SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I dont know about that but the LBW rule has changed a lot over time.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Standardised Test Bowling Averages Across Time
- Thread starter Goughy
- Start date
neville cardus
International Debutant
I have long held the opinion that a player can only be judged according to how well he performs (a) in the circumstances of his time and (b) in comparison to his contemporaries. For myself, I hold that the best and most precise means, with this in mind, of comparing bowling averages through history would be to calculate a trundler’s "Standardised Test Av" (as Goughy calls it) on an innings-by-innings basis (rather than era-by-era). Note the following hypothetical example:
* England is bowled out for, say, 210 in an innings; therefore, the average for that innings equates to 21.00.
* Australian bowler Fred Spofforth manages to take five of the wickets in that innings at a cost of only 55; his innings average, therefore, is 10.00.
* I'm certain that you'll agree that it follows that Spofforth's innings average is 52.28 per cent better than that of the total average for the innings.
Now, what I would propose (if I had adequate means) would be for some or other mathematical boffin, well-versed in such matters, to concoct a computerised system which calculates the differentiation between a bowler’s career average and that of all of the innings in which he bowled. This would, by its very nature, take into account the prevailing conditions of any era and, more specifically, the individual match situations, and also allow us to make a comparison, based on the final percentage, with any other bowler of any other era. The same could easily be applied to batting.
By my reckoning, it oughtn't be too difficult to apply it to Cricket Archive -- although it is, admittedly, a very ambitious scheme.
* England is bowled out for, say, 210 in an innings; therefore, the average for that innings equates to 21.00.
* Australian bowler Fred Spofforth manages to take five of the wickets in that innings at a cost of only 55; his innings average, therefore, is 10.00.
* I'm certain that you'll agree that it follows that Spofforth's innings average is 52.28 per cent better than that of the total average for the innings.
Now, what I would propose (if I had adequate means) would be for some or other mathematical boffin, well-versed in such matters, to concoct a computerised system which calculates the differentiation between a bowler’s career average and that of all of the innings in which he bowled. This would, by its very nature, take into account the prevailing conditions of any era and, more specifically, the individual match situations, and also allow us to make a comparison, based on the final percentage, with any other bowler of any other era. The same could easily be applied to batting.
By my reckoning, it oughtn't be too difficult to apply it to Cricket Archive -- although it is, admittedly, a very ambitious scheme.
headhunter
International Vice-Captain
Yeah what he said
neville cardus
International Debutant
Oh dear. I thought that I had made that relatively comprehensible.Yeah what he said
headhunter
International Vice-Captain
no no, i get what you mean and i aggree!!!
neville cardus
International Debutant
Why, thank you!
sideshowtim
Banned
Nice. Would be interesting to see a batting version of this.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Would be pretty easy to do as I have all the stats ready.
TBH, I dont like comparing across eras either, but if its going to be done then I think there needs to be ways to 'measure' and put things in perspective.
neville cardus
International Debutant
Indeed.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As has the interpretation of it.
I think it's undeniable that in the last year or so Umpires, especially Pakistani Umpires, have started to take the attitude "so he's on the front foot, so what?" which is quite damn right. Maybe spinners are going to start - permanently - getting a better deal.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Chatfield is "greater" than Bond.This is really confusing but it's great stuff Goughy.
Could you please do Shane Bond, Dion Nash and Ewen Chatefield? (the last two not exactly greats but they're awesome. IMO anyway)
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Chatfield may leave a greater legacy as we dont know how Bond will be remembered. However, Bond is far superior as a player than Chatfield ever was. Unless there are bonus points for getting hit on the head
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have no doubt that Bond is a better player than Chatfield, but Chatters will be regarded as more of a great unless Bond gets his body sorted and plays a few more years of solid cricket.Chatfield may leave a greater legacy as we dont know how Bond will be remembered. However, Bond is far superior as a player than Chatfield ever was. Unless there are bonus points for getting hit on the head
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
It's absolutely brilliant that umpires are giving these decisions on the front foot out as the game at Lord's proved. The old excuse for batsmen was "well I'm so far done the pitch" ain't gonna where of now. The WI batsmen were looking very foolish when letharigally sticking out a pad to Monty Panesar's arm balls.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Think it was probably sticking the pad out to the sidespinners, TBH. Just wasn't turning.
Was pretty abysmal batting, missing straight balls. In the not-so-decent past, obviously, they'd probably have got away with most of them. Maybe now batsmen will start realising they've gotta use the bat to play straight balls from spinners.
Just wasn't turning.Was pretty abysmal batting, missing straight balls. In the not-so-decent past, obviously, they'd probably have got away with most of them. Maybe now batsmen will start realising they've gotta use the bat to play straight balls from spinners.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
But surely when the first lbw was given they would have the brains to see that sticking your pad out on middle stump is gonna get you out. That's what's so remarkable imo that they didn't learn and try and exucute a stragegy. Surely the next batsmen could have seen from the dressing room or got footage from a laptop that you just can't play like that to a spinner nowadays.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
I expect batsmen 1-11 to try there dam hardest not to lose their wicket. Tail-end batting is so very,very underated and is so,so valuble. The likes of Lee, Gillespie and Hoggard have all made the best of their abilities. This "he can get away with it because he's a tailender" doesn't wash with me.