It wasn’t the size of the leap, but rather the players he surpassed to become the first Australian since Michael Clarke in 2012 to seize the crown. When you knock off demigods like Kumar Sangakkara, AB de Villiers and Hashim Amla in one fell swoop, the faithful are going to get antsy.
As startling as it seemed, Smith’s surge up the rankings was inevitable. The ratings tend to reward consistency, and Smith has been on a blinder over the last year. His last eight Tests have produced 1226 runs at 102.16, with five hundreds and five fifties – evidence of a man with a Bradmanian passion for occupying the crease. In some respects he’s already surpassed the Australian god of cricket: the 769 runs he made against India late last year broke Bradman’s 67-year-old record for the most ever in a series of four or fewer Tests. Not bad for a player who was initially earmarked as an all-rounder offering some useful leg-spin.
Smith’s avalanche of runs was bound to light up the ICC’s algorithms, and they have rewarded him with a cumulative rating of 913 points and the temporary title of the world’s best Test batsman.
The trouble with the ratings, though, is that they tend to be much better at showing form than class. The moment you start comparing players from different eras, even from different seasons, they start to look rather silly.
For example, the all-time ratings reveal that Smith has surpassed any total ever accumulated by either Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkar. Indeed, according to the official ratings, Tendulkar – widely believed to be the second-greatest batsman after Bradman – never even passed 900 points.
Nobody can deny that Smith is a superb player. At just 26 he could yet become a giant over the next decade. He’s unflappable, a good tourist, and apparently at ease anywhere in the batting order. But is his current run really better than any string of glorious performances ever put together by Lara and Tendulkar? Pull the other one.
The algorithms reportedly try to incorporate the quality of the opposition when awarding points, but here, again, they seem to have stumbled. The Indian attack Smith dismantled in Australia was distinctly ordinary, buying wickets at almost 53 apiece; and as for the West Indian bowlers he’s just demolished, well, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
But perhaps the main problem with the ratings is that they encourage fans to disparage achievements of new stars to protect the luster of past or current greats. By going to number one, Smith has made us all jump to the defense of De Villiers or Amla or Lara or Tendulkar; whereas without computer-generated lists we might be more inclined to sit back and enjoy the rise of one of cricket’s next superstars.
We certainly don’t need lists to tell us that AB de Villiers is still the best batsman in the world. Everyone in the game knows it, including Smith. South African fans can relax and remember: when it comes to cricket, there are lies, damned lies, and the ICC player rankings.
First published in The Times