# How much can we justifiably use statistics

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 5 123 ... Last
• 07-09-2011, 01:53 AM
kyear2
How much can we justifiably use statistics
Openers:
L.Hutton - highest rating: 945 V WI 1954. spent 38 of his 79 Tests (48.1%) rated above 850.
J.Hobbs - highest rating: 942 V AUs 1912. spent 35 of his 61 Tests (57.4%) rated above 850.
H.Sutcliffe - highest rating: 888 V Aus 1932. spent 18 of his 54 Tests (33.3%) rated above 850.
S.Gavaskar- highest rating: 916 V Eng 1979. spent 23 of his 125 Tests (18.4%) rated above 850.

My analysis: Going from that, I'd have Hutton and Hobbs as my openers. That was an easy one.

Best opener who didn't make the final cut:
M.Hayden - highest rating: 935 V Eng 2002. spent 28 of his 89 Tests (31.5%) rated above 850.

Middle order:
G.Headley - highest rating: 915 V Eng 1948. spent 6 of his 22 Tests (27.3%) rated above 850.
B.Lara - highest rating: 911 V SA 2004. spent 40 of his 131 Tests (30.5%) rated above 850.
V.Richards - highest rating: 938 V Eng 1981. spent 32 of his 121 Tests (26.4%) rated above 850.
D.Bradman - highest rating: 961 V Ind 1948. spent 36 of his 52 Tests (69.2%) rated above 850.
W.Hammond - highest rating: 897 V NZ 1933. spent 21 of his 85 Tests (24.7%) rated above 850.
R.Ponting - highest rating: 942 V Eng 2006. spent 27 of his 110 Tests (24.5%) rated above 850.
G.Pollock - highest rating: 927 V Aus 1970. spent 3 of his 23 Tests (13.0%) rated above 850.

My analysis: For me Bradman is a lock at #3 and Sobers would be your #6, so that probably leaves 2 to pick. From the numbers given it's between Lara, Richards and Ponting (especially given Ponting still has the ability to increase his numbers dramatically). But others have a case, Headley didn't really have enough Tests (due to the war) to show how good he was and Pollock was left hanging in 1970 just as he reached his peak. But are those 2 great enough to make the team? Their selection would be speculation - that they were better than their numbers show, or if given more opportunities they might have been the best. I don't think we can make those calls, but that's just my two cents.

Best middle order batsman who didn't make the final cut:
P.May - highest rating: 941 V Aus 1956. spent 33 of his 66 Tests (50.0%) rated above 850.
A case could be made that Peter May is the one of the most underrated cricketers ever from those numbers.

For bowlers, I've also included their highest ever batting rating to give an idea of batting ability. One thing that is noticeable is that old time bowlers don't fare well in the ratings. Syd Barnes has the highest ever rating, but most of the older bowlers fail to sustain a high class level of performance ie. staying at 850+ for a decent portion of their career. Perhaps modern cricket is more conducive to that, I'm not really sure.

Spinners:
S.Warne - highest rating: 905 V Eng 1994. spent 25 of his 145 Tests (17.2%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 348.
B.O'Reilly - highest rating: 901 V NZ 1946. spent 11 of his 27 Tests (40.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 212.
M.Muralitharan - highest rating: 915 V Pak 2002. spent 48 of his 110 Tests (43.6%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 180.
D.Underwood - highest rating: 907 V NZ 1971. spent 11 of his 86 Tests (12.8%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 213.

My analysis: Geez, Murali all the way here - the juggernaut. But what if you don't appreciate his action? Too bad I say, he's a damn fine bowler, but who would be the 2nd spinner if needed? Warne is a legend, but his numbers don't really back up his reputation as one of the 5 cricketers of last century. O'Reilly's reputation suffers from not enough cricket. Underwood could be deadly on his day haha. O'Reilly should feel hard done by, but I'd probably go with Warne, he's a good slipper and decent batsman and has an aura about him that the team could benefit from if they needed to go with the 2nd spinner.

Best spinners who didn't make the final cut:
J.Laker - highest rating: 897 V Aus 1956. spent 14 of his 46 Tests (30.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 271.
L.Gibbs - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1966. spent 20 of his 79 Tests (25.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 133.

Pace:
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 252.
R.Lindwall - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1954. spent 22 of his 61 Tests (36.1%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 433.
M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 375.
C.Ambrose - highest rating: 912 V Eng 1994. spent 45 of his 98 Tests (45.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 229.
W.Akram - highest rating: 830 V Aus 1994. spent 0 of his 104 Tests (0.0%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 473.
G.McGrath - highest rating: 914 V Eng 2001. spent 83 of his 124 Tests (66.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 123.
A.Davidson - highest rating: 908 V WI 1961. spent 18 of his 44 Tests (40.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 526.
R.Hadlee - highest rating: 909 V Aus 1985. spent 41 of his 86 Tests (47.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 562.

My analysis: While well loved bowlers, the rating system doesn't really fancy Lillee or Akram for some reason, especially Wasim. The 4 standouts from the numbers are Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath and Hadlee. I'd have Hadlee to give some quality batting at #8 and definitely McGrath from those bowling numbers as my #11. Toss up between Marshall and Ambrose for the #9 spot, maybe Marshall for the extra batting skill, with Murali following at #10.

Best paceman who didn't make the final cut:
S.Pollock - highest rating: 909 V Eng 1999. spent 55 of his 107 Tests (51.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 565.

For the all-rounders I lowered the 850 point threshold to 650 for both disciplines. Not many players have ever been rated over 650 in both disciplines, showing the rarity of a true all-rounder.

All-rounders:
I.Khan - Batting - highest rating: 650 V SL 1991. spent 2 of his 88 Tests (2.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 922 V Ind 1983. spent 71 of his 88 Tests (80.7%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1483 v Ind 1983. (Batting-562, Bowling-921).
K.Miller - Batting - highest rating: 681 V WI 1952. spent 4 of his 55 Tests (7.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 862 V SA 1953. spent 35 of his 55 Tests (63.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1522 v WI 1952. (Batting-681, Bowling-841).
G.Sobers - Batting - highest rating: 938 V Ind 1967. spent 77 of his 93 Tests (82.8%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 715 V Ind 1966. spent 19 of his 93 Tests (20.4%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1651 v Ind 1966. (Batting-936, Bowling-715).

My analysis:
Sobers is the standout, the only one of the three who could be genuinely selected as either a batsman or bowler. Imran was never a reliable batsman until right at the end of his career. Miller was better as a batsman than Imran, but not quite the bowler, but he still doesn't hold a candle to Sobers.

Best all-rounders who didn't make the final cut:
Batting AR - J.Kallis - Batting - highest rating: 896 V Eng 2005. spent 78 of his 107 Tests (72.9%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 742 V Eng 2003. spent 21 of his 107 Tests (19.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1574 v Pak 2002. (Batting-848, Bowling-726).
Bowling AR - I.Botham - Batting - highest rating: 811 V Ind 1982. spent 35 of his 102 Tests (34.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 911 V Ind 1980. spent 55 of his 102 Tests (53.9%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1620 v Ind 1980. (Batting-709, Bowling-911).

Very hard to rate due to there being no rating for glovework. There is no fool proof way to judge, but I have noted if the WK has ever been played just as a batsman, usually indicating that their keeping is not the best it could be. Just like all-rounders, not many keepers have ever been rated over 650. It is only in the modern game that players like Flower, Gilchrist, Stewart and Sangakkara have emerged.

Wicketkeepers:
L.Ames - Batting - highest rating: 619 V Aus 1934. spent 0 of his 47 Tests (0.0%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 3 of 47 Tests as a batsman only. 95 dismissals (72/23). 2.02 dismissals/match.
A.Flower - Batting - highest rating: 895 V SA 2001. spent 26 of his 63 Tests (41.3%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 8 of 63 Tests as a batsman only. 151 dismissals (142/9). 2.40 dismissals/match.

My analysis:
Ames was a pioneer of WK/batsmen, but his batting never reached great heights. Flower didn't have a strong overall career, but he really flourished with the bat in his last few seasons, clearly better than Ames. As for keeping ability, who knows? But honestly, Mr A.C. Gilchrist, should be in the final group. His batting figures are far better than Ames and his career was more consistently brilliant than Flower (perhaps I'm being a little unfair to Flower given the situation in Zimbabwe forced him to end his career in difficult circumstances). Gilchrist is probably a better keeper as well. He has never been supplanted, is close to Healy's world record and is rarely noticed - always a good thing for a keeper.

Best wicketkeeper who didn't make the final cut:
A.Gilchrist - Batting - highest rating: 874 V SA 2002. spent 77 of his 90 Tests (85.6%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 0 of 90 Tests as a batsman only. 381 dismissals (344/37). 4.23 dismissals/match.

Phew, that's a lot of figures. Sorry if you are confused and my apologies if I have made any errors, but it is possible - especially reading from the graphs on the cricketratings site.

My newly revised greatest XI according to my analysis of the ICC rankings (noting unlucky players):
1. Len Hutton
2. Jack Hobbs
4. Peter May
5. ViV Richards (could easily be Lara/Ponting)
6. Gary Sobers
8. Richard Hadlee (or Shaun Pollock)
9. Malcom Marshall (or Curtley Ambrose)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath
12. Shane Warne (in case of 2 spinners being required).

Sorry for the length of the post and putting everyone to sleep, but I found all this to be quite interesting.

A quote from another web site, what what do you guys think?
• 07-09-2011, 02:02 AM
smalishah84
wow..........great commitment shown to write such a long post. Where are the stats for Richard Hadlee and Shaun Pollock? Are you using them only as bowlers or as ARs?
• 07-09-2011, 02:08 AM
Noble One
Quote:

Originally Posted by smalishah84
wow..........great commitment shown to write such a long post. Where are the stats for Richard Hadlee and Shaun Pollock? Are you using them only as bowlers or as ARs?

He didn't write the above analysis. Pretty sure I read this on Planet Cricket 2-3 years ago.

Interesting method. Although a bland way to create an ATG XI.
• 07-09-2011, 04:26 AM
Son Of Coco
In reply to the thread question, why would you want to do that?
• 07-09-2011, 04:40 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by kyear2
Openers:
L.Hutton - highest rating: 945 V WI 1954. spent 38 of his 79 Tests (48.1%) rated above 850.
J.Hobbs - highest rating: 942 V AUs 1912. spent 35 of his 61 Tests (57.4%) rated above 850.
H.Sutcliffe - highest rating: 888 V Aus 1932. spent 18 of his 54 Tests (33.3%) rated above 850.
S.Gavaskar- highest rating: 916 V Eng 1979. spent 23 of his 125 Tests (18.4%) rated above 850.

My analysis: Going from that, I'd have Hutton and Hobbs as my openers. That was an easy one.

Best opener who didn't make the final cut:
M.Hayden - highest rating: 935 V Eng 2002. spent 28 of his 89 Tests (31.5%) rated above 850.

Middle order:
G.Headley - highest rating: 915 V Eng 1948. spent 6 of his 22 Tests (27.3%) rated above 850.
B.Lara - highest rating: 911 V SA 2004. spent 40 of his 131 Tests (30.5%) rated above 850.
V.Richards - highest rating: 938 V Eng 1981. spent 32 of his 121 Tests (26.4%) rated above 850.
D.Bradman - highest rating: 961 V Ind 1948. spent 36 of his 52 Tests (69.2%) rated above 850.
W.Hammond - highest rating: 897 V NZ 1933. spent 21 of his 85 Tests (24.7%) rated above 850.
R.Ponting - highest rating: 942 V Eng 2006. spent 27 of his 110 Tests (24.5%) rated above 850.
G.Pollock - highest rating: 927 V Aus 1970. spent 3 of his 23 Tests (13.0%) rated above 850.

My analysis: For me Bradman is a lock at #3 and Sobers would be your #6, so that probably leaves 2 to pick. From the numbers given it's between Lara, Richards and Ponting (especially given Ponting still has the ability to increase his numbers dramatically). But others have a case, Headley didn't really have enough Tests (due to the war) to show how good he was and Pollock was left hanging in 1970 just as he reached his peak. But are those 2 great enough to make the team? Their selection would be speculation - that they were better than their numbers show, or if given more opportunities they might have been the best. I don't think we can make those calls, but that's just my two cents.

Best middle order batsman who didn't make the final cut:
P.May - highest rating: 941 V Aus 1956. spent 33 of his 66 Tests (50.0%) rated above 850.
A case could be made that Peter May is the one of the most underrated cricketers ever from those numbers.

For bowlers, I've also included their highest ever batting rating to give an idea of batting ability. One thing that is noticeable is that old time bowlers don't fare well in the ratings. Syd Barnes has the highest ever rating, but most of the older bowlers fail to sustain a high class level of performance ie. staying at 850+ for a decent portion of their career. Perhaps modern cricket is more conducive to that, I'm not really sure.

Spinners:
S.Warne - highest rating: 905 V Eng 1994. spent 25 of his 145 Tests (17.2%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 348.
B.O'Reilly - highest rating: 901 V NZ 1946. spent 11 of his 27 Tests (40.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 212.
M.Muralitharan - highest rating: 915 V Pak 2002. spent 48 of his 110 Tests (43.6%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 180.
D.Underwood - highest rating: 907 V NZ 1971. spent 11 of his 86 Tests (12.8%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 213.

My analysis: Geez, Murali all the way here - the juggernaut. But what if you don't appreciate his action? Too bad I say, he's a damn fine bowler, but who would be the 2nd spinner if needed? Warne is a legend, but his numbers don't really back up his reputation as one of the 5 cricketers of last century. O'Reilly's reputation suffers from not enough cricket. Underwood could be deadly on his day haha. O'Reilly should feel hard done by, but I'd probably go with Warne, he's a good slipper and decent batsman and has an aura about him that the team could benefit from if they needed to go with the 2nd spinner.

Best spinners who didn't make the final cut:
J.Laker - highest rating: 897 V Aus 1956. spent 14 of his 46 Tests (30.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 271.
L.Gibbs - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1966. spent 20 of his 79 Tests (25.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 133.

Pace:
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 252.
R.Lindwall - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1954. spent 22 of his 61 Tests (36.1%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 433.
M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 375.
C.Ambrose - highest rating: 912 V Eng 1994. spent 45 of his 98 Tests (45.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 229.
W.Akram - highest rating: 830 V Aus 1994. spent 0 of his 104 Tests (0.0%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 473.
G.McGrath - highest rating: 914 V Eng 2001. spent 83 of his 124 Tests (66.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 123.
A.Davidson - highest rating: 908 V WI 1961. spent 18 of his 44 Tests (40.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 526.
R.Hadlee - highest rating: 909 V Aus 1985. spent 41 of his 86 Tests (47.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 562.

My analysis: While well loved bowlers, the rating system doesn't really fancy Lillee or Akram for some reason, especially Wasim. The 4 standouts from the numbers are Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath and Hadlee. I'd have Hadlee to give some quality batting at #8 and definitely McGrath from those bowling numbers as my #11. Toss up between Marshall and Ambrose for the #9 spot, maybe Marshall for the extra batting skill, with Murali following at #10.

Best paceman who didn't make the final cut:
S.Pollock - highest rating: 909 V Eng 1999. spent 55 of his 107 Tests (51.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 565.

For the all-rounders I lowered the 850 point threshold to 650 for both disciplines. Not many players have ever been rated over 650 in both disciplines, showing the rarity of a true all-rounder.

All-rounders:
I.Khan - Batting - highest rating: 650 V SL 1991. spent 2 of his 88 Tests (2.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 922 V Ind 1983. spent 71 of his 88 Tests (80.7%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1483 v Ind 1983. (Batting-562, Bowling-921).
K.Miller - Batting - highest rating: 681 V WI 1952. spent 4 of his 55 Tests (7.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 862 V SA 1953. spent 35 of his 55 Tests (63.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1522 v WI 1952. (Batting-681, Bowling-841).
G.Sobers - Batting - highest rating: 938 V Ind 1967. spent 77 of his 93 Tests (82.8%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 715 V Ind 1966. spent 19 of his 93 Tests (20.4%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1651 v Ind 1966. (Batting-936, Bowling-715).

My analysis:
Sobers is the standout, the only one of the three who could be genuinely selected as either a batsman or bowler. Imran was never a reliable batsman until right at the end of his career. Miller was better as a batsman than Imran, but not quite the bowler, but he still doesn't hold a candle to Sobers.

Best all-rounders who didn't make the final cut:
Batting AR - J.Kallis - Batting - highest rating: 896 V Eng 2005. spent 78 of his 107 Tests (72.9%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 742 V Eng 2003. spent 21 of his 107 Tests (19.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1574 v Pak 2002. (Batting-848, Bowling-726).
Bowling AR - I.Botham - Batting - highest rating: 811 V Ind 1982. spent 35 of his 102 Tests (34.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 911 V Ind 1980. spent 55 of his 102 Tests (53.9%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1620 v Ind 1980. (Batting-709, Bowling-911).

Very hard to rate due to there being no rating for glovework. There is no fool proof way to judge, but I have noted if the WK has ever been played just as a batsman, usually indicating that their keeping is not the best it could be. Just like all-rounders, not many keepers have ever been rated over 650. It is only in the modern game that players like Flower, Gilchrist, Stewart and Sangakkara have emerged.

Wicketkeepers:
L.Ames - Batting - highest rating: 619 V Aus 1934. spent 0 of his 47 Tests (0.0%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 3 of 47 Tests as a batsman only. 95 dismissals (72/23). 2.02 dismissals/match.
A.Flower - Batting - highest rating: 895 V SA 2001. spent 26 of his 63 Tests (41.3%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 8 of 63 Tests as a batsman only. 151 dismissals (142/9). 2.40 dismissals/match.

My analysis:
Ames was a pioneer of WK/batsmen, but his batting never reached great heights. Flower didn't have a strong overall career, but he really flourished with the bat in his last few seasons, clearly better than Ames. As for keeping ability, who knows? But honestly, Mr A.C. Gilchrist, should be in the final group. His batting figures are far better than Ames and his career was more consistently brilliant than Flower (perhaps I'm being a little unfair to Flower given the situation in Zimbabwe forced him to end his career in difficult circumstances). Gilchrist is probably a better keeper as well. He has never been supplanted, is close to Healy's world record and is rarely noticed - always a good thing for a keeper.

Best wicketkeeper who didn't make the final cut:
A.Gilchrist - Batting - highest rating: 874 V SA 2002. spent 77 of his 90 Tests (85.6%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 0 of 90 Tests as a batsman only. 381 dismissals (344/37). 4.23 dismissals/match.

Phew, that's a lot of figures. Sorry if you are confused and my apologies if I have made any errors, but it is possible - especially reading from the graphs on the cricketratings site.

My newly revised greatest XI according to my analysis of the ICC rankings (noting unlucky players):
1. Len Hutton
2. Jack Hobbs
4. Peter May
5. ViV Richards (could easily be Lara/Ponting)
6. Gary Sobers
8. Richard Hadlee (or Shaun Pollock)
9. Malcom Marshall (or Curtley Ambrose)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath
12. Shane Warne (in case of 2 spinners being required).

Sorry for the length of the post and putting everyone to sleep, but I found all this to be quite interesting.

A quote from another web site, what what do you guys think?

I miss Vijay.Sharma here :p
• 07-09-2011, 04:48 AM
JBMAC
An interesting set of stats. For me it's not about them though. Stats do not take into consideration pitch conditions etc etc etc They should be used cautiously as a guide only.
• 07-09-2011, 04:53 AM
smalishah84
:laugh:.....haha.....yeah...he has a 3 month ban
• 07-09-2011, 04:56 AM
Burgey
38.667% of the time.
• 07-09-2011, 05:22 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgey
38.667% of the time.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
• 07-09-2011, 05:24 AM
robelinda
Ugh, just watch the game, enjoy it. Comparison safe so lame. No thread ever ends well, no-one ever agrees, nothing ever gets proven etc
• 07-09-2011, 05:37 AM
benchmark00
I just don't understand why ****s are so interested in stats.

Surely you don't need a set of figures to determine who's good and who's ****.

Stats are things ignorant pundits hide behind to make themselves sound knowledgeable.
• 07-09-2011, 05:45 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by benchmark00
I just don't understand why ****s are so interested in stats.

Surely you don't need a set of figures to determine who's good and who's ****.

Stats are things ignorant pundits hide behind to make themselves sound knowledgeable.

Benchmark, I agree that stats shouldnt be the only factor. But many cricket fans live and die by stats and it makes cricket more interesting in my belief.

Bradman's average and Sachin's number of centuries inspire.
• 07-09-2011, 05:48 AM
JBMAC
Quote:

Benchmark, I agree that stats shouldnt be the only factor. But many cricket fans live and die by stats and it makes cricket more interesting in my belief.

Bradman's average and Sachin's number of centuries inspire.

That's the stuff of legends not stats:D
• 07-09-2011, 05:48 AM
benchmark00
Quote:

Benchmark, I agree that stats shouldnt be the only factor. But many cricket fans live and die by stats and it makes cricket more interesting in my belief.

Bradman's average and Sachin's number of centuries inspire.

Inspire what though?

All they do is provide benchmarks and little records. They're so incredibly inconsequential to anything that matters.
• 07-09-2011, 05:51 AM
Burgey
Quote:

Originally Posted by benchmark00
Inspire what though?

All they do is provide benchmarks and little records. They're so incredibly inconsequential to anything that matters.

Most benchmarks are...
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 5 123 ... Last