Mouth-watering analysis this

[andyc]

The highest adjusted average is that of Bradman, whose average of 99.96 has been adjusted down to 96.75. He gets 19.35 points and is followed by Hobbs (61.68) with 12.34 points and Weekes (61.06) with 12.21 points.

 

[Evermind]

14,13,18,2,60,9,16,0,6,0,0,11,11,12,123,17,5,2,87,24,8

And I still have a problem rating people from this era as similar to people in the 90s. Sorry, I don't buy that its just luck we have so many people averaging 50+, when in the 90s, we had only a handful.

There is a similar run in Tendulkar's record, I'm sure.

It's so weird how people have a problem rating people from this era as similar to people in the 90s (just one decade ago) whereas they have no problem declaring people like Hobbs, Hutton, Barrington etc from way before the Packer era to be demi-gods and better than Tendulkar, Lara, etc. So many more people averaged in the high-50s then - isn't it possible that scoring was far easier than it is now?

I guess there's no explaining looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses. That is why I think putting Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting next only to Bradman feels deeply satisfying, and I genuinely believe they're three of the best the world has seen, far better than any of the pre-Packers when cricket was a much slower and less demanding game.

Look at this, for example:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...0;spanval3=span;template=results;type=batting

A ridiculous number of no-namers averaged over 60 during this period, in spite of the fact that test cricket was played far less frequently than it is now, and there were far fewer international players around. So is this proof that during Hutton's and Weekes's era, batting was considerably easier?

 

[Goughy]

A ridiculous number of no-namers averaged over 60 during this period

*chokes*

Seperate to the point, there was a small interuption in cricket during the 40s called WWII

 

[Matt79]

It points out that on top of being injured when he faced these two teams away, he also was hampered in Australia by short pitched leg-theory tactics employed against him. Nothing like the bumpers sent down by the Windies later

The tactics the Aussies used were not Bodyline, in that the field settings that made Bodyline so hard to combat weren't used. And the conditions were generally more benign. Was it intimidatory bowling using a nasty barrage of dangerous short bowling? Probably. So exactly like what plenty of other bowlers have used, inc. the Windies all pace attacks, Lillee and Thompson, etc etc.

I explained why calling that Bodyline is misleading.

Him carrying an injury is a more valid excuse. But succeeding against nasty fast bowling in adverse conditions is the ultimate test for a batsman, you can't cite the fact they bowled short at him as an excuse.

 

[Goughy]

But succeeding against nasty fast bowling in adverse conditions is the ultimate test for a batsman, you can't cite the fact they bowled short at him as an excuse.

that screws Bradman then

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, only averaged 57

 

[Evermind]

*chokes*

Seperate to the point, there was a small interuption in cricket during the 40s called WWII

WWII is pretty irrelevant.

And really, Stollmeyer? Loxton? FB Smith? Who?

 

[Goughy]

WWII is pretty irrelevant.

And really, Stollmeyer? Loxton? FB Smith? Who?

They played 15 tests between them in that period. That is no sample size and pointless to comment on.

And if you dont know who they are then that is your issue. Stollmeyer was a fine player and Loxton was one of the 1948 Invincibles

 

[Magrat Garlick]

WWII is pretty irrelevant.

And really, Stollmeyer? Loxton? FB Smith? Who?

In 6 Tests.

Taking a period with roughly similar amount of Tests...

Streak, Key, Kirsten, Gibbs all averaging 60+.

 

[Migara]

5. The batsman's career strike rate has become an important measure. This should be recognized, if available. For those batsmen whose strike rate information is not available, this parameter will not be included. If the strike rate is available for part of the batsman's career, it will be considered for that part only. This is explained in detail later. There is a case for the innings strike rate to be incorporated in the Match Performance calculations. However this revised methodology necessarily requires the strike rate to be a career-based calculation rather than match innings based.

However this will be beneficial for the batsmen with NO SR available. It should have not been criteria.

 

[Athlai]

Good list besides Ponting being a bit higher than I'd place him for reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Debris]

I think there should be some consideration for what position in the order you batted. I would have thought it harder to score run as an opener then at 4 or 5.

 

[silentstriker]

A ridiculous number of no-namers averaged over 60 during this period, in spite of the fact that test cricket was played far less frequently than it is now, and there were far fewer international players around.

Only one with a minimum of 20 Tests, which was my criteria. Obviously the wider the criteria, the higher the number of people will be averaging that much.

So is this proof that during Hutton's and Weekes's era, batting was considerably easier?

And yes, especially during the 1930s, batting was relatively easier.

 

[zaremba]

This is bit too 'using statistics to prove something' for my taste, stats should be used like a drunk man uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination (nicked that from one of my old stats teachers). I'm not sure on % team runs being a useful measure, it's not Ponting's fault he played in an awesome line up, similarly it aids Lara here that he played in a crap line up (how much did he contribute to this with his attitude?).

...

These greatest ever things will never be definitive no matter what stats anyone manages to produce, just food for pub discussions really.

I couldn't agree more. I read the 15,000 word article quoted in the original post and couldn't believe that someone actually earns a living publishing this complete load of crap. Why should a statistician's utterly arbitrary selection of arbitrarily weighted criteria be of the slightest interest to anyone? Hell, it looks scientific and there's a lot of words involved so it must be authoritative. Give me a break.

 

[Evermind]

They played 15 tests between them in that period. That is no sample size and pointless to comment on.

And if you dont know who they are then that is your issue. Stollmeyer was a fine player and Loxton was one of the 1948 Invincibles

In 6 Tests.

Taking a period with roughly similar amount of Tests...

Streak, Key, Kirsten, Gibbs all averaging 60+.

Yes, I know the sample size is too small, but the 20-test limit is pretty arbitrary. Considering that test cricket was played at a far less frequency than today, it's absurd to hold the 20-test sample size as minimum.

The whole point is that averages were a lot higher back then. Which means batting was easier. Which means all the greats "worshipped" back then were possibly not as great as some of the batsmen today. They also played a lot fewer matches and fatigue barely came into the picture.

Frankly I find it absurd that Ponting is ranked lower than 15 in some people's all-time batting lists. I can't think of anything other than prejudice/"old-is-gold" nonsense being responsible for that.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I couldn't agree more. I read the 15,000 word article quoted in the original post and couldn't believe that someone actually earns a living publishing this complete load of crap. Why should a statistician's utterly arbitrary selection of arbitrarily weighted criteria be of the slightest interest to anyone? Hell, it looks scientific and there's a lot of words involved so it must be authoritative. Give me a break.

Agree with every word except calling this bloke a "statistician". He just fiddles with numbers. A proper statistician would shake his head innumerable times at this.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yes, I know the sample size is too small, but the 20-test limit is pretty arbitrary. Considering that test cricket was played at a far less frequency than today, it's absurd to hold the 20-test sample size as minimum.

The whole point is that averages were a lot higher back then. Which means batting was easier. Which means all the greats "worshipped" back then were possibly not as great as some of the batsmen today. They also played a lot fewer matches and fatigue barely came into the picture.

You were the one who dragged in the 1940s and included "Hobbs, Hutton and Barrington", when in fact only Hutton of those three played a significant amount of Tests in that, admittedly, batting-inflated era, which started around the late 20s and, in England, probably ended around 1951 (someone with a better idea of bowling standards will know - anyway, it's not entirely for the same reason, before the War Test wickets were especially well-prepared and the Australian Tests were timeless, a huge advantage for batsmen - after the War, a lot of bowlers had been taken out of action, while the batsmen found it easier to come back from service or, in many cases, hadn't served). Hutton had the years between 24 and 30 taken away by the war, played until he was 39, and still averaged 56 (the same as Ponting, whose latest years show that the effects of age i catching up with him).

Hobbs' heyday was the pre-WWI period; from his debut until World War I he was the only one in all of Test cricket to average above 51. No one (except possibly Brumby) have ranked Barrington above Ponting yet - in any case batting was hardly easy during his period.

 

[weldone]

Agree with every word except calling this bloke a "statistician". He just fiddles with numbers. A proper statistician would shake his head innumerable times at this.

excatly...i'm amazed how many 'famous' cricket statisticians are like this...no logic, no quality... just putting weights to some 'factors' which are almost meaningless...being a student of statistics, i've met innumerable very able statisticians, and not even 5% of them i've known are interested in cricket statistics. (And even the rare ones who are interested, never chose it as their profession) I wonder why? Is it because there is not much money? not much recognition? (unlike the quality control departments in big MNCs)...

Besides the lack of big buck, another reason can be a very prevalent one. It is that a good statistical analysis in this field will almost certainly not get any recognition and be thrashed by cricket purists and enthusiasts alike...

At the end of the day, these quite average level of analyses are ruling the world of cricket statistics which is not good for the field. And more importantly, for these moderate level of analyses from some 'famous' (I don't know how) cricket statisticians, the rare brilliant ones are often ignored by cricket pundits - for which I obviously don't blame the pundits...