PhoenixFire
International Coach
Why is Abdul Qadir below Ashley Giles, now that's just silly. I'm no great fan of Qadir, but isn't it a bit odd...........
Qadir averages 61 in Australia, Giles 50.PhoenixFire said:Why is Abdul Qadir below Ashley Giles, now that's just silly. I'm no great fan of Qadir, but isn't it a bit odd...........
At home yes - by far, away no.PhoenixFire said:Forget averages, do you think Qadir is better than Giles?
In that case, you know even less about cricket than i gave you credit for.silentstriker said:At home yes - by far, away no.
PhoenixFire said:Why is Abdul Qadir below Ashley Giles, now that's just silly. I'm no great fan of Qadir, but isn't it a bit odd...........
C_C said:In that case, you know even less about cricket than i gave you credit for.
C_C said:Damn right this is odd. But this is what you get when someone with very little understanding of cricket goes around forming arbitary ranking points about criterias he/she doesnt grasp very well at all.
I dont like it because it is absolutely ********.silentstriker said:I am so not getting into this with you, mate. I'm sorry you don't like the rankings.
Good choice, when it's that time of the month it's better to leave 'em.silentstriker said:I am so not getting into this with you, mate. I'm sorry you don't like the rankings.
OK.C_C said:I dont like it because it is absolutely ********.
Compare the pitches Qadir bowled on and the kind Giles bowls on and it aint rocket science to see why Qadir's figures suffered. MOST pitches today-even in England- are flatbeds (especially when they face a good bowling attack like OZ/RSA/PAk) and flatbed pitches = far more favourable to spinners than pacers. 99% of the pitches Qadir bowled on outside Pakistan or India were seaming/bouncing paradises.Spin bowling was also far different in philosophy back then than it is today- spinners were supposed to be economical more than anything and the whole spin-bowling mentality was far more defensive than it is with Murali-Warne era. If you cant even adjust for that massive factor and instead just compare averages, its nothing more than being absolutely ********.
Little harsh there on SS...C_C said:Damn right this is odd. But this is what you get when someone with very little understanding of cricket goes around forming arbitary ranking points about criterias he/she doesnt grasp very well at all.
Look mate, these are statistical ratings and nobody is trying to portray them as a genuine representation of the ability and performance of these spinners. There are so many factors that should be taken into account - different types of pitches, the standards of different eras, the batsmen that a certain spinner had to face, etc. - but they're not all that easy to represent statistically. The rating system devised by SS is clearly flawed in several ways but that shouldn't come as a surprise; isn't it pretty obvious and generally agreed upon that "stats don't tell the whole story"?C_C said:I dont like it because it is absolutely ********.
Compare the pitches Qadir bowled on and the kind Giles bowls on and it aint rocket science to see why Qadir's figures suffered. MOST pitches today-even in England- are flatbeds (especially when they face a good bowling attack like OZ/RSA/PAk) and flatbed pitches = far more favourable to spinners than pacers. 99% of the pitches Qadir bowled on outside Pakistan or India were seaming/bouncing paradises.Spin bowling was also far different in philosophy back then than it is today- spinners were supposed to be economical more than anything and the whole spin-bowling mentality was far more defensive than it is with Murali-Warne era. If you cant even adjust for that massive factor and instead just compare averages, its nothing more than being absolutely ********.
Well, you really do deserve a personal attack for that one. Gotta be kidding me .. Giles?!?silentstiker said:At home yes - by far, away no.
Well Giles isn't a better spinner overall, certainly. However, Qadir was really not a very good spinner abroad so while overall Qadir is a better spinner, their quality in away matches isn't all that much different. Its pretty much agreed he wasn't all that great abroad (ave. of 47, 68 wickets from 27 matches).adharcric said:Well, you really do deserve a personal attack for that one. Gotta be kidding me .. Giles?!?
Yup, in the batting ratings, Tendulkar and Gavaskar aren't close to the top. That doesn't mean they are actually the 15th all time. It's just something to compare people's stats, its not supposed to be anything else.Look mate, these are statistical ratings and nobody is trying to portray them as a genuine representation of the ability and performance of these spinners. There are so many factors that should be taken into account - different types of pitches, the standards of different eras, the batsmen that a certain spinner had to face, etc. - but they're not all that easy to represent statistically. The rating system devised by SS is clearly flawed in several ways but that shouldn't come as a surprise; isn't it pretty obvious and generally agreed upon that "stats don't tell the whole story"?
Now, I'll admit SS can get a little addicted and overreliant on statistics when judging the quality of a player, but he knows his cricket rather well (except when it comes to Indian pacers). Let's not resort to personal attacks. SS made this rating system for fun and to shed some light on how various spinners compare STATISTICALLY. Chill out.
Sure. Does well in the averages department but not really as well in the S/R department. Really underlines how subcontinent spinners (outside Murali) really struggle outside of home (something thats easily borne out from simply looking at averages as well).oz_fan said:SS could you please do Lance Gibbs
Also Alf Valentine if you have time mate.Perm said:How about Bill O'Reilly? Where would he be ranked?
Yea, if I had to redo the pacer rankings, I'd use a little bit more of this criteria. As for why? Well, I didn't think of this until after. Most likely I'd use a little bit of this and a little bit of the other one.shortpitched713 said:I don't see how you could have such radically different statistical criteria for your seamer ranking and your spinner ranking.