Page 5 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 789
Like Tree179Likes

Thread: cricrate: new cricket ratings website

  1. #61
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    51,685
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    Good point, but that effect should be relatively minor. The Bangladesh bowlers (aside from Shakib) would be rated pretty low to start with that 1-2 tests of good performances (against inferior opposition, so those performances would be discounted as well) won't make much of a difference going into a third test. Interesting to think about though.
    I tended to find this had a much bigger affect across the board than you'd guess. It works the other way too -- my system kept under-rating McGrath's and Warne's opposition (and then by extension, the quality of McGrath's and Warne's performances) because Australia kept hammering whoever they played and nerfing their team stats for that period. It's hard to find a balance; on one hand you don't want to cast too wide a time net over the performance of a team or you'll be evaluating a different side altogether with mass change in personnel, but on the other hand you don't want to cast too narrow a net or you get the effect I just spoke about. It's why BowlerA+BowlerB+BowlerC+BowlerD is so much more accurate a measure of the standard of an opposition attack when determining how good a batting innings was than BowlingAttackX, when done properly. It's difficult to do that properly though because some bowlers play so few matches in their careers.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

    1. Stokes is pretty good
    2. Jono is a ****
    3. Taxation is theft

  2. #62
    Global Moderator Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    17,572
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    It's a bit weird about AbdV. Great batsman, great to watch, but not as memorable as many other greats, or even Amla for that matter.
    I went through a period of thinking this, but I think really it's just as a result of South Africa not really having any major rivals and not playing long series. I mean, I thought his efforts at Centurion last year, when pretty much every English and South African batsman had looked like Johnson would get them out every over and he batted serenely until getting out with the tail both innings, was pretty memorable. His biggest issue IMO is that he really struggled in the crux of a few big series, such as the India one in 10/11 and the tours to England and Australia in 2012, which created the downhill skier tag, but he's had enough solo knocks to have destroyed that by now. People remember those series much more than a one off series in Sri Lanka, the UAE, NZ or whatever, and the same goes for the at times average sides they've played at home in recent years.

    He just doesn't get the same amount of opportunities as many others. He debuted over 10 years ago and has played every SA test since. Yet he's only played two more tests in England and Australia than Virat Kohli, who started three and a half years ago for example. Michael Clarke debuted around the same time and has played 30 tests against England and 22 v India, compared to 16 and 13 respectively for AB, etc. So of course he's likely to have more iconic moments we remember.
    Last edited by Cabinet96; 03-01-2015 at 01:28 PM.
    RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014

    The Wheel of Mediocrity | Compton, Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen, Hales | The wheel is forever

    Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.

  3. #63
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    43,509
    Personally I never really got on board with the downhill skier tag per se but I definitely thought his stats flattered him in 2011-2012, especially because I was noticing he was coming in at 3/lots and absolutely murdering attacks and ending up 70* off 50 or something. So it wasn't so much a case that he wasn't necessarily any better or worse under pressure than comparable batsmen, just that he was putting up incredible-looking numbers without really putting up the sorts of innings and distinct performances that Amla, Smith, Kallis etc were putting up. The last series down in Aus epitomised this - he did not a whole lot right until the very end where he carted around an attack that was frankly already consigned to an absolute flogging, and as a result of that innings his series figures looked fine whereas up til then they looked fairly ****. Ironically, the 30 he scored in Adelaide was a far, far more significant innings in terms of winning the team the series.

    He's rectified all this to some extent in 2013-4, particularly with the way he batted against us and his innings in the Steyn-bopping-Shami-for-six chase (and to be honest I always thought he would once he got the opportunities), but I definitely felt that he was a rung below Clarke, Amla, Sanga etc etc for that reason, because they were playing seriously memorable, series-defining innings. The Amla comparison is particularly telling because to an extent it nullifies the "he doesn't play enough" point - Amla has played just as many Tests in that same period and pulled off some ****ing amazing knocks and series-winning/defining performances along the way (vs us in 2011, vs England the next year in particular). And I know this is getting off-track, but this is why I was so surprised that so many people would take ABdV over Amla in that other thread; it's very clearly the other way around for me.

    TL;DR be careful when you rate batsmen based on raw stats, because samplesizelol and quality > quantity.
    Last edited by Spark; 03-01-2015 at 01:46 PM.
    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*

  4. #64
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Normal service resumed
    Posts
    16,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    What's the point when we already have DoG's ranking.
    I'm all for as many people as possible doing their own rankings on the infinite number of monkeys with keyboards principle that eventually someone will come up with a list I approve of


  5. #65
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I tended to find this had a much bigger affect across the board than you'd guess. It works the other way too -- my system kept under-rating McGrath's and Warne's opposition (and then by extension, the quality of McGrath's and Warne's performances) because Australia kept hammering whoever they played and nerfing their team stats for that period. It's hard to find a balance; on one hand you don't want to cast too wide a time net over the performance of a team or you'll be evaluating a different side altogether with mass change in personnel, but on the other hand you don't want to cast too narrow a net or you get the effect I just spoke about. It's why BowlerA+BowlerB+BowlerC+BowlerD is so much more accurate a measure of the standard of an opposition attack when determining how good a batting innings was than BowlingAttackX, when done properly. It's difficult to do that properly though because some bowlers play so few matches in their careers.
    I'm not sure you follow.. every player's current ratings involves his whole career, not just a limited recent time period (which would make the issue you point out much more significant). In my setup for McGrath/Warne's case, their 5th Ashes test opposition stats might have dropped because of a 5-0 whitewash, but not as significantly as you might think since Graham Thorpe's current rating would stay decent since his overall career is still decent. If Thorpe was in the top 10 at the start of the series he might've dropped to the top 20 at the end after a poor series say.

    On evaluating bowling attacks, mine is based on each bowler's current rating weighted to how much the bowler actually bowled in the innings. The best attacks would have 3-4 very good bowlers.
    Last edited by viriya; 03-01-2015 at 01:54 PM.
    cricrate - follow twitter and facebook for updates

  6. #66
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I tended to find this had a much bigger affect across the board than you'd guess. It works the other way too -- my system kept under-rating McGrath's and Warne's opposition (and then by extension, the quality of McGrath's and Warne's performances) because Australia kept hammering whoever they played and nerfing their team stats for that period. It's hard to find a balance; on one hand you don't want to cast too wide a time net over the performance of a team or you'll be evaluating a different side altogether with mass change in personnel, but on the other hand you don't want to cast too narrow a net or you get the effect I just spoke about. It's why BowlerA+BowlerB+BowlerC+BowlerD is so much more accurate a measure of the standard of an opposition attack when determining how good a batting innings was than BowlingAttackX, when done properly. It's difficult to do that properly though because some bowlers play so few matches in their careers.
    Maybe that somewhat offsets the team support part? (e.g. McGrath and Warne were helped due to having excellent catchers & ground-fielders, and excellent support bowlers who could keep the pressure on)
    "Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
    - C.L.R. James

  7. #67
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    Maybe that somewhat offsets the team support part? (e.g. McGrath and Warne were helped due to having excellent catchers & ground-fielders, and excellent support bowlers who could keep the pressure on)
    Another factor I've been thinking of implementing is "scoreboard pressure".. it really has an impact when a batting team has to bat after chasing leather for 2 days.

  8. #68
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    51,685
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    I'm not sure you follow.. every player's current ratings involves his whole career, not just a limited recent time period (which would make the issue you point out much more significant). In my setup for McGrath/Warne's case, their 5th Ashes test opposition stats might have dropped because of a 5-0 whitewash, but not as significantly as you might think since Graham Thorpe's current rating would stay decent since his overall career is still decent. If Thorpe was in the top 10 at the start of the series he might've dropped to the top 20 at the end after a poor series say.

    On evaluating bowling attacks, mine is based on each bowler's current rating weighted to how much the bowler actually bowled in the innings. The best attacks would have 3-4 very good bowlers.
    Yeah, the effect should be negligible if you do it like that. That's good.

    What I was saying is that.. lets say McGrath played a series against England in England in 2001 and Australia hammered them. If you determine the quality of his opposition by looking at how England did overall in 2000-2002 period with more emphasis put on their home games, then fact that McGrath had a good team around him would count against him as those overall England stats would be disproportionately affected by Australia's dominance. If Australia consistently dominated batting lineups then this would affect his end rating quite a bit, as the system would consistently think the teams he was playing against were worse than they were, simply because their stats in periods he played them would disproportionately include matches against McGrath's team.

    The way you've done it should make that effect negligible though, and that's good.

    As an aside my system ranks Masakadza at #117 based on "current form" / "current ability" / whatever you want to call current rankings. It takes domestic cricket, tour games, A-team games etc into account for that too though which probably puts him more in his rightful place. There are a bunch of players ahead of him who haven't played Tests at all.

  9. #69
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    What I was saying is that.. lets say McGrath played a series against England in England in 2001 and Australia hammered them. If you determine the quality of his opposition by looking at how England did overall in 2000-2002 period with more emphasis put on their home games....
    should do 1999-2003 anyways imo

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    As an aside my system ranks Masakadza at #117 based on "current form" / "current ability" / whatever you want to call current rankings. It takes domestic cricket, tour games, A-team games etc into account for that too though which probably puts him more in his rightful place. There are a bunch of players ahead of him who haven't played Tests at all.
    Just out of interest - where are Rohit Sharma, Badrinath and Manoj Tiwary now?

  10. #70
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    51,685
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    should do 1999-2003 anyways imo
    Yes indeed. That's why I said that if you do it like that you have to find a balance. Make it cover too wide a period and you risk including irrelevant games after mass personnel changes; make it cover too narrow a period and you give too much weighting to the series in question which cannibalises the process. Viriya has rated the standard of the opposition on a player-by-player basis though which, aside from being harder, I do think is probably better on balance (it certainly makes the issue we're discussing negligible). It does have its own issues when it comes to opposition players who had really short careers though, and I suppose with good players at the start of their careers too.

    Just out of interest - where are Rohit Sharma, Badrinath and Manoj Tiwary now?
    I don't want to reveal too much because the secrecy of the actual ratings is vital for a few things outside of CW, but they're all close together in the 55-65 range; Rohit is still marginally rated the best of the lot.
    weldone likes this.

  11. #71
    Global Moderator Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    17,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I don't want to reveal too much because the secrecy of the actual ratings is vital for a few things outside of CW, but they're all close together in the 55-65 range; Rohit is still marginally rated the best of the lot.
    This is fine as long as it's not only for a hypothetical CPL.
    morgieb and cpr like this.

  12. #72
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    ...they're all close together in the 55-65 range; Rohit is still marginally rated the best of the lot.
    It sounds right.
    Last edited by weldone; 03-01-2015 at 04:56 PM.

  13. #73
    The Tiger King smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    28,026
    Shakib Al Hasan greater than Imran Khan and Keith Miller.

    I think you might be slightly over rating Shakib with your criteria
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  14. #74
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    Shakib Al Hasan greater than Imran Khan and Keith Miller.

    I think you might be slightly over rating Shakib with your criteria
    The case of Imran being rated relatively low was gone through earlier in this thread. It's a function of all-round match ratings being a multiplication of batting and bowling performances in the match, and Imran being more bowling focused early in his career and more batting focused later on. Yes, he had a few series where he dominated with both, but for most of his career he did very well only in one discipline. That said, the career ratings gives a bonus for his great batting and bowling averages.

    While Shakib might be slightly overrated, I do think he deserves to be in the top 10. After just 37 tests he has already made 100 runs + 5 wkts in a match (cumulative in both innings) 5 times. The most it's ever been done is 7 times by Sobers and Botham which he is almost certainly going go past easily.

  15. #75
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    While Shakib might be slightly overrated, I do think he deserves to be in the top 10. After just 37 tests he has already made 100 runs + 5 wkts in a match (cumulative in both innings) 5 times. The most it's ever been done is 7 times by Sobers and Botham which he is almost certainly going go past easily.
    The sitting ducks and cannon fodders of Zimbabwe will agree.

Page 5 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. My One-Day International Cricket Ratings to the end of 2007
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 07:19 AM
  2. My Test Cricket Ratings to the end of 2007
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 24-03-2008, 10:22 PM
  3. Jamee's County Cricket Ratings 2004
    By Jamee999 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 25-04-2005, 08:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •