Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Mouth-watering analysis this

  1. #31
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,623
    Good list besides Ponting being a bit higher than I'd place him for reasons previously mentioned.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  2. #32
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,304
    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.

  3. #33
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Evermind View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evermind View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  4. #34
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,991
    Quote Originally Posted by oitoitoi View Post
    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.


  5. #35
    International Debutant Evermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    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.

  6. #36
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bonn, BRD
    Posts
    22,964
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.
    Messi scores on the rebound.

    Founder of ESAS - Edgar Schiferli, the best associate bowler
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Grünbaum
    Is the conduct approved by the gods right ("pious"), because of properties of its own, or merely because it pleases the gods to value or command it?

  7. #37
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bonn, BRD
    Posts
    22,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Evermind View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    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...
    Last edited by weldone; 09-05-2009 at 12:28 AM.
    "I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
    - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. An analysis of test grounds since 1980
    By Precambrian in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 07:51 PM
  2. Who likes putting nuts in their mouth
    By cpr in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14-09-2007, 05:13 PM
  3. Performance Analysis from 03-07 in ODI's
    By rodzilla1010 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 24-02-2007, 03:38 PM
  4. People with big mouth....
    By warrioryohannan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-02-2006, 09:35 PM
  5. An Analysis of McGrath
    By C_C in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 31-03-2005, 09:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •