Give your criteria for how you assess cricketers

[subshakerz]

I have been discussing this with @Johan recently and I think it's a useful exercise for us to give our own criteria for how we assess cricketers, statistically and otherwise, and how we weight different criteria. I think this might be helpful as we engage in comparisons.

Here is mine, in terms of how I rate cricketers, in order of importance:

- Overall record (should be free of major gaps or issue like short career or not playing against strong opposition)

- Strong away record unless home conditions are tough, then both are as important

- Top performances against no.1 team or best available opposition

- High peer rating consensus

- Longevity of worldclass performances outside of a expected career length or sample

- Aggressive and adaptable batting style free of serious technical issues and adaptable bowling skills

- God-mode mega series and innings and marquee bowling series and performances

- X factor stuff like Tendulkar teen years and Hobbs late years

 

[Coronis]

- Peer rating
- Wider opinion or consensus
- Aura
- Strike rate (for batsmen)

 

[subshakerz]

- Peer rating
- Wider opinion or consensus
- Aura
- Strike rate (for batsmen)

Thanks for sharing what you don't consider. Now what is your actual criteria?

 

[ataraxia]

It's really quite simple.

- how good they were
- how long they were good for
- how they achieved on arbitrary benchmarks over tiny slices of their career

 

[Ali TT]

Runs scored on a cold, wet Wednesday night in Stoke

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

There's only one correct way to evaluate players and it's nothing to do with stats and everything to do with who you personally think is cool.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Performance vs best team

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

• Feel
• Vibes
• Smackability
• Clutch
• Is he memeable?
• Underdog stats
• Has a gung Ho side

 

[Qlder]

Pretty simple really, watch a lot of cricket and then pick who you enjoyed watching the most

 

[Gob]

Pretty simple really, watch a lot of cricket and then pick who you enjoyed watching the most

That's a flawed method bruh. By that definition, Mark Waugh should be superior to J Kallis

 

[vidiq]

1- Aura ( i became a Smith fan not because of his stats but because of his funny leaves and defence)

2- Raw Stats

3- Performance against top 5 teams ( i always rates players on the basis of this metric )

4- Away performance

5- Batsman without arm guard ( i don't like them because they looks very ugly with the arg guard )

 

[GIMH]

Played for England
Proximity of home county to me
Test wickets taken

 

[shortpitched713]

• Smackability

I guess, as long as it's consensual whatever floats your boat.

 

[shortpitched713]

criteria for how we assess cricketers, statistically and otherwise, and how we weight different criteria.

I mean, it's right there in your question subs, no need to look any further.

 

[sayon basak]

Jadeja

 

[vidiq]

Jadeja

What does Jadeja have to do with this discussion?"

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

That's a flawed method bruh. By that definition, Mark Waugh should be superior to J Kallis

where's the lie

 

[sayon basak]

What does Jadeja have to do with this discussion?"

I rate players based on whether they're close to Jadeja or not.

 

[Gob]

where's the lie

Oh hi mark

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I guess, as long as it's consensual whatever floats your boat.

Gentleman’s game, for a reason.

Consent is implied (Unless otherwise specified)