You have Chris Cairns listed as a better all rounder than Imran. Imran played more tests, and has a significantly better batting average and significantly better bowling average. It just doesn't make sense.
This rating system is bottom-up, so the overall averages do not figure in the rating system - it takes into account each match on its own.
The reason why Shakib and Cairns are figured higher is basically for the opposite reason - for most of their careers they were genuine all-rounders.
This method of multiplying batting and bowling ratings for a match works very well in general - since all the top all-rounders (except for Imran) figure at the top. That Imran is penalized was not planned but I think the reasoning is not entirely unfair.
This is not to say that I think Imran is an inferior all-rounder - just that his career was not full of all-round performances but separate bowling and batting brilliant periods. I am aware though that there was a period where he was dominant with both, but that did not nullify the effect of his career being disjointed.
This is still a good argument to add a factor like batting average/bowling average in addition to the average all-round performance though - so a player like Imran (who was obviously a great all-rounder), is not penalized excessively for starring in one discipline a match frequently.
Last edited by viriya; 27-04-2014 at 01:43 PM.
Mike Procter the 89th greatest all-rounder?
Darren Sammy above Trevor Bailey?
I can see where LT is coming from tbh
Sammy vs Trevor is not obvious to me either. Just from a quick overview I think Trevor's career is affected by batting during a weak bowling period (check Hobbs/Hutton discussion above), and also his great bowling performances not coinciding with adequate batting performances (and hence not all-round performances - similar to the reason Imran isn't rated higher).
More in-depth on Bailey's career:
cricrate | Trevor Bailey
In his three best bowling performances according to the rankings:
7/34 vs WI
7/44 vs WI
5/20 vs SA
he didn't really feature with the bat - his highest score of those 3 matches was 23. So all three of these matches are not considered great all-round performances even though they were great bowling performances.
Similarly, in his 3 best batting performances:
138* vs NZ
88 vs AUS
82 vs WI
his best bowling figures were 3/140. So looks like he went through the "Imran effect" as well.
You can check the match scorecards from the innings lists.
I think the combined performance in particular matches is an interesting stat, but not a very comprehensive one.
I'd be very interested in who's combined runs and wickets most successfully over a series or over a 12 month period.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)