• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The best way to measure a player's peak (test cricket)

Days of Grace

International Captain
I have been thinking about how to incorporate a peak into my player career ratings. At this stage, my overall rating will comprise the career rating (70%) and the peak rating (30%).

I have come down to three options:
1. A 50-test peak
2. A ten-year peak (as done recently on the cricinfo IT figures blog)
3. A combination of the two (50 tests or ten years, whichever an individual player achieves first).


I think no.3 is the best bet, since no.1 would disadvantage players of older vintage, who played tests at a much lesser rate than players of today; and no.2 would disadvantages players like Botham, who had a peak of roughly 5 years, in which he played near enough to 50 matches.

You thoughts?

btw, I used to think a 30-test peak was suitable, but I found it was too short a time period for modern players and didn't really separate the good players from the great ones (who should have longer sustained periods of peak performances).
 

Eds

International Debutant
There's no set figure that you can apply to every cricketer ever. Simple as that really.
 

uvelocity

International Coach
I think you'd want to use some standard deviation type of thing maybe from their overall perhaps. I'm an amateur on statistics though (the proper type I mean) rather than an arbitary cutoff
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
A study was done of the peak period of great batsmen. It was set at 52 tests, which is the amount Bradman played, and provides some sort of a benchmark.

From memory, Ricky Ponting had the greatest sequence of 52 tests as a batsman apart from Bradman. His average over the 52 tests isolated was very very high.....

Anyone remember this and have a link? T'was on cricnfo...
 

Trichromatic

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
A study was done of the peak period of great batsmen. It was set at 52 tests, which is the amount Bradman played, and provides some sort of a benchmark.

From memory, Ricky Ponting had the greatest sequence of 52 tests as a batsman apart from Bradman. His average over the 52 tests isolated was very very high.....

Anyone remember this and have a link? T'was on cricnfo...
The List: Who is closest to Don Bradman, George Lohmann and Joel Garner? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Updated list

 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Incredible that it took Ponting just over 4 years to play 52 tests, while Bradman's 52 tests took 20 years (with a war in the middle).
 

uvelocity

International Coach
Incredible that it took Ponting just over 4 years to play 52 tests, while Bradman's 52 tests took 20 years (with a war in the middle).
Incredible that he could perform so well with what you'd assume would be diminishing faculties
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Decided on the following:

Played majority of matches between 1877-1914: Peak period of 30 matches
Played majority of matches between 1920-1939: Peak period of 35 matches
Played majority of matches between 1946-1969: Peak period of 40 matches
Played majority of matches between 1970-1999: Peak period of 50 matches
Played majority of matches after 2000: Peak period of 60 matches

With adjusted averages, of course.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I have been thinking about how to incorporate a peak into my player career ratings. At this stage, my overall rating will comprise the career rating (70%) and the peak rating (30%).
Quick question.

With your ratings, isn't it punishing the cricketers who were consistently good but never had a freakishly excellent peak and therefore, poor at other times?
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Not really. If you were consistently good over a long period of time, you should end up about the same level as a guy who had a very good peak but was just a tad below you career wise.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do your rankings take into consideration total crowd attendance throughout the duration of the innings? I feel innings where there are more people in the stands are of better quality.

Crowd figures are available on the series pages on cricinfo, and for the historical matches of 50+ years ago I think it would be accurate to take the total population of the town/city where the match is being played and find an average percentage of cricket game attendance in relation to total population.

Cheers.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Do your rankings take into consideration total crowd attendance throughout the duration of the innings? I feel innings where there are more people in the stands are of better quality.

Crowd figures are available on the series pages on cricinfo, and for the historical matches of 50+ years ago I think it would be accurate to take the total population of the town/city where the match is being played and find an average percentage of cricket game attendance in relation to total population.

Cheers.
Quality/price of food available for the crowd at the venue should come in to consideration as well, as it would effect the mood of the crowd considerably. High sugar and fat content, and a higher price will make a crowd more reactionary and antagonistic, making batting concentration difficult. By contrast, players who perform well at venues with lower priced, more healthy food should be rated more harshly than the others.
 

Top