• 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.

Is Maxwell better than Kohli? Analysing strike rate vs average in ODIs

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
His rating is 3.6 against Waugh’s 2.09..
Which is almost the exact same difference between de Villiers and Sangakkara in that same rating system.

And I disagree with that system of rating, mostly because it makes the assumption that all batsmen are equal and therefore under values the number of balls a batsman should face. It definitely rewards strike rate more than average (Which is why Bevan is rated behind a host of others).

I mean any system that ranks Jayasuriya higher than Ponting based entirely on their ODI batting is flawed in my book.

But my point has always been that the gap between Waugh and Tendulkar is not quite as large as many people make out. I'm not arguing that he's better, everyone agrees with that. The point is that a side with Tendulkar will beat the same side with Waugh most of the time, but not all the time and the results would be a lot closer to 50/50 than 100/0.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
But my point has always been that the gap between Waugh and Tendulkar is not quite as large as many people make out.
I loathe to tell people what they should care about, but seriously this is such a mundane thing to feel so strongly about as to drag it across several threads. The debate over whether Tendulkar was 32% better than Waugh or instead more like 18% should not dominate every ODI debate thread.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I loathe to tell people what they should care about, but seriously this is such a mundane thing to feel so strongly about as to drag it across several threads. The debate over whether Tendulkar was 32% better than Waugh or instead more like 18% should not dominate every ODI debate thread.
This while thread was started to ask that very question though and I didn't start it. It's obviously something that interests people. Maybe not that specific case, but there are other cases like how does one rate Symonds vs Ponting or Afridi vs anyone else.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Which is almost the exact same difference between de Villiers and Sangakkara in that same rating system.

And I disagree with that system of rating, mostly because it makes the assumption that all batsmen are equal and therefore under values the number of balls a batsman should face. It definitely rewards strike rate more than average (Which is why Bevan is rated behind a host of others).

I mean any system that ranks Jayasuriya higher than Ponting based entirely on their ODI batting is flawed in my book.

But my point has always been that the gap between Waugh and Tendulkar is not quite as large as many people make out. I'm not arguing that he's better, everyone agrees with that. The point is that a side with Tendulkar will beat the same side with Waugh most of the time, but not all the time and the results would be a lot closer to 50/50 than 100/0.
only because there’s only so much a player can influence his side

I thought you’d accepted that you were wrong about the moderate upgrade thing earlier? Why bring up a ranking that you don’t agree with to push your point again then?

When like 95% of the forum disagrees with you it might help to sit back and rethink your stance lol
 
Last edited:

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Jayasuriya is really hard to rate because he was such a different player before his breakout 96 WC. And the period before was 7 years of him being pretty dreadful over a large sample size.

I know there's other players like this who improved after their role in the side changed but he's the most extreme example. Only averaged early 30s overall but got 28 tons lol. The other players who scored 25+ tons all averaged over 40. Pretty damn ridiculous, and of course his strike rate was explosive in 96

Not saying hes neccesarily better than Ponting but I wouldn't scoff at the suggestion
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
only because there’s only so much a player can influence his side

I thought you’d accepted that you were wrong about the moderate upgrade thing earlier? Why bring up a ranking that you don’t agree with to push your point again then?

When like 95% of the forum disagrees with you it might help to sit back and rethink your stance lol
As it's a definitions thing it's really hard to argue. All you need to do is define "moderate" to mean what you want it to mean and we're in agreement.

Majority opinions mean nothing really. Otherwise every Indian player ever would be better than every other player. And T20 cricket would be on a par with tests.

I think some people were butt hurt that I didn't fall down and worship at the Tendulkar idol, as if he was orders of magnitude better than everyone else. He wasn't. He was a bit better in one aspect of his batting than other openers - ahead of Gilly/Jayasuriya in hiss average and ahead of Hayden/Waugh/Greenidge in his strike rate.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
Jayasoorya >>> Kallis

But it's this particular case , most of the times we rate 45 AVG batsman better than 32 AVG batsman irrespective of Strike rates.
Actually, the ability to change gears according to the situations is more important.
Inzy , Ganguly , Kallis all in 75 SR category.. but they operate differently.

Kallis is sure to waste the balls no matter how big the target is.

Ganguly helps the team to reach the big target with the support of explosive knocks from other batsmen.

Inzy will take it as a personal issue , and attacks the opposition brutally to win the game.


Kallis > Ganguly > Inzy in averages

But I rate them in opposite order in terms of quality.

Inzy > Ganguly >> Kallis
 

Borges

International Regular
> Is Maxwell better than Kohli?

No, Kohli is immeasurably better than Maxwell. Why? Because Kohli is a moderate upgrade over Maxwell.
 

SillyCowCorner1

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can we go back to debating Strike rate vs average in this format.

I know RTDoe-Scotty averages like 60-odd in this format.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As it's a definitions thing it's really hard to argue. All you need to do is define "moderate" to mean what you want it to mean and we're in agreement.

Majority opinions mean nothing really. Otherwise every Indian player ever would be better than every other player. And T20 cricket would be on a par with tests.

I think some people were butt hurt that I didn't fall down and worship at the Tendulkar idol, as if he was orders of magnitude better than everyone else. He wasn't. He was a bit better in one aspect of his batting than other openers - ahead of Gilly/Jayasuriya in hiss average and ahead of Hayden/Waugh/Greenidge in his strike rate.
And ahead of everyone by a massive margin in his longevity
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Multiplying average with SR followed by normalization for era seems like a useful enough approach too me. This is what they did at ESPNCricinfo some time back: Stats from the Past: The best ODI batsmen from across eras | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo.com
I used to think this too, but I think it probably places slightly too much emphasis on strike rate. Perhaps the average could be taken to a power greater than 1 or the strike rate could be taken to a power less than 1 before the final multiplication.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I used to think this too, but I think it probably places slightly too much emphasis on strike rate. Perhaps the average could be taken to a power greater than 1 or the strike rate could be taken to a power less than 1 before the final multiplication.
Possibly. There is sometimes a trade-off between making a model more precise vs. preserving its simplicity. Knowing the amount of subjectivity often involved in judging which model is better I tend to tilt towards the latter.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Possibly. There is sometimes a trade-off between making a model more precise vs. preserving its simplicity. Knowing the amount of subjectivity often involved in judging which model is better I tend to tilt towards the latter.
I just make my own models for my own curiosity and dgaf what others think of them and so just strive purely for precision, but fair point. :p
 

sunilz

International Regular
Instead of average , RPI should be considered . Average penalizes players who sacrifice their wickets in last overs for team's cause .
 

Top