all-round ability

[SJS]

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.

Oh yes they are and they give you 'some' idea of a players caliber particularly against his peers. But thats about it.

Any of us who has played enough cricket against quality opposition will know that the best of his performances are not all those which appear the best in statistical terms. So to that extent there is always the risk attached when looking purely at stats to compare players, particularly of different eras, I hasten to add.

This is all we need to keep in mind when raving and ranting about any sets of stats. They have just 'so much' utility. If you want more, you have to rely on the accounts of those who played against, with or at least watched these greats.

Rest is all for the pubs and over a pint or two of beer as has been suggested so wisely.

 

[weldone]

There is much more to stats than meets the eye...Having known the subject thoroughly I can tell you that it's very scientific...The only thing we need for a proper statistical analysis is a large enough sample size...Then it's possible to make a judgment with a certain degree of precision (known as confidence interval)...Say if the confidence interval is 99% that means if 100 times the fact is tested by experiment, 99 times it'll come as true...

 

[weldone]

Any of us who has played enough cricket against quality opposition will know that the best of his performances are not all those which appear the best in statistical terms. So to that extent there is always the risk attached when looking purely at stats to compare players...

Exactly. Scoreboards do lie....I agree...But a compilation of hundreds of scorebaords don't lie very often...The advantages and disadvantages tend to cancel each other....And that is the only reason we need a large sample size for making proper statistical analysis...Obviously it'll be stupid to make statistical analysis on the performances of one player who has played only 2 matches...

 

[SJS]

There is much more to stats than meets the eye...Having known the subject thoroughly I can tell you that it's very scientific...The only thing we need for a proper statistical analysis is a large enough sample size...Then it's possible to make a judgment with a certain degree of precision (known as confidence interval)...Say if the confidence interval is 99% that means if 100 times the fact is tested by experiment, 99 times it'll come as true...

Good luck to you my dear.

It will be interesting if you ranked these following sets of three players each

1. Trumper
2. Morris
3. Merchant

1. Barnes
2. Tate
3. Bedser

1. Lara
2. Sobers
3. Hammond

1. Warne
2. Orielly
3. Grimmett

with statistical analysis please. If you have trouble getting some stats let me know I will help.

It will be fun to see a statisticans analysis and so rewarding to get a 99% accurate input on somethings that have bothered me for decades.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Keith Miller really fits into the oft quoted but rarely-applied-fully criteria of - 'selectability on the basis of either discipline alone".

I cant think of another all rounder (Sobers included whom I still rate the greatest allrounder) fulfills that criteria for as long a period of his entire carer as does Miller.

If there is anyone who truly challenges Sobers for that greatest all rounder title it has to be Miller. If one was bent on having two all rounders in a playing XI, I dont see how these two should not be the only ones in most short lists.

Most people do take Sobers (when choosing the lone all rounder in the side) since he would be in the side on batting alone so why not chose a specialist bowler after that. Other than there is no reason to keep Miller out.

And to think...after our efforts on 'hear, hear'...you didn't support my push for Mcgrath!

 

[Engle]

Ignoring stats makes about as much sense as ignoring peers accounts of players.

 

[Ikki]

For interest's sake, could you please analyse Bradman? Statistically better than Sobers as a bowler and batsman .

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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...

This has got to be a former banned member on a wind-up. Good one though, had me fooled for a minute.

 

[SJS]

And to think...after our efforts on 'hear, hear'...you didn't support my push for Mcgrath!

Push for McGrath ?? .....For what ???....The Democratic nominee for US President ??

 

[weldone]

Good luck to you my dear.

It will be interesting if you ranked these following sets of three players each

1. Trumper
2. Morris
3. Merchant

1. Barnes
2. Tate
3. Bedser

1. Lara
2. Sobers
3. Hammond

1. Warne
2. Orielly
3. Grimmett

with statistical analysis please. If you have trouble getting some stats let me know I will help.

It will be fun to see a statisticans analysis and so rewarding to get a 99% accurate input on somethings that have bothered me for decades.

For proper analysis of batsmen of same era, other than their average I need standard deviation of their scores which is very time-consuming to find. Elligibility criteria will be batsmen who have been dismissed at least 30 times in test cricket, otherwise their statistical analysis won't be proper (I think all of the above have)...Their career average is easily available...Then one needs to list all their scores, add the not out scores to the next scores and calculate the standard deviation of all the resulting scores...Then they could be ranked by the ranking criteria...Say if you want to know if they play 1 inning each what is the probability that they'll score more than 40...Or you might want to know if they play 1 inning each what is the probability that they'll score a century...They can be ranked according to the criteria you want...I can try ranking 3 contemporary batsmen according to your criteria if you want though that'll take a bit of time, not much though...

But for ranking batsmen of different era, we need the same data for at least best 10 batsmen from each era...We can compare each batsman in the sense that how good or bad each were compared to their contemporaries...Then we can rank them accordingly....That'll take much more time though because we need to gather and process huge data of (30+3) players....

 

[SJS]

For proper analysis of batsmen of same era, other than their average I need standard deviation of their scores which is very time-consuming to find. Elligibility criteria will be batsmen who have been dismissed at least 30 times in test cricket, otherwise their statistical analysis won't be proper (I think all of the above have)...Their career average is easily available...Then one needs to list all their scores, add the not out scores to the next scores and calculate the standard deviation of all the resulting scores...Then they could be ranked by the ranking criteria...Say if you want to know if they play 1 inning each what is the probability that they'll score more than 40...Or you might want to know if they play 1 inning each what is the probability that they'll score a century...They can be ranked according to the criteria you want...I can try ranking 3 contemporary batsmen according to your criteria if you want though that'll take a bit of time, not much though...

But for ranking batsmen of different era, we need the same data for at least best 10 batsmen from each era...We can compare each batsman in the sense that how good or bad each were compared to their contemporaries...Then we can rank them accordingly....That'll take much more time though because we need to gather and process huge data of (30+3) players....

I am afraid that went completely above my light grey grey-cells

I want a simple thing - which of them was the best and why and which the worst and why. - simple

 

[weldone]

Stats need to compiled and recorded for historical purposes, they don't need to be pointlessly analysed and dissected into oblivion.

Without that how would you get something like Duckworth-Lewis system...Leave the topic of ranking, Duckworth-Lewis system proves that even for playing cricket (i.e. for running a game of cricket) you need statistics...Of course, you can be one of those who don't like Duckworth-Lewis system (obviously because they don't understand it)...

 

[SJS]

Without that how would you get something like Duckworth-Lewis system...Leave the topic of ranking, Duckworth-Lewis system proves that even for playing cricket you need statistics...Of course, you can be one of those who don't like Duckworth-Lewis system (obviously because they don't understand it)...

Oh it does, does it ?

I thought it just makes a system so complicated that players can stop worrying about deciphering/mastering the calculations and concentrate on the simpler tasks of putting bat to ball or ball to wicket ?

 

[weldone]

I am afraid that went completely above my light grey grey-cells

I want a simple thing - which of them was the best and why and which the worst and why. - simple

SJS, ranking batsmen of different era will take much much time and effort (it's possible though)...I told you why...If I had enough time to spend on it, I would have done that.....

If you want me to rank three contemporary batsmen I can do that because that'll take much less time (I explained that in the earlier post)

 

[weldone]

Oh it does, does it ?

I thought it just makes a system so complicated that players can stop worrying about deciphering/mastering the calculations and concentrate on the simpler tasks of putting bat to ball or ball to wicket ?

I never said players need to know statistics...I said for playing a game (i.e. for running a game of cricket) also statistics is necessary...

 

[SJS]

I never said players need to know statistics...I said for playing a game (i.e. for running a game of cricket) also statistics is necessary...

I wonder how the game was ever run before Messers Duckworth and lewis.... I really do.

 

[SJS]

SJS, ranking batsmen of different era will take much much time and effort (it's possible though)...I told you why...If I had enough time to spend on it, I would have done that.....

If you want me to rank three contemporary batsmen I can do that because that'll take much less time (I explained that in the earlier post)

Aha. The clouds disappear.

In that case do us a favour will you please.? Stick to commenting on contemporary players only instead of comparing them with those for which you have been denied the data.

 

[weldone]

I wonder how the game was ever run before Messers Duckworth and lewis.... I really do.

For knowing that you need to see the recording of the semi-final match between South Africa and England in World Cup 1992...

 

[SJS]

Dont take all these comments personally weldone, I am just pulling your legs.

BTW, I presume you have seen most of the contemporary players. I wonder why you would trust mere stats more than the evidence of your eyes ?

 

[SJS]

For knowing that you need to see the recording of the semi-final match between South Africa and England in World Cup 1992...

I saw it live do I still need to see the recording?.

How will it tell me that the world could not manage matches before D & L ?