weldone
Hall of Fame Member
That can't be the lone criterion though...Say someone with batting average 20 and bowling average 40 may top that list since his batting and bowling skills are similar...
-
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.
all-round ability
- Thread starter weldone
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
If I was to chose all rounders on the basis of stats I would go about like this. I would short list the players on batting and bowling criteria.
Eligibility Criteria
Batting
Bowling
This will eliminate all those who were not 'main' bowlers or serious batsmen. It will also ensure that the possible match contributions like a once in a career five for or a once in a career century were not given weightage.
Then I would take away all those whose bowling averages were higher than their batting averages.
Then I would simply take the difference between the batting and bowling averages and rank them with those with the highest possible difference on top. I call this difference - All Rounder Index.
Here is the list of the 11 all rounders who pass all the criteria in the order of ranking
Not a bad result I think although nothing based on just stats can be perfect. This is pretty neat I think 
Eligibility Criteria
Batting
- At least 40 runs per test (for those who made their debut before 190 this figure would be 30 per test.
- At least 2 test centuries
Bowling
- At least 2 wickets per test
- At least 2 five wicket hauls
This will eliminate all those who were not 'main' bowlers or serious batsmen. It will also ensure that the possible match contributions like a once in a career five for or a once in a career century were not given weightage.
Then I would take away all those whose bowling averages were higher than their batting averages.
Then I would simply take the difference between the batting and bowling averages and rank them with those with the highest possible difference on top. I call this difference - All Rounder Index.
Here is the list of the 11 all rounders who pass all the criteria in the order of ranking
Code:
[B]PLAYER AR Index[/B]
Sobers 23.74
Imran 14.88
Faulkner 14.2
Miller 14
Greig 8.23
Gregory 5.82
Botham 5.15
Cairns 4.14
Rhodes 3.22
Kapil 1.4
Flintoff 0.49weldone
Hall of Fame Member
The main problem with taking the difference between batting and bowling averages is that it will always favor a batting al-rounder than a bowling al-rounder, simply because the range of batting average for good-to-excellent batsmen (ranging from say 35 to 60) is higher than the range of bowling average for good-to-excellent bowlers (ranging from say 20 to 35)....So a batting al-rounder with excellent batting average (of 60) and mediocre bowling average (of 35) is better off [with AR index 25] than a bowling al-rounder with an excellent bowling average (of 20) and mediocre batting average (say 35) [with AR index 15]...
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Inspite of that you see only one great batsman in that list (Garfield Sobers) all others are great bowlers who were good batsmen.
That was the whole point in including criteria like 2 wickets per test and minimum 2 five wicket hauls. , the list was otherwise going to be cluttered with The Hammonds, the Worrells, the Kallis, as and the Steve Waughs.
Sobers still remains since his bowling is very goood though his batting was phenomenal.
Its worth remembering however that Sobers AR Index is 9 points above the next in line. Thus even if Sobers had averaged under fifty, say 49.8, instead of 57.8 with the bat, he would have been on top of that list.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I wouldn't describe Tony Greig as a great bowler who could bat, I think his batting was his stronger suit. I still think it's better to put the calculators away and just list the top all rounders as:
Sobers
Miller
Imran
Botham
Dev
That way you get just as accurate a list and have more time to spend in the pub.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I totally concur. That other exercise was for those (and they are in a majority you know) who do not trust any argument unless there are hoards of stats involved.I wouldn't describe Tony Greig as a great bowler who could bat, I think his batting was his stronger suit. I still think it's better to put the calculators away and just list the top all rounders as:
Sobers
Miller
Imran
Botham
Dev
That way you get just as accurate a list and have more time to spend in the pub.
PS : Read my signature
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
But it also keeps the likes of Greig ahead of the likes of Botham, Faulkner ahead of Miller etc...I have no problems with your elligibility criteria...It's because of the elligility criteria that you get only one great batsman in that list, not because of the way you calculated AR index....I believe keeping the same elligibility criteria, if you calculate the AR index as follows you'll get a better list...
AR index = { 0.5 * (batting avg. - 30) } + (35 - bowling average)
You'll get these same cricketers, but in a better order in all probability.
Special Note: We need to calculate; without calculation one would never be able to know scores in a test match, one would never know what average Bradman or Sobers had...there would have been no records in the game called cricket...and first of all there would've been no runs or wickets at all... (probably my signature hereafter, though I have something better in mind)
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Even more Special Note: Stats need to compiled and recorded for historical purposes, they don't need to be pointlessly analysed and dissected into oblivion.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
If stats are properly analyzed they are bound to reflect the truth...I'm not saying that I always analyze stats properly...But if any analysis of stats doesn't reflect the truth then that analysis isn't proper and there's scope of improving it...
If any analysis of stats till today hasn't driven home the truth with at least 99% accuracy, it means we are yet to discover such analysis; not that it's impossible...
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Of course it's impossible. They're not bound to reflect anything, least of all the "truth". . No two games of cricket are the same in terms of conditions, state of play, strength of the teams and many other circumstances which the Statsgurus can't take into account and you also cannot make judgements of different era's. No one has the slightest idea how Jack Hobbs compares to Sachin Tendulkar and there isn't an algorithm now or at any time in the future that's capable of calculating it.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Conditions, state of play, strength of the teams they all can be taken care of in stats if one devotes enough time in it and has enough intelligence to do that...
Well, when a comparison between players of different era comes, it's always better to compare them on the basis of proper statistical analysis (something like judging on the basis of how good they were compared to their contemporaries) than passing on a judgment after reading one or two books on those previous year greats...of course provided that the statistical analysis is 'proper'...
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
So, other than analysing them and forming opinion about them, what other historical purposes do they serve for example?
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Don't be stupid.
Well, let's see.....umm.........you sort of read them.....then you know what happened. Clever eh?
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Intelligent enough...
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
And then? You make judgments...Don't you?...The problem is that everyone makes judgments based on statistics (previous records that is); some do it after proper analysis, some do before that...Even when someone makes judgments about some player being good on certain conditions against certain opposition, he does so based on statistics (previous records that is)...We all depend on statistics...Some rely on their instincts for analysis...Some prefer proper and judicious methods for analysis (to make the conclusions ideally free of bias)...Well, let's see.....umm.........you sort of read them.....then you know what happened. Clever eh?
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Stats are hard numerical facts and you cannot factually put in playing conditions etc without making up your own debatable reasoning.
If by judgement you mean feeding them into a spreadsheet that proves nothing whatsoever, then no.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
You can...If you have enough data about how other players of certain calibre did against that opposition on the same pitch ...and if you have enough grey cells and in-depth knowledge about statistics to know how to process these data...
If you feel stats are hard numerical facts, then I'm afraid you don't know much about the subject called statistics...It involves much except hard facts...It involves probability, confidence interval and what not...
Last edited:
Stats are fun, but they also carry meaning. I've always said that there is no single criteria for judging how good a player is, but an accumulation of many relevant points that will decide the better player.
So, if by any statistical measure, the same All-Rounders keep popping up at the top, it surely must say something. Going by memory, the names Sobers, Imran, Botham, Miller and Faulkner feature at the top most often in different statistical analyses.
Having said that, the intangibles also do count as ' points ' that could be used to assess a players performance, the only question being the weighting given to all.
So, if by any statistical measure, the same All-Rounders keep popping up at the top, it surely must say something. Going by memory, the names Sobers, Imran, Botham, Miller and Faulkner feature at the top most often in different statistical analyses.
Having said that, the intangibles also do count as ' points ' that could be used to assess a players performance, the only question being the weighting given to all.