while he stayed at Rank 1 until 1946. Jack Hobbs similarly stayed at Rank 1 during World War 1.

  Is it fair to count those periods of little or no cricket for these players?

  What about 2018 and 2020 when few ODI games were played and Virat Kohli stayed at rank 1st among ODI batsmen?

In summary, if we count the total number of calendar days that a player was at Rank 1, players who were active during periods of little or no cricket gain an unfair advantage over others.

To address the above limitations, let's define a new criteria for counting the total number of days that a player was at top rank(s):

We will only count those days for a player when there was some change in ratings globally.

In other words, there must have been at least one completed international game on a date somewhere in the World (after which ratings were updated) for the date to be counted for a player in that format.

This includes days when the player's own national team did not play any games, with the following rationale:

If there was any international cricket completed on a date that led to a change in ratings in a format, then some player somewhere in the World had a chance to outperform the current top-ranked player(s) in that format and take their position.

Figure 2.2 below shows the updated results.

About this Figure

These graphs are similar to figure 2.1 above, but instead of calendar days, only days when there was a global change in ratings are counted.

Show Figure 2.2

• Test Batsmen

  
  
• Test Bowlers

  
  
• ODI Batsmen

  
  
• ODI Bowlers

  
  
• T20I Batsmen

  
  
• T20I Bowlers

  
  

Figure 2.2: Players who were ranked 1st for the most number of days with global ratings change. There is one graph each for batting and bowling ratings in each format (Tests, ODIs, T20Is).

We see, right away, just how much smaller the total number of days become in each format.

• Since there is only one rating change after every 5-day test match, we see a massive reduction in the total number of days at Rank 1 for top players.

  For example, Don Bradman's total number of days are only 93 now: a 68x reduction vs figure 2.1!

  That Bradman is still only 7th on the list among test batsmen in spite of only playing 52 games in his career is a testament to his exceptional talent. He is the only player from the early 20th century to stay in the top 10 in spite of how little cricket was played back then.

  Garry Sobers (WI), Viv Richards (WI) and Steve Smith (AUS) have 21x, 15x and 10x reductions in total no. of days respectively, reflecting the gradual increase in the amount of cricket played during their respective eras.

• The reduction in the number of days is less for ODI cricket, and it also reflects the amount of games played in each player's era.

  For example, Viv Richards (WI), active during the 1980s, sees a 9x reduction whereas AB de Villiers (SA), a modern legend of the ODI game, sees only a 3x reduction.

• Two limited-over bowlers far outperform the competition: Shaun Pollock (SA) in ODIs and Rashid Khan (AFG) in T20Is.

  Pollock was at Rank 1 for ~1.9x days vs Curtly Ambrose (WI), the closest competition.

  Once again, Khan outperforms the competition by the most among the 6 graphs: He was at Rank 1 for ~2.7x days vs Sunil Narine (WI).

• Babar Azam (PAK) still leads the pack for T20I batsmen, but Brian Lara (WI) gets slightly ahead of Viv Richards (WI) to take the lead among ODI batsmen.

We see that the top players on our charts are now those who survived at Rank 1 for the longest time, and did so at times of more competition (when more games were played so there was a higher chance to topple them).

While the changes in the way we count days has made it more fair for players who survived among tougher competition, we see that recent players now tend to be over-represented on our list.

Except Bradman, no other player from before 1950 is left in the top 10 in Test cricket.

Similarly, Viv Richards, Dean Jones and Joel Garner are the only ODI players from the 1980s left in the top 10 in ODIs.

Should we penalise players if not enough cricket was played in their eras?

Clearly, neither solution is perfect, but let's continue working with figure 2.2 for now since it solves more problems than it creates.

We will address this problem decisively in Chapter 3.

We have only looked at players at Rank 1 so far.

As we saw with Tendulkar's ODI ratings in figure 1.1, being Rank 1 isn't everything. We now want to look at the longevity of all players at the top of the ratings chart.

Figure 2.3 below shows players by the number of days they spent in the top 3 ranks in each format.

About this Figure

These graphs are similar to figure 2.2 above, but instead of counting days when each player was ranked 1st we count days when each player was in the top 3 ranks.

Show Figure 2.3

• Test Batsmen

  
  
• Test Bowlers

  
  
• ODI Batsmen

  
  
• ODI Bowlers

  
  
• T20I Batsmen

  
  
• T20I Bowlers

  
  

Figure 2.3: Players who were ranked 1st, 2nd or 3rd for the most number of days with global ratings change. There is one graph each for batting and bowling ratings in each format (Tests, ODIs, T20Is).

• We note that most graphs now look flatter than before, indicating that many players reach the same level of long-term performance among the top 3 ranks.

  However, the two exceptional limited-over bowlers from figures 2.1 and 2.3 still outperform the competition: Shaun Pollock (SA) in ODIs and Rashid Khan (AFG) in T20Is. Similarly, Babar Azam (PAK) stays a class apart among T20I batsmen.

  This is an indication of just how exceptional these players really are.

• Several players are now elevated from their previous positions, indicating that they were hiding in the shadows of the top ranked players (at ranks 2 and 3) for most of their careers.

  Some notable examples:

  • Test Batsmen: Sachin Tendulkar (IND), Brian Lara (WI), Steve Waugh (AUS)
  • Test Bowlers: Glenn McGrath (AUS), Shaun Pollock (SA), James Anderson (ENG)
  • ODI Batsmen: Virat Kohli (IND), Sachin Tendulkar (IND), Ricky Ponting (AUS)
  • ODI Bowlers: Glenn McGrath (AUS), Muttiah Muralidaran (SL), Wasim Akram (PAK)
  • T20I Batsmen: Aaron Finch (AUS), Mohammad Rizwan (PAK), Alex Hales (ENG)
  • T20I Bowlers: Adil Rashid (ENG), Wanindu de Silva (SL), Saeed Ajmal (PAK)

  All these players show big jumps in the number of days they were at Top 3 ranks vs only the top rank. Tendulkar in ODIs, in particular, was among the top 3 ranks for 8x as many days (809) as he was at Rank 1 (101)!

In summary, looking at players who were at the top 3 ranks is more fair to players with long careers who were one of the best in the world throughout.

• The obvious question jumps out at us first: Why consider only the top 3 ranked players?

  For example, if we look at the top 5 ranked players we get even flatter graphs, and players like Javed Miandad (PAK), Shane Warne (AUS) and Chaminda Vaas (SL) join the top 10 lists.

• The other question in our minds: What does it even mean to be among the top 3 ranked players (or top 5 for that matter) if we're not looking at the ratings of those players? Take a look at figure 2.3.1 below as an example.

About this Figure

These graphs show the top 20 ranked ODI batsmen six months apart on 1999-01-01 and 1999-07-01 respectively.

Rating values above 700 are also shown.

Show Figure 2.3.1

• ODI Batsmen: 1999-01-01

  
  
• ODI Batsmen: 1999-07-01

  
  

Figure 2.3.1: Top 20 ranked ODI batsmen on 1999-01-01 and 1999-07-01.

We note the following:

• On 1999-01-01, the top 3 ODI batsmen had similar ratings.

  Tendulkar, Lara and Bevan all had ratings between 876 and 887. The next best player on that date (Hansie Cronje) was 100+ points behind at 771.

  On this date, it makes sense to consider the top 3 players as "among the best".

• On 1999-07-01, only six months later, Bevan stood alone at the top with a rating of 882.

  The next 3 best players (Klusener, Tendulkar, Lara) were 80 ~ 90 points behind with ratings between 794 and 808.

  On this date, it makes sense to only consider one player as "among the best". If we did consider the top 3 players, we will unfairly count Klusener and Tendulkar while leaving Lara behind (even though he had almost the same rating as the other two).

This is not a cherry-picked example. This happens all the time. As we saw in figure 1.1, ratings can change frequently. On some days, one or two players stand out. On other days, several players can be bunched up at the top with similar ratings.

We will dive deeper into this in Chapter 3.

The solution, of course, is to not have a fixed number of players considered as "among the best" on each day, but look at the actual ratings on that day to determine who to include.

More specifically, when we look at ratings on each day:

• We first want to select the players who meet both criteria 1 and 2 of Greatness (see Chapter 1) on that day. That is, they were one of the best and outperformed the competition.
• Then, we want to find players who satisfy criteria 3 (met criteria 1 and 2 for the most number of days) from among the selected players on each day.

We have learned that in order to build the ranking system we want, we need to solve the following two problems:

1. The Day-Counting Problem: If we count all calendar days, it unfairly benefits players active at times of little or no cricket. If we only count days when ratings changed, we unfairly benefit players who just happened to be active at a time when more cricket was played. We need to find a middle-ground that solves this problem.
2. The Player-Selection Problem: We cannot count only the top 1, or top 3 or top 5 ranked players on each day. We need to look at the actual ratings of each player and select those players at the top who have similar ratings. Only then can we aggregate over time for each selected player.

---

We mentioned two problems above in our summary of Chapter 2. Let's solve each of them now.

More cricket is played during some periods and less during others. To balance the two, we need to find a way to aggregate a player's ratings over time windows so that players during slow and busy periods for a format get equal credit for having the highest ratings.

The time window needs to be large enough to balance out the longest usual lull in cricket across formats (ignoring the world wars). Figure 3.1 below shows every day with a rating change in each format during three different time periods.

About this Figure

These graphs show one dot for every day when there was a change in ratings during three decades across cricket history: the 1930s, the 1980s and the 2010s.

• On the horizontal axis (bottom scale) is time.
  • Each decade is split into two graphs of five years each.
• Each day with a rating change is shown as a dot on one line each for the three formats.
  • Each dot (or each day with a rating change) for a format indicates that some international cricket match in that format concluded on that day.
  • Darker areas indicate more dots close to each other. This means that more international cricket was played in that period.

    The darkest regions are usually during ICC events like the World Cup and Champions Trophy.

Show Figure 3.1

• Days with Ratings Change: 1930-1935

  
  
• Days with Ratings Change: 1935-1940

  
  
• Days with Ratings Change: 1980-1985

  
  
• Days with Ratings Change: 1985-1990

  
  
• Days with Ratings Change: 2010-2015

  
  
• Days with Ratings Change: 2015-2020

  
  

Figure 3.1: Every date with a rating change for all three formats (Test cricket, ODIs and T20Is) for six 5-year windows: two each from the 1930s, 1980s and 2010s.

• We now see exactly how little cricket was being played in the 1930s (Bradman's era).
• We note the following about gaps between matches in each format:
  • In the 1930s, gaps between test matches could be as large as one year, sometimes with only 3-5 total matches played in a one-year period.
  • In the 1980s:
    • A lot more test cricket was being played, with gaps between matches no larger than one quarter.
    • However, ODI cricket (in its early days at that time) had periods as large as one year when only 1 or 2 matches were played. More ODI cricket was played in the latter half of the 1980s but we still see periods of up to 6 months when only 2-3 matches were played.
  • In the 2010s:
    • The amount of test cricket was even higher than the 1980s. We spot four large gaps of 3-5 months each during 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2019.
    • ODI cricket was played consistently during 2010-2015, but there was a gap of about 3 months in 2016 and a year-long gap during 2018-2019.
    • T20I cricket had a 9-month long period of little activity during 2011 and a similar 15-month period during 2014-2015 (split across graphs).

In summary, there have been several time windows of low activity between 3 and 12 months in every format. The total amount and frequency of cricket has gone up over time even in the longer formats over the decades, though a decline in ODIs is noticeable towards the end of the 2010s.

Note that we have only shown three decades from different time periods for brevity, but we see similar patterns in all decades.

We have learned that the time window we use for aggregating each player's rankings has to be at least one year long to account for the various periods of inactivity in international cricket.

But which years should we include? We obviously want to exclude the years during the World Wars but as we saw in Figure 3.1 above, there have been some peacetime years with almost no cricket played (e.g. ODIs in 2018).

Figure 3.2 below shows the total number of days in each year when there was a ratings change in each format.

About this Figure

These graphs show the total number of days with ratings change in each year for each format.

• On the horizontal axis (bottom scale) is time. There is one green bar for every year.
• On the vertical axis (left scale) is the number of days when there was a change in ratings.

  The taller a bar, the more days in that year had a change in ratings.

Note that this figure is not the same as figure 0.1 from our deep-dive on ratings. Days with all changes (ratings or ranks) were included there but only days with rating changes are included here.

View Figure 3.2

• Test Cricket

  
  
• ODIs

  
  
• T20Is

  
  

Figure 3.2: Days with rating change in each year by format

We note the following:

• Test cricket
  • Before 1928, there were less than 5 days with ratings changes in almost every year.
  • There were less than 10 days with ratings changes in almost every year up to 1950.
  • Almost every year after 1950 had at least 15 ~ 20 such days.

    1970 is an exception with only 6 such days.

• ODIs
  • Almost every year since 1982 had 30+ days of ratings change.

    2018 is the only exception with just under 30 such days.

• T20Is
  • Almost every year since 2009 had 30+ days of ratings change.

    2011 is the only exception with only ~20 such days.

In summary, it is possible to choose a year in every format after which that format has had at least a minimum number of days of ratings change in almost every year. We can exclude years with a smaller number of rating changes and aggregate players' ratings in all other years.

Table 3.1 below shows the exact calendar years we will be considering in our analysis.

View Table 3.1

Format	Included Years	Excluded Years	Total Years
Test Classic	1928 - 1950	1940 - 1945	17
Test Modern	1951 - 2023	1970	72
ODIs	1982 - 2023	2018	41
T20Is	2009 - 2023	2011	14

Table 3.1: Calendar years included and excluded based on the total number of rating changes in each year.

Note that we have defined two different eras for Test Cricket: Classic and Modern. This is because, as we saw in figure 3.2 above, the amount of cricket played before 1950 was too low for comparison with the modern game.

While the modern era has a minimum requirement of 10 rating changes per year, the classic era only has a minimum requirement of 5.

Now that we have defined a time window of one-year and identified which years we can use in our analysis, let's figure out how to combine each player's ratings in a time window.

We can take the average of a player's ratings in each year. However, as we saw in Chapter 4 of our deep-dive, players lose 0.5% - 2% of rating points (depending on format and year) for every match they miss for their national teams. This happens regardless of whether:

• The player was dropped due to poor performance

  For example, Sourav Ganguly (IND) during 2005-2007

• The player was suspended due to disciplinary reasons

  For example, Steve Smith (AUS) and David Warner (AUS) during 2018-2019

• The player was injured (including injuries not related to cricket)

  For example, Rishabh Pant (IND) during 2023-2024

• The player was rested to manage their workload

  For example, Virat Kohli (IND) and Rohit Sharma (IND) in T20Is during 2023.

Moreover, top players are often rested for non-consequential series such as India's tour of Zimbabwe in July 2024 immediately following their T20 World Cup victory.

It is also not uncommon for players, especially from associate teams, to make themselves unavailable for their national teams to play in overseas leagues like the T20 Blast.

For these reasons, we do not want to consider the average, median or any similar statistic to indicate a player's overall rating in a year.

Instead, we will simply take the maximum rating that a player achieved in a calendar year as their aggregated rating, with the following reationale:

If a player achieved a high rating, they demonstrated that they were a player of that caliber at some point in the year. Even if they lost rating points before or after that due to being rested or due to league commitments, we want to recongnise their highest rating in the year as representative of their overall performance in that year.

Note that a player's rating at any time is a moving average of short-term individual performances. A player, therefore, must have consistently performed at a high-enough level to achieve that rating.

We have come up with the following methodology for counting the amount of time that a player spent as among the best in the World.

1. Take each player's maximum rating in a calendar year.
2. Count the number of calendar years (from Table 3.1) in which the player was "among the best" based on their maximum rating in each year.
3. Rank players by the total number of calendar years that they spent as "among the best".

Now let's move on to the next problem: How do we determine which players were among the best in each calendar year?

In figure 2.3.1, we showed that the number of players at the top of the ratings list can be different on different dates.

Now that we have decided to aggregate each players' ratings by calendar year, let's take a more detailed look at how the number of players at the top changes by year after aggregation.

Figure 3.3 below shows the maximum ratings of the top 10 batsmen and bowlers in every year by format as defined in table 3.1.

About this Figure

These graphs show ratings for the top 10 batsmen and bowlers in each year included in Table 3.1. The top 10 players for a year are determined after taking the maximum rating for each player in that year.

• On the horizontal axis (bottom scale) are years.
• On the vertical axis (left scale) are ratings.

  Note that in all graphs except Test Classic (1928-1950), the ratings scale starts at 500.

• Ratings are shown in different colours for whoever the top 10 players after aggregation every year were. The ratings for all other players are shown in light grey for reference.
  • The colours for each rank are consistent between years.

    For example, Rank 1 is always blue, Rank 2 always Orange, and Rank 10 Cyan in every year.

  • Top ratings for only those years included in Table 3.1 are shown.

View Figure 3.3

• Test Batsmen : 1928 - 1950

  
  
• Test Bowlers : 1928 - 1950

  
  
• Test Batsmen : 1951 - 2023

  
  
• Test Bowlers : 1951 - 2023

  
  
• ODI Batsmen : 1982 - 2023

  
  
• ODI Bowlers : 1982 - 2023

  
  
• T20I Batsmen : 2009 - 2023

  
  
• T20I Bowlers : 2009 - 2023

  
  

Figure 3.3: The top 10 batsmen and bowlers with their maximum ratings per year in each format.

Two different graphs for batting and bowling each are shown for Test cricket for years before and after 1950. Some years have been excluded as per Table 3.1

Ratings for players outside of the top 10 are shown in grey.

We notice the following:

• The ratings of top players are all over the place between years for every format.

  For example, ODI bowlers used to have yearly top ratings of 850 ~ 900 up to 2008, after which the yearly top rating has barely exceeded 800.

  • Only the yearly top test bowlers in the modern era (1951-2024) show consistency between years.
• In some years, the second group of ranked yearly players can be significantly behind the top group of players, which makes it easy to separate them into clusters.

  For example, there is a 100+ rating points gap in ratings of ODI bowlers during 2000-2004.

  We also see the example from figure 2.3.1, where the top three ODI batsmen in 1999 have almost the same yearly maximum ratings.

• On the other hand, the ratings of a large group of players in some years can be so close to each other that it is hard to separate them into smaller groups.

  For example, six T20I batsmen in 2009 had almost equally-spaced maximum ratings between 735 ~ 775.

  Similarly, eight T20I bowlers in 2018 had very similar maximum ratings in the range 690 ~ 740, and all top 10 T20I bowlers in 2023 had maximum ratings in the range 680 ~ 725.

In summary, there is no consistent yearly maximum ratings in every format except test bowlers in the modern era. There is also no easy way of separating players among the top 10 into strictly-defined clusters.

The first step towards solving the player-selection problem is to normalise each player's maximum ratings in each year to the rating of the top-rated player in that year.

This will ensure that we are looking at each player's standing in each calendar year relative to the top rating that was achieved in that year, which solves the issue of inconsistent top ratings across years.

Next, we can say that all players above 95% of the top player's ratings (for example) can be considered as "among the best".

Figure 3.4 below shows the rating ratios (vs top player in each year) of the maximum yearly rating of the top 10 players in each year, along with a line indicating 95% of the top player's rating.

About this Figure

These graphs are similar to figure 3.3 above, with the following differences:

• Instead of ratings, the vertical axis (left scale) now shows the ratio of players' maximum ratings in each year vs the highest ranking by any player in that year.

  The top-rated player (in blue) in each year always has a rating ratio of 1.

  Note that the minimum rating ratio shown is 0.5 for Test cricket in the classic era, and 0.7 for all modern formats.

• A red line shows the ratio above which a player's yearly maximum rating in a year was more than 95% of the highest rating in that year.

View Figure 3.4

• Test Batsmen : 1928 - 1950

  
  
• Test Bowlers : 1928 - 1950

  
  
• Test Batsmen : 1951 - 2023

  
  
• Test Bowlers : 1951 - 2023

  
  
• ODI Batsmen : 1982 - 2023

  
  
• ODI Bowlers : 1982 - 2023

  
  
• T20I Batsmen : 2009 - 2023

  
  
• T20I Bowlers : 2009 - 2023

  
  

Figure 3.4: Maximum rating ratios vs top-ranked player for the top 10 batsmen and bowlers per year in each format. The 95% ratio vs the top-ranked player is shown as a dashed red line.

Two different graphs for batting and bowling each are shown for Test cricket for years before and after 1950. Some years have been excluded as per Table 3.1

Rating ratios for players outside of the top 10 are shown in grey.

Looking at rating ratios vs the top-ranked player has made it easier to compare relative ratings of players between years.

We note the following:

• The number of players with ratings above 95% of the top-ranked player varies by year. In some years, only the top-ranked player qualified as "one of the best". In others, several players can be above 95%.

  For example, seven Test Bowlers in 2016 had yearly maximum ratings above 95% of the top-ranked player, and six again in 2017.

• The average number of players above the threshold of 95% is different between formats.

  In the classic era of Test cricket, we see fewer bowlers than batsmen above 95% of the respective top-ranked players.

  Similarly, we see more players above the threshold on average in the modern era of Test cricket vs the classic era.

In summary, there is a variable number of players above the 95% rating threshold vs the top-ranked player in each year, and the average number of players above the threshold across years is different for batsmen and bowlers and between formats.

We recognise that we chose the same 95% arbitrary cutoff for each graph in figure 3.4 above, and that resulted in fewer players qualifying above the threshold in some vs others.

Now, let's define the following criteria for a more fair cutoff between batsmen and bowlers and across formats:

On average, we want exactly two batsmen and two bowlers to be above the threshold per year in each format.

Like we saw with the 95% threshold above, in some years there will be only one player above the threshold while in others there can be several.

However, as long as the average number of players above the threshold among all years is 2, we can be sure that the total number of players selected will be proportional to the number of included years in each format among both batsmen and bowlers.

There is one remaining shortcoming with the above method:

In Chapter 2, we were counting the total number of days that a player was at one of the top ranks. Now, we can only count the total number of calendar years when a player was "among the best" (above the rating ratio threshold).

Since most players have careers spanning 10 ~ 15 years or less, and are at their highest rankings for ever fewer years, we notice that several players end up with the same number of years spent above the threshold in our final list.

We therefore need to create a tie-breaker.

The Solution: Instead of defining only one rating ratio threshold that yields an average of two players per year, define several hierarchical thresholds so that players who are tied in their year counts above the higher threshold can be ranked by their respective year counts above the lower threshold.

We find that creating three levels of rating ratio thresholds can resolve almost all ties. We can then rank the players Olympics-style: first by the number of years spent above the top threshold, then by the number of years spent above the second threshold, and finally by the third threshold.

In the spirit of the Olympics, we can also name the rating ratio thresholds as Gold, Silver and Bronze thresholds.

Let's define the follwing criteria for extended thresholds:

• An average of 2 players per year should be above the Gold threshold,
• An average of 5 players per year should be above the Silver threshold, and
• An average of 10 players per year should be above the Bronze threshold.

This results in the following average number of medals awarded per year: 2 Gold medals, 3 Silver medals and 5 Bronze medals.

The medal counts are somewhat arbitrary, but they satisfy the following rules which we consider to be fair:

1. We do not give out too many medals, while also recognising the top 10 players in each year on average,
2. Higher medals are rarer than lower medals, and
3. The average number of medals awarded per year is consistent between batsmen and bowlers and across formats.

Figure 3.5 below shows the updated graphs with medal thresholds defined as per the above criteria.

About this Figure

These graphs are the same as figure 3.4 above, with only one difference: Instead of one red line at a fixed ratio threshold of 95%, we show three lines at the respective Gold, Silver and Bronze thresholds for each graph as defined above.

View Figure 3.5

• Test Batsmen : 1928 - 1950

  
  
• Test Bowlers : 1928 - 1950

  
  
• Test Batsmen : 1951 - 2023

  
  
• Test Bowlers : 1951 - 2023

  
  
• ODI Batsmen : 1982 - 2023

  
  
• ODI Bowlers : 1982 - 2023

  
  
• T20I Batsmen : 2009 - 2023

  
  
• T20I Bowlers : 2009 - 2023

  
  

Figure 3.5: Maximum rating ratios vs top-ranked player for the top 10 batsmen and bowlers per year in each format. The respective threholds for Gold, Silver and Bronze medals are shown as dashed red lines. Each line is annotated in red on the right.

Two different graphs for batting and bowling each are shown for Test cricket for years before and after 1950. Some years have been excluded as per Table 3.1

Rating ratios for players outside of the top 10 are shown in grey.

We note the following:

• The number of players between the thresholds varies between years, as expected.

• The thresholds appear above similar rating ratios across all six graphs for the modern era.

  The Gold threshold is always above 0.95 (95% of the top rating)

  The Silver threshold is always at or above 0.90 (90% of the top rating)

  The Bronze threshold is always above 0.80 (80% of the top rating)

• We are surprised by how similar the rating ratios for each threshold are between batsmen and bowlers in each modern format.

  In T20Is, both the Gold and Silver thresholds appear at the same rating ratio for batsmen and bowlers.

  The Silver threshold is the same between batsmen and bowlers in ODIs, while the Gold threshold is the same in the modern era of Test cricket.

  Additionally, the other top medal is off by only a rating ratio difference of 0.01 in both of these formats.

• Lastly, we see why separating the classic era of Test cricket into its own format was a wise decision as we don't see the same consistencies in thresholds there.

In summary, the thresholds for the three medals (and especially the top two medals) appear with surprising consistency between batsmen and bowlers and across all three modern formats.

We have come up with the following methodlogy for selecting the top players in each year:

1. Take the ratio between each player's maximum rating in a calendar year and the highest rating acheived in that year.
2. Calculate three hierarchical thresholds for rating ratios so that two, five and ten players on average would be above the respective thresholds among all years.
3. In each year, award players Gold, Silver and Bronze medals for having a rating ratio above the Gold threshold, between Gold and Silver thresholds, and between Silver and Bronze thresholds respectively.

Overall, we have created a fair criteria for selecting the top players in each year which is consistent across formats.

At the end of chapter 2, we identified two shortcomings with counting the number of days each player was at one of the top ratings: The Day-Counting Problem and the Player-Selection Problem.

• We solved the Day-counting problem by aggregating each player's ratings in each calendar year and counting only the total number of years when they were among the top players. We also identified which years to include or exclude per format based on the number of matches played in that year.
• We solved the Player-selection problem by looking at the maximum rating ratio of each player in a year vs the highest rating in that year. We then created a fair criteria for selecting the top players from each year by awarding three medals based on hierarchical thresholds on their maximum rating ratios per year.

Let us now put all of this together and look at the results.

---

We have defined the following steps for determining the Greatest Players of all time. We follow these steps independently for batting and bowling in each format (Test cricket, ODIs and T20Is).

Filter years based on whether or not enough cricket was played in each year.

1. Count the total number of days in each year when there was some change in ratings among the Top 100 ranked players (as seen on ICC's official website).
2. Filter out years depending on the following criteria:

• For ODIs and T20Is, only include years when at least 30 daily ratings changes occured.
• For Test Cricket, split the format into two eras:
  • The Classic Era (years 1928 - 1950): Only include years with at least 5 daily ratings changes.
  • The Modern Era (years 1951 - 2023): Only include years with at least 10 daily ratings changes.

Format	Included Years	Excluded Years	Total Years
Test (Classic)	1928 - 1950	1940 - 1945	17
Test (Modern)	1951 - 2023	1970	72
ODIs	1982 - 2023	2018	41
T20Is	2009 - 2023	2011	14

For every included year (from the above table):

1. Find each player's maximum rating in the year.
2. Take the ratio of each player's maximum rating with the highest rating achieved by any player in the year.
   • Define this as the MaxRatingRatio for each player in that year.

   The player with the highest rating in the year will have a MaxRatingRatio of 1.0. Every other player will have a MaxRatingRatio between 0.0 and 1.0.

3. Define thresholds on rating ratios between 0.5 and 1.0 in steps of 0.01.

   The thresholds are 0.50, 0.51, 0.52, ... , 0.98, 0.99, 1.00

4. Count the total number of players in that year with MaxRatingRatio above each threshold.
   • Define these as the YearThresholdCount in that year for each threshold.

For each threshold:

1. Create a list of YearThresholdCount values from all included years.
2. Find the average value of this list.
   • Define this as the AverageThresholdCount for the threshold.

• Find the threshold with AverageThresholdCount closest to 2.
  • Define this as the GoldThreshold.
• Find the threshold with AverageThresholdCount closest to 5.
  • Define this as the SilverThreshold.
• Find the threshold with AverageThresholdCount closest to 10.
  • Define this as the BronzeThreshold.

For each included year:

• Assign a Gold medal to players with MaxRatingRatio above GoldThreshold.
• Assign a Silver medal to players with MaxRatingRatio between SilverThreshold and GoldThreshold.
• Assign a Bronze medal to players with MaxRatingRatio between BronzeThreshold and SilverThreshold.

For every player:

• Count the total number of gold medals from all years as GoldCount for the player.
• Count the total number of silver medals from all years as SilverCount for the player.
• Count the total number of bronze medals from all years as BronzeCount for the player.

Rank players Olympics-syle with the following criteria:

• A player with higher GoldCount is ranked higher.
• If the GoldCount is the same for two players, the player with higher SilverCount is ranked higher.
• If both GoldCount and SilverCount are the same for two players, the player with higher BronzeCount is ranked higher.
• If all three of GoldCount, SilverCount and BronzeCount are the same for two players, they are assigned the same rank.

The resulting ranked lists of players, one each for batting, bowling and all-rounders, and for all four formats defined in the table in Step 1 above, are the lists of the Greatest Players of all time.

This figure shows graphs for the distributions of YearThresholdCount values and the AverageThresholdCount value for each threshold, along with the GoldThreshold, SilverThreshold and BronzeThreshold values. There is one graph each for batsmen and bowlers in each modern format.

There is a lot of data shown in the graphs in this figure, so please read ‘About this Figure’ below.

About this Figure

This is an interval graph, sometimes also called a boxplot.

• On the vertical axis (left scale) are the thresholds (on MaxRatingRatio values of players) at intervals of 0.01 each (as defined in Step 2 above).

  The lower end of the scale (below BronzeThreshold) has been trimmed in each graph so that only the relevant thresholds are shown.

• On the horizontal axis (bottom scale) are YearThresholdCount values (as defined in Step 2 above).

  In other words: This many players in a year had a RatingRatio above the threshold on the left.

• For each threshold on the left scale, the intervals in the graph represent the following:

  • The blue cross is the AverageThresholdCount of the threshold, or the average across all included years of YearThresholdCount values for the threshold.
  • The green interval covers the middle 50% (25th to 75th percentile) range of YearThresholdCount values among all included years for the threshold.

    In other words: The YearThresholdCount value for this threshold was between the numbers on the bottom scale covered by the green bar for half of all included years.

  • Similarly, the grey interval covers the middle 80% (10th to 90th percentile) range of YearThresholdCount values for the threshold.

    In other words: The YearThresholdCount value for this threshold was between the numbers on the bottom scale covered by the grey bar for 4 out of 5 included years.

  • Finally, the black line with red dots covers the full range of YearThresholdCount values for the threshold.

    In other words: The YearThresholdCount value for this threshold was between the numbers on the bottom scale covered by the black line for every included year. The red dots are the minimum and maximum yearly YearThresholdCount values among all included years.

• Visualisation quirks

  • If one or both ends of the grey scale do not appear it means that it has the same YearThresholdCount value as the corresponding green bar.

    That is, the respective lower or upper bound for 80% of included years is the same as that for 50% of included years.

  • If a green or grey interval does not appear at all it means that the YearThresholdCount values were the same for 50% or 80% of included years respectively.
  • Similarly, if the black line also does not appear it means that all YearThresholdCount values were the same as the AverageThresholdCount value (blue cross) for all included years.

View Figure 4.1

• Test Batsmen: 1951-2023

  
  
• Test Bowlers: 1951-2023

  
  
• ODI Batsmen: 1982-2023

  
  
• ODI Bowlers: 1982-2023

  
  
• T20I Batsmen: 2009-2023

  
  
• T20I Bowlers: 2009-2023

  
  

Figure 4.1: Interval graphs of the distribution of YearThresholdCount values by Threshold on MaxRatingRatio of players.

One graph is shown for batsmen and bowlers each, and for Test cricket (modern era), ODIs and T20Is each. The classic era of Test cricket has been excluded here.

The blue cross at each threshold shows the AverageThresholdCount for that threshold. See legend at the top of each graph for the meaning of colored intervals and lines.

---

Show Top 10 Batsmen

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Don Bradman (AUS)	12	1	1
2	Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)	6	1	1
3	George Headley (WI)	5	8	2
4	Wally Hammond (ENG)	3	10	1
5	Dudley Nourse (SA)	2	2	5
6	Len Hutton (ENG)	2	2	2
7	Denis Compton (ENG)	2	2	0
8	Jack Hobbs (ENG)	2	1	0
9	Herbert Taylor (SA)	1	4	0
10	Bill Woodfull (AUS)	1	3	4

Show Top 10 Bowlers

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Clarrie Grimmett (AUS)	7	0	2
2	Bill O Reilly (AUS)	7	0	1
3	Hedley Verity (ENG)	5	1	0
4	Maurice Tate (ENG)	4	4	0
5	Ray Lindwall (AUS)	3	1	0
6	Bert Ironmonger (AUS)	2	1	0
7	Alec Bedser (ENG)	1	3	1
8	Bill Johnston (AUS)	1	2	0
9	Jack Cowie (NZ)	1	1	2
10	Tich Freeman (ENG)	1	1	1

Show Top 5 All-Rounders

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Wally Hammond (ENG)	11	2	1
2	Maurice Tate (ENG)	5	3	0
3	Keith Miller (AUS)	4	0	1
4	Hedley Verity (ENG)	3	3	1
5	Frank Woolley (ENG)	3	2	3

Greatest Test Batsmen

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Garry Sobers (WI)	13	3	0
2	Viv Richards (WI)	11	2	2
3	Brian Lara (WI)	8	5	0
4	Kumar Sangakkara (SL)	8	1	4
5	Sachin Tendulkar (IND)	7	3	5
6	Steve Smith (AUS)	7	3	0
7	Ricky Ponting (AUS)	6	2	4
8	Jacques Kallis (SA)	5	4	4
9	Allan Border (AUS)	4	4	5
10	Matthew Hayden (AUS)	4	2	2
11	Peter May (ENG)	4	2	0
12	Len Hutton (ENG)	4	1	0
13	Graham Gooch (ENG)	4	0	1
14	Javed Miandad (PAK)	3	5	7
15	Steve Waugh (AUS)	3	4	2
15	Joe Root (ENG)	3	4	2
17	Rahul Dravid (IND)	3	3	6
18	Sunil Gavaskar (IND)	3	3	2
19	Virat Kohli (IND)	3	3	1
20	AB de Villiers (SA)	3	2	3
21	Glenn Turner (NZ)	3	1	1
21	Mohammad Yousuf (PAK)	3	1	1
21	Marnus Labuschagne (AUS)	3	1	1
24	Doug Walters (AUS)	3	0	3
25	Kane Williamson (NZ)	2	7	0
26	Ken Barrington (ENG)	2	5	1
27	Neil Harvey (AUS)	2	4	5
28	Richie Richardson (WI)	2	4	3
29	Hashim Amla (SA)	2	4	2
30	Clyde Walcott (WI)	2	4	1
31	Shivnarine Chanderpaul (WI)	2	3	6
32	Michael Clarke (AUS)	2	3	0
33	Gordon Greenidge (WI)	2	2	5
34	Dilip Vengsarkar (IND)	2	0	1
35	Gautam Gambhir (IND)	2	0	0
36	Inzamam-ul-Haq (PAK)	1	6	4
37	Everton Weekes (WI)	1	5	2
38	Rohan Kanhai (WI)	1	3	9
39	Younus Khan (PAK)	1	3	8
40	David Gower (ENG)	1	3	3
40	Virender Sehwag (IND)	1	3	3
42	Mahela Jayawardene (SL)	1	2	5
42	Mike Hussey (AUS)	1	2	5
44	Alastair Cook (ENG)	1	2	4
45	Gundappa Viswanath (IND)	1	2	3
46	Andy Flower (ZIM)	1	2	0
47	Alvin Kallicharran (WI)	1	1	4
48	Dennis Amiss (ENG)	1	1	1
49	Keith Stackpole (AUS)	1	1	0
50	Dudley Nourse (SA)	1	0	0

Greatest Test Bowlers

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Muttiah Muralidaran (SL)	9	3	2
2	Dale Steyn (SA)	8	2	2
3	Curtly Ambrose (WI)	8	2	1
4	Malcolm Marshall (WI)	8	0	1
5	Glenn McGrath (AUS)	7	5	0
6	Richard Hadlee (NZ)	7	3	1
7	Lance Gibbs (WI)	7	2	2
8	Shaun Pollock (SA)	5	3	1
9	Allan Donald (SA)	5	1	3
10	Pat Cummins (AUS)	5	1	0
11	Derek Underwood (ENG)	5	0	4
12	James Anderson (ENG)	4	6	4
13	Shane Warne (AUS)	4	4	4
14	Dennis Lillee (AUS)	4	2	5
15	Ray Lindwall (AUS)	4	2	3
16	Alan Davidson (AUS)	4	1	0
16	Ian Botham (ENG)	4	1	0
18	Joel Garner (WI)	3	5	0
19	Ravichandran Ashwin (IND)	3	4	4
20	Kagiso Rabada (SA)	3	3	1
21	Waqar Younis (PAK)	3	2	5
22	Jim Laker (ENG)	3	1	0
23	Imran Khan (PAK)	2	5	6
24	Fazal Mahmood (PAK)	2	5	0
25	Wes Hall (WI)	2	4	4
26	Vernon Philander (SA)	2	3	4
27	Alec Bedser (ENG)	2	3	0
28	Fred Trueman (ENG)	2	2	4
29	Ravindra Jadeja (IND)	2	1	3
30	Bill Johnston (AUS)	2	1	2
30	Tony Lock (ENG)	2	1	2
32	Stuart Broad (ENG)	1	3	9
33	Hugh Tayfield (SA)	1	3	4
33	Bob Willis (ENG)	1	3	4
35	Andy Roberts (WI)	1	3	2
36	Max Walker (AUS)	1	1	2
36	Yasir Shah (PAK)	1	1	2
38	Colin Croft (WI)	1	1	1

Greatest Test All-Rounders

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Jacques Kallis (SA)	16	0	1
2	Garry Sobers (WI)	13	1	1
3	Imran Khan (PAK)	10	2	4
4	Shakib Al Hasan (BAN)	9	6	0
5	Ian Botham (ENG)	9	2	2
6	Ravichandran Ashwin (IND)	7	5	0
7	Richard Hadlee (NZ)	7	2	5
8	Ravindra Jadeja (IND)	7	2	0
9	Keith Miller (AUS)	6	0	0
10	Shaun Pollock (SA)	5	6	1
11	Richie Benaud (AUS)	5	4	0
12	Ben Stokes (ENG)	5	3	1
13	Jason Holder (WI)	5	1	1
14	Daniel Vettori (NZ)	4	4	3
15	Tony Greig (ENG)	4	0	1
16	Chris Cairns (NZ)	3	5	1
16	Vernon Philander (SA)	3	5	1
18	Brian McMillan (SA)	3	2	0
19	Kapil Dev (IND)	2	14	0
20	Trevor Goddard (SA)	2	10	2
21	Wasim Akram (PAK)	2	7	4
22	Stuart Broad (ENG)	2	6	2
23	Mushtaq Mohammad (PAK)	2	5	0
24	Andrew Flintoff (ENG)	2	4	0
25	Alan Davidson (AUS)	2	3	1
25	Shane Watson (AUS)	2	3	1
27	Steve Waugh (AUS)	1	5	4
28	Trevor Bailey (ENG)	1	5	1
29	Mitchell Johnson (AUS)	1	4	2
29	Moeen Ali (ENG)	1	4	2

Greatest ODI Batsmen

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Viv Richards (WI)	8	0	1
2	Brian Lara (WI)	7	0	4
3	Sachin Tendulkar (IND)	6	6	3
4	Virat Kohli (IND)	6	4	3
5	Michael Bevan (AUS)	5	3	1
5	AB de Villiers (SA)	5	3	1
7	Hashim Amla (SA)	5	1	1
8	Dean Jones (AUS)	4	3	1
9	Ricky Ponting (AUS)	3	5	4
10	Babar Azam (PAK)	3	3	0
11	Adam Gilchrist (AUS)	3	2	4
12	MS Dhoni (IND)	3	1	4
13	Mike Hussey (AUS)	2	3	1
14	Sanath Jayasuriya (SL)	2	2	5
15	Rohit Sharma (IND)	2	2	1
16	Zaheer Abbas (PAK)	2	2	0
17	David Gower (ENG)	2	1	1
17	Javed Miandad (PAK)	2	1	1
17	Gary Kirsten (SA)	2	1	1
20	Jacques Kallis (SA)	1	3	3
21	David Warner (AUS)	1	2	2
22	Kevin Pietersen (ENG)	1	2	0
23	Matthew Hayden (AUS)	1	1	4
24	Greg Chappell (AUS)	1	1	0
24	George Bailey (AUS)	1	1	0

Greatest ODI Bowlers

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Shaun Pollock (SA)	12	0	0
2	Curtly Ambrose (WI)	6	4	1
3	Wasim Akram (PAK)	6	2	5
4	Richard Hadlee (NZ)	5	3	1
5	Trent Boult (NZ)	5	3	0
6	Muttiah Muralidaran (SL)	5	1	5
7	Glenn McGrath (AUS)	4	5	2
8	Saeed Ajmal (PAK)	4	1	0
8	Sunil Narine (WI)	4	1	0
10	Joel Garner (WI)	4	0	2
11	Daniel Vettori (NZ)	3	0	3
12	Malcolm Marshall (WI)	2	5	0
13	Jasprit Bumrah (IND)	2	4	0
14	Saqlain Mushtaq (PAK)	2	2	1
15	Mohammad Hafeez (PAK)	2	1	0
16	Paul Reiffel (AUS)	2	0	1
17	Ewen Chatfield (NZ)	1	4	2
18	Josh Hazlewood (AUS)	1	3	1
19	Kapil Dev (IND)	1	2	9
20	Courtney Walsh (WI)	1	2	6
21	Mitchell Starc (AUS)	1	2	4
22	Shane Warne (AUS)	1	2	2
23	Imran Tahir (SA)	1	2	1
24	Brett Lee (AUS)	1	1	4
25	Maninder Singh (IND)	1	1	2
25	Allan Donald (SA)	1	1	2
25	Anil Kumble (IND)	1	1	2
28	Graeme Swann (ENG)	1	1	1
29	Dennis Lillee (AUS)	1	1	0
30	Nathan Bracken (AUS)	1	0	2
30	Lonwabo Tsotsobe (SA)	1	0	2
32	Mehidy Hasan (BAN)	1	0	1
33	Hasan Ali (PAK)	1	0	0
33	Keshav Maharaj (SA)	1	0	0
33	Mohammed Siraj (IND)	1	0	0

Greatest ODI All-Rounders

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Shakib Al Hasan (BAN)	14	0	0
2	Kapil Dev (IND)	12	0	0
3	Shaun Pollock (SA)	6	6	0
4	Mohammad Hafeez (PAK)	6	1	2
5	Jacques Kallis (SA)	5	5	6
6	Hansie Cronje (SA)	5	1	1
7	Carl Hooper (WI)	4	4	4
8	Andrew Flintoff (ENG)	4	2	1
9	Sanath Jayasuriya (SL)	3	6	6
10	Imran Khan (PAK)	3	3	5
11	Chris Gayle (WI)	3	3	4
12	Shane Watson (AUS)	3	3	1
13	Viv Richards (WI)	2	5	1
14	Steve Waugh (AUS)	2	4	5
15	Angelo Mathews (SL)	2	3	3
16	Lance Klusener (SA)	2	3	1
17	Sachin Tendulkar (IND)	1	4	4
17	Mohammad Nabi (AFG)	1	4	4
19	Tillekeratne Dilshan (SL)	1	3	1
20	Greg Chappell (AUS)	1	1	0

Greatest T20I Batsmen

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Aaron Finch (AUS)	5	3	1
2	Virat Kohli (IND)	4	0	4
3	Babar Azam (PAK)	3	2	2
4	Brendon McCullum (NZ)	3	1	2
5	Alex Hales (ENG)	3	0	2
6	Kevin Pietersen (ENG)	2	1	0
7	Dawid Malan (ENG)	2	0	2
8	Suryakumar Yadav (IND)	2	0	0
9	Chris Gayle (WI)	1	3	2
10	Shane Watson (AUS)	1	1	1
10	Mohammad Rizwan (PAK)	1	1	1
12	Tillekeratne Dilshan (SL)	1	0	3
13	Eoin Morgan (ENG)	1	0	1

Greatest T20I Bowlers

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Rashid Khan (AFG)	4	1	3
2	Sunil Narine (WI)	3	1	1
2	Samuel Badree (WI)	3	1	1
4	Wanindu De Silva (SL)	3	0	0
5	Tabraiz Shamsi (SA)	2	2	0
6	Daniel Vettori (NZ)	2	1	0
7	Adil Rashid (ENG)	1	3	1
7	Imad Wasim (PAK)	1	3	1
9	Mujeeb Ur Rahman (AFG)	1	2	2
10	Saeed Ajmal (PAK)	1	1	2
10	Jasprit Bumrah (IND)	1	1	2
12	Ajantha Mendis (SL)	1	1	1
12	Imran Tahir (SA)	1	1	1
12	Josh Hazlewood (AUS)	1	1	1
15	Umar Gul (PAK)	1	1	0
16	Ravichandran Ashwin (IND)	1	0	1
17	Ravi Bishnoi (IND)	1	0	0

Greatest T20I All-Rounders

Rank	Player	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1	Shakib Al Hasan (BAN)	9	2	0
2	Mohammad Nabi (AFG)	4	4	0
3	Shane Watson (AUS)	4	1	1
4	Glenn Maxwell (AUS)	4	0	1
5	Shahid Afridi (PAK)	3	4	1
6	Mohammad Hafeez (PAK)	2	3	1
7	Sanath Jayasuriya (SL)	1	1	0
7	Hardik Pandya (IND)	1	1	0

Test Batsmen (Modern Era)

Player	Silver	Bronze
Cheteshwar Pujara (IND)	5	1
Greg Chappell (AUS)	3	8
David Warner (AUS)	3	6
Kevin Pietersen (ENG)	3	5
Clive Lloyd (WI)	3	4

Test Bowlers (Modern Era)

Player	Silver	Bronze
Wasim Akram (PAK)	7	4
Rangana Herath (SL)	6	1
Anil Kumble (IND)	5	8
Michael Holding (WI)	5	6
Keith Miller (AUS)	5	1
Peter Pollock (SA)	5	1
Graham McKenzie (AUS)	5	1

Test All-Rounders (Modern Era)

Player	Silver	Bronze
Mitchell Starc (AUS)	9	0
Ravi Shastri (IND)	8	3
Vinoo Mankad (IND)	8	0
Ray Lindwall (AUS)	7	3
Malcolm Marshall (WI)	7	2

ODI Batsmen

Player	Silver	Bronze
Desmond Haynes (WI)	7	4
Chris Gayle (WI)	6	3
Mark Waugh (AUS)	5	5
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK)	5	1
Allan Lamb (ENG)	4	5

ODI Bowlers

Player	Silver	Bronze
Chaminda Vaas (SL)	4	3
Michael Holding (WI)	4	2
Dale Steyn (SA)	3	3
Ray Price (ZIM)	3	0
Shakib Al Hasan (BAN)	2	7

ODI All-Rounders

Player	Silver	Bronze
Shahid Afridi (PAK)	6	8
Richard Hadlee (NZ)	4	4
Chris Harris (NZ)	3	4
Ravindra Jadeja (IND)	3	4
Ravi Shastri (IND)	3	2

T20I Batsmen

Player	Silver	Bronze
Lokesh Rahul (IND)	3	3
Martin Guptill (NZ)	3	2
David Warner (AUS)	3	1
Glenn Maxwell (AUS)	2	3
Colin Munro (NZ)	2	2

T20I Bowlers

Player	Silver	Bronze
Adam Zampa (AUS)	4	1
Mitchell Santner (NZ)	2	3
Shahid Afridi (PAK)	2	2
Shadab Khan (PAK)	2	2
Ish Sodhi (NZ)	1	3

T20I All-Rounders

Player	Silver	Bronze
Marlon Samuels (WI)	4	3
Yuvraj Singh (IND)	4	2
Angelo Mathews (SL)	3	2
Chris Gayle (WI)	2	5
JP Duminy (SA)	2	4

We hope that you enjoyed reading our report on the Greatest Players of all time.

If you are interested in learning more about the quirks and limitations of cricket ratings and our suggestions on improving them, we recommend reading our Deep-Dive on ICC Player Rankings.

All the code used to gather, analyse and visualise ratings data can be found right here on GitHub.

If you have questions, feedback or ideas, head over to Discussions.

This report was created by a small team of passionate cricket fans with experience in Software Engineering and Data Science.

For business enquiries, you can contact us here.