• 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.

cricrate: new cricket ratings website

cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
weldone said:
That's a very good point, and I've recently been thinking about this. Why can't we just take the batting longevity of lower order players as 0? [or in our case 1 or some other small value, considering how we implement longevity in our formula] Chris Martin was never in his career selected or should have been selected as a batsman. So, his batting longevity should be minimum. It will hopefully also take those 7(?) players ranked below him higher. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Why not tie batting longevity into their position in the batting order?

Matches where they bat 1-5 hold more weight in longevity calculation than batting 6-8, which is more than 9-11.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
smalishah84 said:
No, Kumble definitely doesn't deserve to be in the top 10.
Click to expand...
weldone said:
Nah, Kumble shouldn't be in top 10 even after considering his longevity. Top 25? Maybe. Top 10? No way.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree that the longevity factor was playing a little too strong a part.. tweaked it a bit and I agreed with all the changes (Barnes over Hadlee, Ambrose over Kumble, Donald over Walsh, etc) so kept to it:
cricrate | Best Test Bowling Careers

Update is through after Aus vs Ind last match - Kohli breaks the Test batting top 10 for the first time:
cricrate | Current Top Test Batsmen
 
Last edited:
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Debris

Debris

International 12th Man
viriya said:
Lohmanm was above Marshall even before.. And anyway, there is a decent Lohmann GOAT argument even considering that he played in uncovered wickets (considering the next best in his time averaged 15+):
cricrate | Best Test Bowling Careers (1877-1914)
Click to expand...
The problem with all these early cricketers is that they never played enough games to normalize statistics. For example, Michael Hussey averages 86.18 for his first 18 games.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Debris said:
The problem with all these early cricketers is that they never played enough games to normalize statistics. For example, Michael Hussey averages 86.18 for his first 18 games.
Click to expand...
It's not the same comparison when you consider that players of early eras rarely played more than 30-40 tests in the first place. A bowler with relatively similar stats to Lohmann in the current era for example would not be rated as high for partly that reason.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Debris said:
The problem with all these early cricketers is that they never played enough games to normalize statistics. For example, Michael Hussey averages 86.18 for his first 18 games.
Click to expand...
The difference being of course, the amount of time it took to play those tests. Its far easier to keep a high/low average over a shorter period of time.
 
Debris

Debris

International 12th Man
Coronis said:
The difference being of course, the amount of time it took to play those tests. Its far easier to keep a high/low average over a shorter period of time.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how you can know that. The only players who would only play 18 tests over a long period of time now are those dropped for poor form or constantly injured. Not the best comparison.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Debris said:
I am not sure how you can know that. The only players who would only play 18 tests over a long period of time now are those dropped for poor form or constantly injured. Not the best comparison.
Click to expand...
Sigh. We're not talking about players that are dropped for poor form or injured. We're trying to evaluate the performance of earlier players, who played very few tests comparitively, to modern players, who play many more tests.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Finally done with the first iteration. I could parse commentary from 2005/6- for Tests and ODIs, and fixed a lot of the issues/bugs I found from the earlier setup. Still probably have issues, but this is a good place to start imo.

I've done separate Best/Worst lists for current/career/performances for Tests and ODIs. Decided to rate drops/catches/direct hits based on the current rating of the batsman involved instead of the "expected runs saved" since the latter would be tough to evaluate especially for newer players. For now I don't track the batsman's score when the fielding event occurs - something that's on the to do list.

Methodology:
cricrate | Test Fielding Ratings
cricrate | ODI Fielding Ratings

Test Fielding:
cricrate | Current Best/Worst Test Fielders
cricrate | Best/Worst Test Fielding Careers
cricrate | Best/Worst Test Fielding Performances

ODI Fielding:
cricrate | Current Best/Worst ODI Fielders
cricrate | Best/Worst ODI Fielding Careers
cricrate | Best/Worst ODI Fielding Performances

You can use the Best/Worst links on the heading to jump to each list.

Some interesting observations
- There seems to be a big difference between great fielders and poor fielders in terms of drop rate %. Great ones tend do be in the 5% zone while poor fielders go anywhere from 30-50%+.. a huge difference by any measure.
- Runs saved from great ground fielding and runs lost from misfields do not seem that significant - seems overvalued even assuming I'm missing some of the events.
- Some of the great ground fielders like Gibbs, AB, Ponting, Guptill and Collingwood feature high up on the career list, while Pakistani and WI fielders dominate the worst categories (especially in Tests).

Any feedback appreciated. AFAIK this is the first ever attempt at meaningful fielding statistics in cricket - I shall take this time to pat myself on the back for a job done well enough so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top