Australian ATG Team- Open Voting

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by watson

No it doesn't. The Australian teams of the 70s was brilliant. And G.Chappell stood-out by a significant margin from his peers.

Unless you reckon that Keith Stackpole, Kepler Wessels, Ian Chappell, Doug Walters, Ian Redpath, Kim Hughes, Allan Border etc constitute a mediocre line-up.

Certainly not as good as Hayden/Slater, Langer, the Waugh brothers, Martyn, Gilly etc. though

[kyear2]

Ponting is a better batsman that Border, period. Coming in after Chappell and Bradman he would be better suited to drive home any advantage gained or consolidate if required.

The man is a top 15 ATG batsman who played on just a little too long. Nothing to be penalised for, or the fact that he played with tremendous teammates, some ATG as well (Gilchrist and Hayden (somewhat)) and some very good ones.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Monk

Between you and me, Ponting isn't our second best

Interesting article from The Age today.

Meh, probably the most interesting thing about it for me is that even Knox himself acknowledges that the numbers don't prove anything. Final career averages in comparison with teammates who might span more than a generation, some of whom are still playing, can be misleading as can the relative quality of a player's teammates. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that if this same analysis was applied to Viv he wouldn't necessarily come out looking great either - which in itself would be a complete misrepresentation of his greatness.

On a geek level, his numbers for Greg Chappell are off - the table at the top gives an incorrect Test average (though the one he uses in the text is right), the WSC average he quotes is too low and surprisingly - given that he mentions WSC - he ignores GSC's stellar performances in the 71/72 RoW series (425 runs at 106.25 from 3 matches).

All of which just strengthen's Chappell's case as Australia's all time number 2.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Meh, probably the most interesting thing about it for me is that even Knox himself acknowledges that the numbers don't prove anything. Final career averages in comparison with teammates who might span more than a generation, some of whom are still playing, can be misleading as can the relative quality of a player's teammates. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that if this same analysis was applied to Viv he wouldn't necessarily come out looking great either - which in itself would be a complete misrepresentation of his greatness.

On a geek level, his numbers for Greg Chappell are off - the table at the top gives an incorrect Test average (though the one he uses in the text is right), the WSC average he quotes is too low and surprisingly - given that he mentions WSC - he ignores GSC's stellar performances in the 71/72 RoW series (425 runs at 106.25 from 3 matches).

All of which just strengthen's Chappell's case as Australia's all time number 2.

All fair points. I just thought it was a less **** way to use stats than some other ways.

[watson]

Here is a more indepth 'peer comparison' that involves all Test playing nations rather than just inter-Australia;

Comparing Test Batsman with their Peers

1. For each player, create a match subset of their career limits, in other words from their first to last Tests. For Tendulkar it is 1127(1989) to 1918(2009), a subset of 792 Tests, the longest span for any player.

2. Sum the three main data elements, Innings, Not Outs, and Runs Scored for all the players for these matches. The Batting Average is used for comparison since this is the most accepted of all measures.

3. Subtract the player's own career figures from the total for the match subset and post these figures as a database segment. Even though the players' own numbers are quite low compared to the match subsets (Tendulkar 12773 out of 749558 runs) and the impact of this subtraction is minimal, it is done to get an exact peer segment.

4. For batsmen, first the base table is created. This table compares the batsman's bating average with the composite average of all batsmen during his playing span. This covers all batsmen since separate comparisons are done for specialized batting positions such as Opening, Middle order and Late order.

I have not done a separation by period. This is a pure peer comparison, cutting across all divisions.


It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

The top 20 middle-order batsman (>4000 middle-order runs) in the study stack-up thus;

1.Bradman D.G
2.EdeC Weekes
3.Sobers G.St.A
4.Barrington K.F
5.Hammond W.R
6.Chappell G.S
7.Compton D.C.S
8.Ponting R.T
9.Javed Miandad
10.Tendulkar S.R
11.May P.B.H
12.Kallis J.H
13.Sangakkara K.C
14.Harvey R.N
15.Lara B.C
16.Dravid R
17.Mohammad Yousuf
18.Waugh S.R
19.Flower A
20.Border A.R

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Monk

All fair points. I just thought it was a less **** way to use stats than some other ways.

Yeah, fair enough mate - and the idea of comparing a player to his peers isn't generally a bad one. Phillip Derriman did it for his book The Top 100 and the First XI in the late 1980s to select a statistical All Time Australian XI based on players' performances relative to their contemporaries, though the methodology was more detailed than the one used here by Knox.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Yeah, fair enough mate - and the idea of comparing a player to his peers isn't generally a bad one. Phillip Derriman did it for his book The Top 100 and the First XI in the late 1980s to select a statistical All Time Australian XI based on players' performances relative to their contemporaries, though the methodology was more detailed than the one used here by Knox.

Yeah, my standardised averages are essentially a more involved application of that basic idea as well.

[Spikey]

and who is the 2nd best aus batsman now that Ponting's stats are done

[Days of Grace]

Originally Posted by watson

Here is a more indepth 'peer comparison' that involves all Test playing nations rather than just inter-Australia;



The top 20 middle-order batsman (>4000 middle-order runs) in the study stack-up thus;

1.Bradman D.G
2.EdeC Weekes
3.Sobers G.St.A
4.Barrington K.F
5.Hammond W.R
6.Chappell G.S
7.Compton D.C.S
8.Ponting R.T
9.Javed Miandad
10.Tendulkar S.R
11.May P.B.H
12.Kallis J.H
13.Sangakkara K.C
14.Harvey R.N
15.Lara B.C
16.Dravid R
17.Mohammad Yousuf
18.Waugh S.R
19.Flower A
20.Border A.R

Weekes at no.2 is misrepresentative. Sure, in the 1950s, scores were low around the world except for...in the West Indies, where Weekes made merry.