Best against the best

[hang on]

while his arguing style left a lot to be desired, he certainly brought up some good points. for instance, about the all rounder rating and how imran was surprisingly low on that scale, relative to other great all rounders...sobers, botham, miller, kallis.

 

[hang on]

while his arguing style left a lot to be desired, he certainly brought up some good points. for instance, about the all rounder rating and how imran was surprisingly low on that scale, relative to other great all rounders...sobers, botham, miller, kallis.

 

[vcs]

I don't think the peak ratings are that useful to look at TBH. Drawing conclusions from them is fraught with risk.

 

[hang on]

not only the peaks of that rating but the level at which certain allrounders played for large chunks of their career. the allrounder rating - i gather, though quite possibly, wrongly - measures the allrounder's ability to perform as an all rounder (batsman and bowler) in the same match, and if this were the case, when choosing an all rounder for an all time team, it would, arguably, make sense to pick those who were more capable of performing as an allrounder in the same match.

does anyone know how to bring up the graphs of the allrounder ratings of the great allrounders over the course of their careers? that would help clear up some of the confusion. what would be even more useful would be the batting and bowling ratings of the allrounders over their careers....

 

[hang on]

managed it!

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

one can do the batting and bowling ones on that very page.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think the peak ratings are that useful to look at TBH. Drawing conclusions from them is fraught with risk.

The thing is, even if you ignore peaks and look at the rankings over a career Sobers >>>>>>>>>> Imran.

 

[TumTum]

I don't think the peak ratings are that useful to look at TBH. Drawing conclusions from them is fraught with risk.

IMO both the peak ratings and the career stats overall are a better indicator of a persons career than their career stats alone, ie domination vs consistency. Personally I would like my ideal player to have a good proportion of each.

 

[vcs]

Sobers might well have been the greater cricketer (and since that seems to be the consensus of a lot of cricket experts, I'm perfectly willing to accept it, having watched neither of the two), but I think it is a bit of a myth that Imran did not perform with the bat and the ball at the same time.

 

[hang on]

exactly, marc.

as is shown by the graph above. and if one were to look at the batting and bowling ones separately, it shows that the difference in batting quality, as measured by the ratings, is higher than the difference in the bowling quality.

 

[marc71178]

So if he did perform at the same time, explain how he never did post an all round series of note - it was always one or the other?

That average of 40 shows why stats at face value are bad.

 

[vcs]

IMO both the peak ratings and the career stats overall are a better indicator of a persons career than their career stats alone, ie domination vs consistency. Personally I would like my ideal player to have a good proportion of each.

Well, usually you can make the correct conclusion on your own about the correct balance between consistency and domination if you have followed a player's career. That is what I find. Career stats are always there to tell you about the consistency aspect but I don't need the peak ratings to tell me how dominant a player was in his prime (assuming I've followed his career).

 

[vcs]

So if he did perform at the same time, explain how he never did post an all round series of note - it was always one or the other?

That average of 40 shows why stats at face value are bad.

That is indeed a pertinent question.. as I said, I imagine most people on here are too young to judge these things properly as they would not have watched either of the two (or atleast not Sobers!) so it is difficult to answer. Cumulatively though, he seems to have done well with both bat and ball for a good chunk of his prime years. Plus the burden of leading a team and building it in his own image.

 

[TumTum]

Well, usually you can make the correct conclusion on your own about the correct balance between consistency and domination if you have followed a player's career. That is what I find. Career stats are always there to tell you about the consistency aspect but I don't need the peak ratings to tell me how dominant a player was in his prime (assuming I've followed his career).

Assuming you've followed his career, you don't need the career stats either then

 

[hang on]

there is one problem with the ratings, though. it gives points more points for wins. thus, a super performance that does not lead to a win will not get a player as many points as one that actually does lead to a win. am sure it is done in a finessed and fair way, but it does, still, penalize players from weaker teams.

 

[vcs]

Assuming you've followed his career, you don't need the career stats either then

Yes, just to back up your opinion really. Sometimes it can throw up counterintuitive results though, so it's always good to be aware of the stats.

 

[TumTum]

there is one problem with the ratings, though. it gives points more points for wins. thus, a super performance that does not lead to a win will not get a player as many points as one that actually does lead to a win. am sure it is done in a finessed and fair way, but it does, still, penalize players from weaker teams.

Really? I did not know that.

 

[hang on]

i am pretty sure about that though i might be talking out of the proverbial.

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

it seems that even kallis has done better than imran as an allrounder! an excellent case for ratings and career stats to be booted off the cricketing coil!

 

[TumTum]

Yes, just to back up your opinion really. Sometimes it can throw up counterintuitive results though, so it's always good to be aware of the stats.

True, people generally remember their best innings/form better.

 

[ankitj]

So if he did perform at the same time, explain how he never did post an all round series of note - it was always one or the other?

That average of 40 shows why stats at face value are bad.

I was watching a feature on Imran on tv the other day. It mentioned that he topped batting and bowling averages in a series in England. I am sure smileyshah knows more about it.

 

[Howe_zat]

I was watching a feature on Imran on tv the other day. It mentioned that he topped batting and bowling averages in a series in England. I am sure smileyshah knows more about it.

1987. He topped the bowling averages (taking a 10-for in the match pakistan won) and did well with the bat, averaging 47 and scoring a hundred. He didn't top the batting though, as Miandad, Nazar and Saleem Malik all batted well on that tour.