Allrounder Statistical Rating

[aussie tragic]

I’ve established an Allrounder statistical criteria which is based on the following ideals:

Batting Average: 40.00 ------ 20% --- {Batting Ave divide by 2}
Runs per Innings 35.00 ------ 20% --- {Runs/Inn divide by 1.75}

Bowling Average: 25.00 ----- 20% --- {500 divide by bowling Ave}
Strike Rate: 60.0 -------------- 10% --- {600 divide by SR}
Wkts per Match: 3.5 --------- 10% --- {W/M * 2.86}

Best ICC Ranking: 500 ------ 20% --- (ICC Rank divide by 25}

And the top 15 all-time All-rounders are:

1. Sobers --- (112.8)
2. Kallis --- (109.4)
3. Imran --- (101.6)
4. Miller --- (101.2)
5. Botham --- (99.9)
6. Hadlee --- (94.8)
7. Greig --- (93.8)
8. Cairns --- (93.3)
9. Pollock --- (91.9)
10. Goddard --- (88.4)
11. Flintoff --- (87.8)
12. Noble --- (87.1)
13. Dev --- (84.8)
14. Benaud --- (84.0)
15. Mankad --- (81.7)

Any suggestions on how to improve it, or any players you want rated, let me know

 

[Dravid]

Rate Pathan, Symonds, please

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Any suggestions on how to improve it, or any players you want rated, let me know

For the sake of the thread I think you need to rig it so that Imran is higher.

 

[marc71178]

Rate Pathan, Symonds, please

This is for all rounders...

 

[Jamee999]

I’ve established an Allrounder statistical criteria which is based on the following ideals:

Batting Average: 40.00 ------ 20%
Runs per Innings 35.00 ------ 20%

Bowling Average: 25.00 ---- 20%
Strike Rate: 60.0 -------------- 10%
Wkts per Match: 3.5 --------- 10%

Best ICC Ranking ------------- 20%

And the top 15 all-time All-rounders are:

1. Sobers --- (112.8)
2. Kallis --- (109.4)
3. Imran --- (101.6)
4. Miller --- (101.2)
5. Botham --- (99.9)
6. Hadlee --- (94.8)
7. Greig --- (93.8)
8. Cairns --- (93.3)
9. Pollock --- (91.9)
10. Goddard --- (88.4)
11. Flintoff --- (87.8)
12. Noble --- (87.1)
13. Dev --- (84.8)
14. Benaud --- (84.0)
15. Mankad --- (81.7)

Any suggestions on how to improve it, or any players you want rated, let me know

Is there any chance you could post the actual formula?

 

[aussie tragic]

Rate Pathan, Symonds, please

I should state that I set a minimum of 100 wkts as an entry criteria, however I'll rate Pathan as he has 91 wkts. He gets a 77.0 which is 18th....

Symonds on the other hand is not a Test all-rounder and deserves nothing, however as it shows how bad he really is, he gets 42.4 (probably 300+)

 

[aussie tragic]

For the sake of the thread I think you need to rig it so that Imran is higher.

Mate, Imran is already higher than Miller and Botham which is sacrilege IMO, so umm NO.....

 

[aussie tragic]

Is there any chance you could post the actual formula?

Added to the first Post

 

[Dravid]

Pathan's up there

 

[Jamee999]

Bradman: 159.8803175

 

[aussie tragic]

Bradman: 159.8803175

Sorry, that's why I set 100 wkts, 2000 runs, Batt ave > 24 and Min. 2 wkts/match as the minimum criteria

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Mate, Imran is already higher than Miller and Botham which is sacrilege IMO, so umm NO.....

I agree, but there is great school of thought on this board that Imran is not only the greatest all rounder ever ( yes, above Sobers ), but is also the greatest bowler ever.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Mate, Imran is already higher than Miller and Botham which is sacrilege IMO, so umm NO.....

Amen

 

[Perm]

Personally I wouldn't have rated Kallis so highly in my own opinion and I'm suprised that Kapil Dev is so low. Could you please rank Wilfred Rhodes? His stats are here and I would be interested to see how he compares.

 

[Perm]

Interesting to see modern day players like Pathan and Vettori, who are primarily bowlers ranked inside the top 20. I thought Rhodes would have been higher but obviously not.

 

[nightprowler10]

Take out Kallis and that'd be my top 4, in that order.

 

[aussie tragic]

Okay, I've fine-tuned it by taking the averages of the top-20 allrounders to determine what average in each criteria would make an ideal allrounder:

Batting Average: 34.6 ------ 20% (weighting)
Runs per Innings 30.8 ------ 17.5%

Bowling Average: 28.4 ----- 20%
Wkts per Match: 3.2 --------- 10%
Strike Rate: 66.9 -------------- 7.5%

Best ICC Ranking: 479 ------ 25%

So, the above weightings should identify an all-time “Great” allrounder if they score > 100.

So here's the revised all-time top 20 All-rounders
{Entry Criteria: Batting Ave > 24.00 and > 2 Wkts per match}

1. Sobers --- (126.8)
2. Kallis --- (122.2)
3. Miller --- (113.0)
4. Imran --- (112.9)
5. Faulkner --- (112.2)
6. Botham --- (111.8)
7. Hadlee --- (105.0)
8. Greig --- (104.2)
9. Cairns --- (103.2)
10. Pollock --- (102.3)
11. Goddard --- (98.9)
12. Flintoff --- (97.7)
13. Noble --- (96.6)
14. Benaud --- (94.5)
15. Dev --- (93.9)
16. Mankad --- (91.0)
17. Bailey --- (86.1)
18. Pathan --- (83.7)
19. Rhodes --- (82.6)
20. Vettori --- (73.5)

EDIT: Faulkner added at # 5 so Razzaq drops off from # 20. Is there anyone else to replace Vettori?

 

[aussie tragic]

Interesting to see modern day players like Pathan and Vettori, who are primarily bowlers ranked inside the top 20. I thought Rhodes would have been higher but obviously not.

Sorry, I thought I deleted the post before any response was given.

While Pathan and Vetori are in the top 20, I think the all-time 16-20 is a little thin and I personally rate Lindwall as higher than all of them (however he only averaged 21 with the bat so didn't qualify).

 

[Perm]

Alan Davidson would be another cricket that people rate as an "all rounder" despite his statistics not really backing this claim up.

 

[aussie tragic]

Take out Kallis and that'd be my top 4, in that order.

There is an argument that Kallis doesn't qualify actually as he has < 2 wkts per match (it is 1.96 though so I left him in).

In fact, if we raised the W/M to a more reasonable 2.4, Kallis (1.96), Bailey (2.16), Razzaq (2.17)and Rhodes (2.19) would not qualify and we'd have a top-16 instead (cause I can't find anyone else remotely close)