The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[CaptainGrumpy]

You should have used the average runs scored per match of 29 for Bevan and 27 for Maxwell.

People still struggle to understand SR. You need to put it in the simplest terms possible in terms where they can understand that the team score is more important than the batsman's batting average of not outs.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

People still struggle to understand SR. You need to put it in the simplest terms possible.

I'm trying! I feel like I've gone back in time to explain toilet paper to some medieval peasant. The ODI game has been around for almost 50 years, we should have been able to get our heads around the idea that it's different to tests by now.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I'm trying! I feel like I've gone back in time to explain toilet paper to some medieval peasant. The ODI game has been around for almost 50 years, we should have been able to get our heads around the idea that it's different to tests by now.

I understand your frustration.

Keep fighting the good fight. You're doing god's work.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm trying! I feel like I've gone back in time to explain toilet paper to some medieval peasant. The ODI game has been around for almost 50 years, we should have been able to get our heads around the idea that it's different to tests by now.

Haha wow seriously get your head out of your ass.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He's coming in at 6 after Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Dean Jones and Mike Hussey. How often do you think he'll need to salvage an innings with that ahead of him?

Considering he actually did come in to bat plenty of times behind Waugh/Hayden/Gilchrist/Ponting and rescued Australia from a dicey position, I'd say more often than you'd think.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Haha wow seriously get your head out of your ass.

No you put the paper on your hand and then you wipe your ass with that hand.

There should be no heads in any asses.

 

[OverratedSanity]

kiwiviktor - CaptainGrumpy is the new two man power trip circle jerk

 

[kiwiviktor81]

kiwiviktor - CaptainGrumpy is the new two man power trip circle jerk

We'll soon be crucified for spreading the gospel of the Strike Rate to the heathens still living in Test-Age logic.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

We'll soon be crucified for spreading the gospel of the Strike Rate to the heathens still living in Test-Age logic.

Either for that reason or more simply because they're merely hungry for some red meat. I am not so convinced that cannibalism has entirely been done away with in CW.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm trying! I feel like I've gone back in time to explain toilet paper to some medieval peasant. The ODI game has been around for almost 50 years, we should have been able to get our heads around the idea that it's different to tests by now.

Funniest thing about this atrocious post is that you don't realise that you're the real neanderthal peasants. Who the **** wants to use toilet paper in this day and age. Bum guns or bust you disgusting fools.

 

[honestbharani]

Grumpy and viktor, I am sure just about all of the regular posters at CC understand the significance of SR in ODIs. What you guys are failing to grasp is that you cannot directly compare strike rates of players playing in very different eras. Bevan was done circa 2004 and Maxwell only came on the scene around 2011. It is a big generational shift that happened in ODI cricket and strike rates and averages and totals just cannot be compared AS IS between these various eras. Why not try a normalized SR for both Bevan and Maxi comparing to the overall SR of ODI batsmen of the time?


And remember, ODI cricket has been meddled with so many times between 2004 and today with rule changes seemingly coming in every year ranging from 12 man teams (Remember supersubs?) and 20 over power plays (with last 5 available even at the fag end of the games or more generally, times when your nos. 5 and 6 will be batting) and 4 men outside the ring to the latest changes, you cant even directly compare SRs of players from last year to this year, forget an era previous.

 

[marc71178]

I'm trying! I feel like I've gone back in time to explain toilet paper to some medieval peasant. The ODI game has been around for almost 50 years, we should have been able to get our heads around the idea that it's different to tests by now.

No, it's about watching the game rather than creating a crap simulator then trying to justify it when people point out its flaws.

Bevan is one of the all time greatest odi players who probably has only Dhoni as a competitor for that finisher role.

Maxwell is this era's Afridi.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Grumpy and viktor, I am sure just about all of the regular posters at CC understand the significance of SR in ODIs. What you guys are failing to grasp is that you cannot directly compare strike rates of players playing in very different eras. Bevan was done circa 2004 and Maxwell only came on the scene around 2011. It is a big generational shift that happened in ODI cricket and strike rates and averages and totals just cannot be compared AS IS between these various eras. Why not try a normalized SR for both Bevan and Maxi comparing to the overall SR of ODI batsmen of the time?


And remember, ODI cricket has been meddled with so many times between 2004 and today with rule changes seemingly coming in every year ranging from 12 man teams (Remember supersubs?) and 20 over power plays (with last 5 available even at the fag end of the games or more generally, times when your nos. 5 and 6 will be batting) and 4 men outside the ring to the latest changes, you cant even directly compare SRs of players from last year to this year, forget an era previous.

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bevan SR in losing chases was 69. Higher than his SR in winning chases of 67.

Sorry PEWS, I don't agree with your point as a rule of his 'optimal' chasing.

But hey, lets continue to celebrate the players of yesterday with their high batting averages and low team scores and put all these bigger team scores today down to field restriction changes, poor bowling and big bats.

Batting strategy has not entered the equation at all. Teams batting deeper into the innings and more wickets falling is just a correlation.

Viv Richards and Kapil Dev would go well today.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Why not try a normalized SR for both Bevan and Maxi comparing to the overall SR of ODI batsmen of the time?

Whoa now, this would require actual knowledge about statistics.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

No, it's about watching the game rather than creating a crap simulator then trying to justify it when people point out its flaws.

Bevan is one of the all time greatest odi players who probably has only Dhoni as a competitor for that finisher role.

Maxwell is this era's Afridi.

But who were Afridi's contemporaries, and he struck what 117 averaging 23? Maxwell is not alone in the modern environment with his 30 average striking at 120. Faulkner is SR is 113 and averaging over 42.

New Zealand have Anderson averaging 35 SR 123 and Ronchi 26 at 125. South Africa have Miller just over 100, but with AB at 99 and averaging 50. Berhadien is also SR of 99 and averaging 28. Roussow SR is 95 and averaging 36.

The bigger scores are a direct result of higher SR and less concern for player averages as more wickets are falling in ODI cricket these days. More often teams will be bowled out, or close to it, while posting totals much much higher than yester era. Teams are selecting more players who average 30, or 27 actual runs per match, at a higher strike rate. The optimal thinking of ODI cricket has changed. That is more important than bats, fielding restrictions, or changes to anything else. The approach to the game has markedly shifted. Batsman will not be disgraced for getting out to sloggy shots, in a much wider variety of match conditions (or at least less often). The public will slowly accept it. Even if Munro and McCullum still touch nerves and get the punters pissed off when dismissed to absolute sloggy howlers. Its pinch hit at the start, a little in the middle and the end of an innings now (from further out).

Its not test cricket. The deliveries to face and score off are limited. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand appear to be well aware of this, and hence dominated the recent world cup. England is learning and accepting that ODI cricket has changed and India is not far off. Do the current crop of players pushing SR to 100 and over deserve recognition for this feat? Kiwivik and I certainly think so.

Changes to fielding restrictions means far less to scoop shots and reverse shots than I think some people think.

 

[Prince EWS]

Whoa now, this would require actual knowledge about statistics.

I've even offered to calculate standardised strike rates, averages and economy rates for every ODi player of all time for him.

I've actually made an OD sim as well; maybe I'll do it and just feed it into mine, then start posting competing results when he makes these posts.

 

[Red]

We'll soon be crucified for spreading the gospel of the Strike Rate to the heathens still living in Test-Age logic.

You really don't get that we get that SR is very important but that it's not reasonable to compare guys from earlier eras with modern era guys based on strike rates?

What is the logic behind your claims? That in a simmed thing James Faulkner would be a better option than Viv Richards? If that's the case, then it's all pointless.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You really don't get that we get that SR is very important but that it's not reasonable to compare guys from earlier eras with modern era guys based on strike rates?

What is the logic behind your claims? That in a simmed thing James Faulkner would be a better option than Viv Richards? If that's the case, then it's all pointless.

Viv remains a better option than Faulkner for the top order at 3. Viv had few not outs, his higher average combined with far less not outs means much more actual runs scored.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Why not try a normalized SR for both Bevan and Maxi comparing to the overall SR of ODI batsmen of the time?

Because it's too broad and crude a measurement. Why should I increase the SR of Bevan just because some, not all, teams have adopted a different batting strategy 15 years after Bevan played?

You can't use Era SR because a higher SR is not uniform. Take out certain players like AB, Maxwell, Anderson, Ronchi, Miller, Faulkner et al. and the Era SR for the other batsmen goes way down. The better teams like Aussie, NZ, SA bat at a higher strike rate because they're better teams with hitters from 5-8, not because of the era they are batting in.

Kane Williamson has about the same average as Viv Richards but at a lower SR, even though they both bat No. 3. So how can I make a blanket assumption about strike rates?

The fact is that the higher Era SR is a consequence of higher aggression from quality batsmen in the later overs, not because of bigger bats or fielding restrictions or any of these reasons that seem to be offered by people who don't fully grasp the strategic element of cricket batsmanship. Bevan might have been more aggressive if he batted 6 now, but I'd say that he probably wouldn't even make the team on account of not being able to score quickly enough, which is just as important as not getting out in ODIs.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I've even offered to calculate standardised strike rates, averages and economy rates for every ODi player of all time for him.

I appreciate the offer, I just don't think they're useful, sorry. I'd rather use the simulator AI to let the old players adjust their batting strategy on the fly depending on who is batting after them and who is bowling to them.

What I would love, on the other hand, would be a table that showed average number of runs scored for each over 1-50 over the past, say, ten years, and the average number of wickets that fell in every over 1-50. This would allow me to fix the missing link in the simulator, which is an accurate estimate of the effects of higher or lower aggression, in particular its effects on run scoring or losing one's wicket.