Here goes another one: who helps their team win the most? Meaning, who are the most valuable cricketers?
For this, I would like to do:
ICC bowling rating: 30pt
ICC batting rating: 30pt
Batting Ave in wins: 20pt
Bowling Ave in wins: 20pt
Note: You have to be a bowler with >75 wickets & <35 average and a batsman with >1000 & >20 average runs for this to count. Otherwise Bradman with his 22 bowling average in matches won would ruin it.
Bowling difference in wins: 35pts
Batting difference in wins: 35pts
Wickets/Match in games won vs. games lost: 15 pts
Centuries/innings in games won vs. games lost: 15 pts
(Higher the better. Lower or negative = bad)
Now, yes I realize the problem with this. A guy who averages 40 normally but 80 in wins is going to be rewarded while a guy averaging 55 no matter what will be penalized. And yes, all rounders will be the ones coming out ahead in this, as they should, because they can clutch games in multiple departments.
But thats what I'm trying to find out. And before certain posters get on the soapbox, I realize this is just a fun little thing and I am not doing it as the end-all and be-all of statistical ratings:
And for some damn reason, Bradman still comes out #1. The damn guy never loses, even though he got a rating of 0 in the bowling department (his obscene 286 rating in the batting made up for it).
With that said, here it goes:
How does one player's performance with the bat or ball correlate to his team winning and losing?
- Bradman (276.476)
- Sobers (256.95)
- Dravid (173.99)
- Inzy (168.87)
- Botham (164.75)
- Miller (151.11)
- Waugh (125.43)
- Khan (124.16)
- Kumble (122.78)
- Miandad (117.61)
- Ponting (115.64)
- SRT (116.12)