Leaving out the minnows...

[Top_Cat]

Ah, one thing I think that needs pointing out here is that someone not playing many matches against a team doesn't mean it's unable to analysed due to 'small sample size'. Just means if you take a representative sample, it'll impact on the size of the strata.

TBH, if you were to actually compare players, something like stratified random sampling would be needed anyway and how many times someone's played against a team generally wouldn't be too much of an obstacle.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think you misunderstand me. Inflating Harby's stats vs. Bangladesh will have a negligible impact on his overall record as he's only played a couple of games (out of nearly 100) versus Bangladesh, and so once you add the inflated Bangladesh stats to the rest of his record, it would be pretty much the same as it was before the adjustment.

 

[Prince EWS]

What? No. Say, the average per wicket vs. all other teams is 50 and the average per wicket vs. Bangladesh is 40 (percentage difference of 20%) then I would inflate the cost of all players wickets against them by 20%. Vettori's would go up from 24-ish to 29-ish and Harbhajan's would go up from 40-ish to 48-ish (original average * 1.20)

This adjusted figure would be then included in their overall stats to give a Vettori overall average of, perhaps 35 rather than the 37 you get if you totally exclude Bangladesh's results; whilst Harbhajan's would hardly be impacted due to the small sample size.

What I really don't understand is why its great to take cheap wickets off Vettori to make him look worse whilst also taking away poor performances by Harby to make him look better.

Using an actual real-life example of this, standardising Vettori's and Harbhajan's averages across time and the standard of their opposition:

Vettori - 31.78
Harbhajan - 28.91

The only thing it doesn't attempt to take account of is pitch conditions.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't take everything I say at face value, it's part of a wider point. Essentially, I'm asking, why should a player's failure against Bangladesh count against him? His failure doesn't affect his team's welfare even slightly.

Because player's averages are an indication of how they've performed over a period of time. Not how their team has performed.

 

[Richard]

But, like it or not,Bangladesh play 'test' cricket.

I don't like it, and I don't see why I have to sit like some dumb kid and say "yes ICC if you say so". No, I in fact know better than whichever pratt at ICC decides Bangladesh are worthy of Test status; I can think for myself.

Removing all stats against them benefit those players who've failed to perform against them.

Same way looking only at Test cricket and completely ignoring the domestic game benefits those who've not done that well at domestic level and have done better at Test level. Such players are exceptionally rare due to the fact that making a step-up in class will almost never result in improved output, but by-and-large far from being criticised such players generally get praised at the current time, which is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.

AFAIC, performance against Bangladesh has no place when considering performance in Test cricket. I'd say if you think otherwise you've got one weird definition of what should constitute Test cricket.

 

[Furball]

Just because the weighting given to the runs would have to be so small that it would barely be any different to the figure excluding Bangladesh. How much would you say runs against Bangladesh are worth to the team compared to runs against someone else?

Gilchrist's (IIRC) century against Bangladesh in the 1st Test in 2006 shouldn't be removed. Dug Australia out of a massive hole with that one.

 

[Richard]

Shouldn't Robin Smith's century for Hampshire against Australia in 2001 be counted as Test then? And Alan Mullally's eleven-for or whatever it was (I forget). Played a massive part in not allowing the Australians to be dug out of a hole.

 

[Migara]

Using an actual real-life example of this, standardising Vettori's and Harbhajan's averages across time and the standard of their opposition:

Vettori - 31.78
Harbhajan - 28.91

The only thing it doesn't attempt to take account of is pitch conditions.

You can always consider away stats only. Then pitch conditions will be quite similar

 

[Son Of Coco]

Gilchrist's (IIRC) century against Bangladesh in the 1st Test in 2006 shouldn't be removed. Dug Australia out of a massive hole with that one.

This is one of the reasons why I think removing their games causes more problems than leaving them in.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Shouldn't Robin Smith's century for Hampshire against Australia in 2001 be counted as Test then? And Alan Mullally's eleven-for or whatever it was (I forget). Played a massive part in not allowing the Australians to be dug out of a hole.

Um, no.

 

[marc71178]

Geez, why do people still argue with him.

He's wrong, but we all know he'll never admit it because he's so arrogant it beggars belief.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Geez, why do people still argue with him.

He's wrong, but we all know he'll never admit it because he's so arrogant it beggars belief.

I had to quote the suggestion of Hampshire v Australia being given retrospective Test status just to prove I wasn't seeing things.

 

[Richard]

If Bangladesh had not been given Test status most people would have to quote the suggestion of Bangladesh v Australia being given retrospective Test status just to prove they weren't seeing things. BTW in the relatively unlikely event that anyone actually thought I genuinely believed Hants vs Australia should be a Test, they should realise that I don't. The point is merely that the value of a player's individual performance being remotely relevant to whether a match deserves Test status or not is a nonsensical idea. Smith and Mullally's performances were both of great note, as was Gilchrist's, but neither match remotely merits Test status.

 

[Richard]

Geez, why do people still argue with him.

More to the point, why do people continue to comment on those whose ignore-lists they're on?

He's wrong, but we all know he'll never admit it because he's so arrogant it beggars belief.

Actually most people tend to agree - and there's several examples in this very thread. On the other hand some people continue to claim that Bangladesh are improving, even when they are not, and that this imaginary improvement somehow means they've never been substandard ITFP.

 

[aussie]

Gilchrist's (IIRC) century against Bangladesh in the 1st Test in 2006 shouldn't be removed. Dug Australia out of a massive hole with that one.

Indeed Gilly's hundred should not be removed, since it was definately one of his best test innings. But thats just the odd statistical oddity since that was one of few test this decade when BANG have actually done well.

Generally performances againts BANG & ZIM have to excluded whne judging players (NZ before 1961/62, SA before the mid 1950s, WI before the 1950, IND & PAK before the late 1950s/early 60s) since they aren't/weren't test quality nations - although they granted test status by the ICC/MCC.

 

[morgieb]

Indeed Gilly's hundred should not be removed, since it was definately one of his best test innings. But thats just the odd statistical oddity since that was one of few test this decade when BANG have actually done well.

Generally performances againts BANG & ZIM have to excluded whne judging players (NZ before 1961/62, SA before the mid 1950s, WI before the 1950, IND & PAK before the late 1950s/early 60s) since they aren't/weren't test quality nations - although they granted test status by the ICC/MCC.

lol, South Africa were test quality before the mid 1950's, and you could argue that Pakistan were always test standard. Even WI were possibly test standard before 1950.

 

[aussie]

lol, South Africa were test quality before the mid 1950's,.

Generally no. They had a short period post WW1 when they had Herbie Taylor, Aubrey Faulkner, Bert Vogler & Reggie Swartz in the side. But when those guys left (mid 1920s i think) SA where minnows until WW2 arrived.

After WW2 they didn't become definate test quality again until the mid 1950s when they had Adock/Heinze/Tayfield/Goddard in their bowling attack (although did manage to draw 2-2 in AUS 52/53). Since then they have always been test quality.

and you could argue that Pakistan were always test standard.

They where decent in the 50s & 60s. When Fazal Mahmood retired, they lacked a proper fast bowler until the 70s & the batting where here & there. But i'd say they didn't really become really 100% test standard until the 70s TBF.

Even WI were possibly test standard before 1950.

Yea from the 1950 tour to ENG they have been test quality.

 

[Richard]

There is absolutely no way that a West Indies side containing Headley, Martindale, Constantine and Griffith was not Test-standard.

 

[fredfertang]

Generally no. They had a short period post WW1 when they had Herbie Taylor, Aubrey Faulkner, Bert Vogler & Reggie Swartz in the side. But when those guys left (mid 1920s i think) SA where minnows until WW2 arrived.

Except they won a series in England in 1935

 

[aussie]

There is absolutely no way that a West Indies side containing Headley, Martindale, Constantine and Griffith was not Test-standard.

Have never agreed with that personally. Headley was the great batsman of course, but i've always reckon Martindale, Constantine, Griffith are a bit overated nostalgically.