• 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.

New feature: Career Impact - the next 500

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Interesting stuff again Dave - as an aside who, so far, has had the most impact of the one Test wonders?
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Great stuff - I will have to spend some time wallowing in these numbers, will post thoughts later
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Interesting stuff again Dave - as an aside who, so far, has had the most impact of the one Test wonders?
Hi Martin, as I type this I'm sitting in a hotel room in a wet Montgomery, Alabama watching cricket on ESPN. If you'd told me 15 years ago I'd be typing that at some stage, I'd have given you the breathalyser.

The three highest probably won't come as a surprise - Redmond had the most impact of all at 38.1%, followed by Marriott (27.2%) and Ganteaume (27.1%). Marriott's is lower than might be expected as England were in a strong position by the time he took a lot of his wickets, therefore the impact is not as high.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Very engaging figures. Makes one think about so many facets of the players in question. Kanhai, for example, keeps coming up trumps wrt to the other windies bats in such comparisons, which is pleasing since he was so pleasing to the eye.

Expected stuff from Lillee, Imran and Hadlee. Gavaskar was pretty much expected as well. Didn't think Boycott would get that high, but I suppose he came through on multiple occasions when everybody else was yawning.

Simpson's fielding was always spoken of highly, and here it comes into play. I was wondering if you could let us know which players had the highest contribution through their fielding? Thanks for this. Looking forward to the 90s.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Very engaging figures. Makes one think about so many facets of the players in question. Kanhai, for example, keeps coming up trumps wrt to the other windies bats in such comparisons, which is pleasing since he was so pleasing to the eye.

Expected stuff from Lillee, Imran and Hadlee. Gavaskar was pretty much expected as well. Didn't think Boycott would get that high, but I suppose he came through on multiple occasions when everybody else was yawning.

Simpson's fielding was always spoken of highly, and here it comes into play. I was wondering if you could let us know which players had the highest contribution through their fielding? Thanks for this. Looking forward to the 90s.
Of course.

For wicket-keepers, the leaders in total career impact for fielding so far are:-

704% Marsh
538% Knott
447% Evans
430% Bari
408% D Murray

Marsh quite a bit ahead, but as he and Knott were very close overall this highlights Knott's superior batting. For non-WKs:-

249% Simpson
230% Richards
226% Botham
219% Gavaskar
215% G Chappell

On a per-Tests basis, WKs:-

7.41% Marsh
6.72% Grout
6.63% Langley
6.58% D Murray
6.52% Lindsay

As regards fielders, it's a bit more difficult to pinpoint them currently, but as might be expected Solkar is top with 4.79%, followed by Simpson on 4.01%. Jackie Hampshire is actually on 4.72%, but played only eight Tests and I applied a cut-off at 10 Tests.

In terms of percentage of total impact just for fielding, for WKs:-

88.4% Langley
87.4% Duckworth
85.7% Tallon
84.3% Strudwick
74.6% Strudwick
72.5% D Murray

For fielders, Phil Sharpe is top with 76.9%.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Haven't seen percentages expressed as more than 100 before. Therefore, do I assume that the career impact for Simpson is greater than the average for all cricketers by a factor of 2.49?

Must admit that its nice to see Simpson and Kanhai doing relatively well in your study CTD.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Haven't seen percentages expressed as more than 100 before. Therefore, do I assume that the career impact for Simpson is greater than the average for all cricketers by a factor of 2.49?

Must admit that its nice to see Simpson and Kanhai doing relatively well in your study CTD.
Actually it's more like a delta percentage - every time the percentage win probability changes, players get credit (or debit) for their part in it. So the career figures are an aggregate of all of the win probability deltas the player was involved with,positive and negative, in whichever discipline over his Test career. So Simpson achieved in total 249% in aggregate percentage increases in win probabilit as a result of his fielding aloney, at an average of just over 4% per Test.
 

watson

Banned
Actually it's more like a delta percentage - every time the percentage win probability changes, players get credit (or debit) for their part in it. So the career figures are an aggregate of all of the win probability deltas the player was involved with,positive and negative, in whichever discipline over his Test career. So Simpson achieved in total 249% in aggregate percentage increases in win probabilit as a result of his fielding aloney, at an average of just over 4% per Test.
So the 'aggregate percentage' would probably favour the players who played a lot of matches then? Assuming that they didn't accumulate too many negatives, but stayed either neutral or positive most of the time.

That is, someone like Archie Jackson could never have a substantial 'total career impact'. For him the 'per Test Basis' would hold more value.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
So the 'aggregate percentage' would probably favour the players who played a lot of matches then? Assuming that they didn't accumulate too many negatives, but stayed either neutral or positive most of the time.

That is, someone like Archie Jackson could never have a substantial 'total career impact'. For him the 'per Test Basis' would hold more value.
Correct, as with any aggregate figure those who play more games have an advantage, though as you say the per-Test average offsets that. The beauty of this measure is that we're not looking at runs or wickets or dismissals, this measure has the same base units, i.e. percentage change in win probability, so we can get an all-round figure for all players inclusive of every discipline.
 

Top