Interesting Article

[capt_Luffy]

I wanna look up the article, but don't want to give it a view.

 

[DrWolverine]

Nah, he was 27th. (Just below Graham Gooch and Harry Brook.)

Where is the full list?

 

[Slifer]

It's from the guy who once said in a ranking of ODI batsmen that "He [Viv Richards] picked up very little in the X-factor category". I'll never forget that.

Then he's an idiot who should stick to whatever he did before coming out with this stupid analysis.

 

[ankitj]

Then he's an idiot who should stick to whatever he did before coming out with this stupid analysis.

Full write up on Viv Richards who his system placed at #4:

Viv Richards. What does one say of this colossus? With just 6721 runs, he has managed to beat eight batsmen with 10,000-plus runs in the top 20. The strike-rate adjustment was crucial. Richards' three World Cup finals, including two wins, helped too. He picked up very little in the X-factor category. No opening-position related PRPs, not many finishing runs (maybe because West Indies were so strong), and terrific bowling support (the best ever) gave him only 2.9 PRPs. But overall, a well-deserved inclusion in the elite group.

Who is the greatest ODI batsman of all time?

A definitive analysis that takes more than just performance figures into account

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[capt_Luffy]

Full write up on Viv Richards who his system placed at #4:

Who is the greatest ODI batsman of all time?

A definitive analysis that takes more than just performance figures into account

www.espncricinfo.com

I saw Ponting at 2 and thought "what ****!" Then Gilchrist and Jayasuriya at 5&6 and cringed some. Then Ganguly and Sehwag over ABD, died inside a bit. But man, Jayawardene beating Michael Bevan......... It should be enough to be considered a hate crime. Anatha Narayana neither understands cricket nor statistics.

 

[Shady Slim]

Full write up on Viv Richards who his system placed at #4:

Who is the greatest ODI batsman of all time?

A definitive analysis that takes more than just performance figures into account

www.espncricinfo.com

tbc this is because he tries to make "x-factor" objective by giving it clearly delimited criterion rather than just being a synonym for "wham bam and kapow!", which, you can also criticise on its merits, but let's not pretend he was saying viv richards has no wham bam and kapow

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lol yeah the only problem is that he claims his analysis is "definitive", if he just posted the results and said that's where the numbers ended up then there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[ankitj]

tbc this is because he tries to make "x-factor" objective by giving it clearly delimited criterion rather than just being a synonym for "wham bam and kapow!", which, you can also criticise on its merits, but let's not pretend he was saying viv richards has no wham bam and kapow

He should have called it something else before penning down a sentence that Viv Richards lacked x-factor.

Also "But overall, a well-deserved inclusion in the elite group". Like he is explaining why #4 is not too high for Richards? smh

 

[capt_Luffy]

He should have called it something else before penning down a sentence that Viv Richards lacked x-factor.

Also "But overall, a well-deserved inclusion in the elite group". Like he is explaining why #4 is not too high for Richards? smh

He should have called the whole list something else before ranking Mahela Jayawardene ahead of Michael Bevan.

 

[shortpitched713]

Interesting article from ESPN cricket

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/who-s-the-best-test-batter-after-don-bradman-1527491

Honestly a relatively unbiased, statistically based methodology.

You can quibble on the cutoffs for the different eras (I personally would have included some kind of regression, creating a gradient to compare between them). But overall his methodology just ends up placing the more productive batters higher. Good on Mr. Naranayan!

 

[the big bambino]

Its a Narayanan article. It's investing a lot of time only to conclude, well that was a load of crap.

 

[Coronis]

Its a Narayanan article. It's investing a lot of time only to conclude, well that was a load of crap.

Im presuming its just because he’s forced to keep churning out stats articles and lost any proper motivation long ago.

Either that or he’s a douche.

 

[the big bambino]

Im presuming its just because he’s forced to keep churning out stats articles and lost any proper motivation long ago.

Either that or he’s a douche.

He's cricinfo's version of the player comparisons subbie.

 

[Chin Music]

Struggling with a good deal of the logic in the article. Doesn't look like it's just me.

 

[Coronis]

Struggling with a good deal of the logic in the article. Doesn't look like it's just me.

Its also yeah the way he presents and frames his opinions as facts. Like certain members of the forum.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

On quick glance I see it has Root above Smith, so seems to pass the basic plausibility test. Haven't dug deeper yet.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Its also yeah the way he presents and frames his opinions as facts. Like certain members of the forum.

Bro every human does this. Have you ever come across someone that starts with "In my opinion . . . " every time they say something they think?

 

[271 & 16/166]

Give him his due, he has Bradman at 1