cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[Daemon]

Hmm, you could argue that defending a low total suggests conditions were not easy to bat in, which devalues his 6/8 a little.

 

[viriya]

Hmm, you could argue that defending a low total suggests conditions were not easy to bat in, which devalues his 6/8 a little.

Yes, but the main reason it's rated so high is his incredible SR and Econ to go with the 6 wickets.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hmm, you could argue that defending a low total suggests conditions were not easy to bat in, which devalues his 6/8 a little.

Was one of the greenest greentops ever in odi history.

 

[viriya]

Was one of the greenest greentops ever in odi history.

Agreed, but Mohit Sharma who got 2 less wickets bowled almost twice as many overs for 6 times the runs given away. Umesh bowled 5 overs for 32 for no wickets.

You still have to bowl well. Binny did enough to be considered one of the GOAT performances. I really don't have a specific performance that I think is the best - I'm sure you can come up with different ones.

 

[cnerd123]

He didn't really bowl that well though. 2 were bad flicks to balls on legstump, one was poking at a wide one, one dragged a wide one into his stumps, and one was the number 11 missing a straight ball. Mortaza was the only one who received an actual good ball.

I mean sure he bowled decently in between those wickets, but no way on earth is this one of the GOAT ODI performances. It was atrocious batting. A complete brainfade from the BD batsmen.

The reason Binny took all those wickets and not Yadav/Mohit is because he managed to get the ball to swing a bit here while those two didn't, and BD basically **** themselves under the pressure of expectation and the sight of a moving ball.

It was a good spell, but I'd argue McGrath bowled better in his 7 fer vs. Namibia. Heck he probably bowled better spells than this even on his bad days.

And I honestly understand if the algorithm throws this up as one of the GOAT bowling performances, but I'd prefer it if you would just accept such results as a quirk of the system, rather than attempting to actually defend its place on that list.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Pffft. Ability hater.

 

[Dan]

Stuart Binny > you.

 

[viriya]

And I honestly understand if the algorithm throws this up as one of the GOAT bowling performances, but I'd prefer it if you would just accept such results as a quirk of the system, rather than attempting to actually defend its place on that list.

You are misunderstanding what I'm trying to measure again. How in the world can a stats based system know if he actually showed great skill or not? Just think about what you're saying for a second.

I'm measuring results not ability. If you don't want to subscribe to a numbers based ratings system then why even get into the discussion here? How good the performance looked is completely irrelevant.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Every statistical system in the world is going to rate that performance highly. Purely by stats it was a great performance so there's no point arguing here.

Also you hate Binny because you hate abilities and because he bangs Mayanti, stfu *****.

 

[cnerd123]

He took 6 wickets in 28 balls giving away 4 runs, in the process defending a total of 105. That performance is downplayed in everyone's eyes because of the opposition being Bangladesh, and while that lowers its rating by quite a bit, everything else is in Binny's favor. To be clear, I'm not saying that it was undoubtedly the greatest ODI performance, just that it was great enough to be up there - you could argue for a different one I'm sure.

Agreed, but Mohit Sharma who got 2 less wickets bowled almost twice as many overs for 6 times the runs given away. Umesh bowled 5 overs for 32 for no wickets.

You still have to bowl well. Binny did enough to be considered one of the GOAT performances. I really don't have a specific performance that I think is the best - I'm sure you can come up with different ones.

Doesn't sound like you are discussing it in a purely statistical view TBH.

But if that going to be your disclaimer, then fair enough.

 

[viriya]

Doesn't sound like you are discussing it in a purely statistical view TBH.

But if that going to be your disclaimer, then fair enough.

Both my quotes are bringing up the actual numbers - where have I talked about actual bowling ability?

 

[viriya]

Marlon Samuels breaks into the ODI Batting top 10:
cricrate | Current Top ODI Batsmen

Jerome Taylor joins the ODI Bowling top 10:
cricrate | Current Top ODI Bowlers

Chris Gayle has ATG ODI Batting performance (#12):
cricrate | Best ODI Batting Performances

 

[marc71178]

I was just about to comment on how farcical a ranking system that has Marlon Samuels at number 10 was.

Then I saw who was at number 11...

 

[ankitj]

Michael Bevan rated at #13 in ODI batting careers. Ikki to freak out after seeing the rating.

cricrate | Best ODI Batting Careers

 

[Dan]

Michael Bevan rated at #13 in ODI batting careers. Ikki to freak out after seeing the rating.

cricrate | Best ODI Batting Careers

I would have thought he'd be above Kallis and de Silva, but I think there is *some* argument for most of the top 12 being ahead of him. I mean, it's not wholly ridiculous to suggest Kohli/Dhoni/Lara are better -- it's not like the rankings have Sikandar Raza at #9 or anything.

 

[cnerd123]

Gotta dig Afridi above Dravid tho.

 

[viriya]

Gotta dig Afridi above Dravid tho.

While Afridi makes a lot less runs, when he does he usually is more impactful than Dravid, he also has had a longer career. Even then 949 vs 914 is not that big a difference.

 

[cnerd123]

I think you need a way to filter/sort batting and bowling ratings by their team roles.

 

[viriya]

I think you need a way to filter/sort batting and bowling ratings by their team roles.

No clear way to do that automatically.. especially since most players go through different roles during their careers. I've done that for the fielding ratings though (keepers vs fielders).

 

[ankitj]

I would have thought he'd be above Kallis and de Silva, but I think there is *some* argument for most of the top 12 being ahead of him. I mean, it's not wholly ridiculous to suggest Kohli/Dhoni/Lara are better -- it's not like the rankings have Sikandar Raza at #9 or anything.

I don't mind the rankings. Every ranking system tells us something about the cricketers and their careers.

Viriya - since you know the workings of the rating system, could you help us understand Bevan's lower ranking relative to where most fans would put him. Thanks.