Page 140 of 206 FirstFirst ... 4090130138139140141142150190 ... LastLast
Results 2,086 to 2,100 of 3082
Like Tree133Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #2086
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,334
    Using that data for the top 7, and also including Botham and Waqar, the peak XI might begin to look like...

    - Matthew Hayden
    - Len Hutton
    - Don Bradman
    - Jaques Kallis
    - Steve Waugh
    - Ricky Ponting
    - Adam Gilchrist/Andy Flower
    - Ian Botham
    -
    -
    -
    - Waqar Younis

  2. #2087
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,992
    So I thought I'd look up some bowlers to add to that, mainly from the ICC rankings which are designed to look at how good someone was at any one moment. And it turns out noted second fiddler Tony Lock was the 6th greatest bowler of all time.

    His record does show why - he took 5 wickets per Test at an average of around 16 from 1955-59. His county record from that time is pretty fearsome too - checking it on cricket archive, his total home FC record from those 5 seasons is a ridiculous 864 wickets at 13.
    And we still haven't walked in the glow of each other's majestic presence.

  3. #2088
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,017
    True but NZ were toilet and pitches bad. I think his record v NZ is too much of an outrider that flatters him. I think he averages around 32 against all others which is mighty high for his era. Minnow basher.

  4. #2089
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,925
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    True but NZ were toilet and pitches bad. I think his record v NZ is too much of an outrider that flatters him. I think he averages around 32 against all others which is mighty high for his era. Minnow basher.
    The same is true for S.F. Barnes, where his numbers vs South Africa is so massively off from his numbers vs Eng, that they too for me are an outlier and similarily flatters his overall numbers.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3


  5. #2090
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,017
    Nah SA were outgunned by Aus and Eng but manned up against almost every other bowler except Barnes. Whereas NZ in the 50's couldn't bat worse than now.

  6. #2091
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Using that data for the top 7, and also including Botham and Waqar, the peak XI might begin to look like...

    - Matthew Hayden
    - Len Hutton
    - Don Bradman
    - Jaques Kallis
    - Steve Waugh
    - Ricky Ponting
    - Adam Gilchrist/Andy Flower
    - Ian Botham
    -
    -
    -
    - Waqar Younis
    Sutcliffe had a pretty good peak didn't he? Averaged 60+ for 54 test matches, over 11 years.

    Though, after his 40th test (his last century), at the age of 38, his figures were: 40 matches, 63 innings, 3839 runs @ 69.80, 16 centuries. Stunningly underrated. Something I've noticed too, the three great English batsmen before WWII (Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond) all played a few series too long, when they were already at great ages. Truly incredible batsmen.
    Last edited by Coronis; 26-05-2013 at 07:01 PM.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. M.J Procter 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath

  7. #2092
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,501
    Jeff Thomson was for about 2 years the most feared bowler in the history of cricket. Worth a place I think.
    “This beautiful, beautiful game that is battle and service and sport and art”.
    DOUGLAS JARDINE (speech in NZ, 1932)

  8. #2093
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,256
    Oh, Murali's got to be the spinner. Cannot remember the article, but there was some stat, in the middle of his career (before his decline) 90 tests, 631 wickets @ 19.94.

    Found it.
    Last edited by Coronis; 26-05-2013 at 08:27 PM.

  9. #2094
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,340
    yeah that 90 test streak at sub 20 sure makes a good case for Murali being the greatest bowler of all time
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  10. #2095
    International Vice-Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    4,477
    My Peak XI - based on standards maintained over a period of 25 and 50 matches

    1. Hobbs
    2. Hutton
    3. Bradman
    4. Ponting
    5. Richards
    6. Sobers
    7. Gilchrist (wk)
    8. Hadlee
    9. Marshall
    10. Waqar Younis
    11. Muralitharan

    Waugh
    Imran Khan
    Greatest Ever Test XI: JB Hobbs, L Hutton, DG Bradman (c), IVA Richards, BC Lara, GS Sobers, AC Gilchrist (wk), Imran Khan, RJ Hadlee, MD Marshall, SK Warne 12th man: M Muralitharan


    Favorite XI: WG Grace, VT Trumper, IVA Richards, DCS Compton, FMM Worrell (c), AC Gilchrist (wk), CL Cairns, SK Warne, FS Trueman, SE Bond, T Richardson 12th man: H Larwood

  11. #2096
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,992
    Wouldn't it be fairer to do it on peak years rather than matches? 50 matches was Bradman's 20 year career after all.

  12. #2097
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Wouldn't it be fairer to do it on peak years rather than matches? 50 matches was Bradman's 20 year career after all.
    Back when I was doing peak analysis I found that whichever approach you took, it put a one group or the other out. It's easier to maintain an excellent peak average based on matches if you're playing more matches per year, but on the flip side it's easier to maintain an excellent peak average based on years if you're playing less matches per year. The results ended up biased either way.

    I think the fairest measure would probably be to look at both - for example, batsman's peak of 40 innings and a batsman's peak of 5 years - and then average out those peaks (or possibly just take the highest one).
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 28-05-2013 at 07:55 AM.
    ~ Cribbage

  13. #2098
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Back when I was doing peak analysis I found that whichever approach you took, it put a one group or the other out. It's easier to maintain an excellent peak average based on matches if you're playing more matches per year, but on the flip side it's easier to maintain an excellent peak average based on years if you're playing less matches per year. The results ended up biased either way.

    I think the fairest measure would probably be to look at both - for example, batsman's peak of 40 innings and a batsman's peak of 5 years - and then average out those peaks (or possibly just take the highest one).
    That's true but I think looking at years is still going to be a better measure of what we're actually looking at. When we talk about peaks we think of how a player's career varies with time.

    I would think the effects of form, fitness and general improvements/debilitations are a consequence of how long you've been playing, not how many Tests you've had - those older players were still playing plenty of FC cricket after all.

  14. #2099
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    That's true but I think looking at years is still going to be a better measure of what we're actually looking at. When we talk about peaks we think of how a player's career varies with time.

    I would think the effects of form, fitness and general improvements/debilitations are a consequence of how long you've been playing, not how many Tests you've had - those older players were still playing plenty of FC cricket after all.
    I agree that years are a better measure than matches but it definitely does have a bias in the opposite direction, even if not one quite as strong. You can tell just by looking at the results.

    I don't think it's really caused by burnout or what have you anyway; it's just statistically more likely for smaller samples of scores to produce outlying means. The bigger the sample of anything, the closer the sample mean becomes to the true mean. It's fair to say that an study of peaks is prone to anomalies so you get bigger ones with fewer matches as a part of your data.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 28-05-2013 at 08:26 AM.

  15. #2100
    International Vice-Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    4,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Back when I was doing peak analysis I found that whichever approach you took, it put a one group or the other out. It's easier to maintain an excellent peak average based on matches if you're playing more matches per year, but on the flip side it's easier to maintain an excellent peak average based on years if you're playing less matches per year. The results ended up biased either way.

    I think the fairest measure would probably be to look at both - for example, batsman's peak of 40 innings and a batsman's peak of 5 years - and then average out those peaks (or possibly just take the highest one).

    My ratings incorporate length of time, average, centuries and significant innings for batsmen, and length of time, average, WPM, 5W/I and significant contributions in matches won for bowlers.
    Last edited by Days of Grace; 28-05-2013 at 08:24 PM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 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
  •