quote:

Originally posted by Pontoon:
I cannot believe Vawn, Thorpe, Trescothick, Jones, Martyn, Hussey (bit iffy at this stage, Jimmy Adams once averaged over 85 too) Younis Khan, Taylor, Strauss are in the Top 100.

Agree about Hussey, more time needed to assess him (Pietersen too).

I'm not sure how Bill Brown (among about 50 others) gets in above Frank Worrell.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
This thread gives me an idea - would it be interesting to have some threads on the best batsmen each country has produced, i.e. 'top 10(20?) England batsmen', 'top 10 Australian batsmen'. Anyone else interested?

I'll start one off and see if there are any takers.

Yeah, interested, but unfortunately i have to leave now. Still i shall give it some thought.

Yeah, I have to move on myself. But one thread is up - imagine its something that could be discussed over a considerable period of time.

Sometime back Wisden listed top 100 batting innings in tests all time and there was a lot of outcry from Indian fans for Sachin being not listed in it. Now suddenly it seems there will be none ever, will there now?

No Grace???????
No Ranjitsinhji??????

As requested, I will give you my method.

I got a top 20 batsmen list together and got that list's mean average, consistency (% times past 50 per innings), centuries, and ratio of centuries per match.

I then considered that average should be the most important stat in judging batsmen, followed by cen. ratio, centuries scored, and consistency.

I then came to the following criteria:

average x7
consistency x3
centuries scored x7
century ratio x5

In addition, I gave an extra 20% to batsmen who played before world war 1, and an extra 10% to batsmen who's career's were interrupted by war, or isolation (in this case, South Africa).

Batsmen who played only a few tests are penalised as follows:

Less than 20 tests: -20% of rating
Less than 10 tests: -30% of rating
Less than 5 tests: -40% of rating

I would be the first to admit that the list is not perfect. I would love to see Ranjit in there as well, but the fact is his average and centuries scored (2)is not enough to get him in. He also only played 15 tests, so his 20% boost is nullified by a further 20% penalty.

Make no mistake, this is for test batsmen, not first-class batsmen. If it was for first-class batsmen, then W.G. would be a shoe in, as would Ranjit. In fact, I should make one for first-class batsmen in the future.

Yousuf and Hussey are also bound to drop down within the next year or so.

By the way, my teams in my signature are based on the current ICC cricket ratings, they have vettori ahead of murali at this moment. Not my fault

You really need to do a lot of reading.

And people say I'm obsessed with stats...

Just shows once again that stats are deceptive.

Saeed Anwar below inzimam ul haq. Yousuf amongst top 15?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ferrier:
By the way, my teams in my signature are based on the current ICC cricket ratings, they have vettori ahead of murali at this moment. Not my fault

Use that thing call common sense then. Murali is a match winner and Vettori is a better version of Giles.

10 out of 10 for effort Steve, but no Tom Graveney?

Steve - some comments:

There is no credit for speed of scoring which would surely move Sobers well above Barrington. Charles Davis' webstite has a fairly comprehensive list of AT scoring rates.

The discounts for few tests are too simplistic as it doesn't give enough credit for players who played in the early years but just didn't play a lot of tests. In those days, it was possible to have a 10 year career and only play 15 or 20 tests (eg: Ranji). The 20% bonus for pre WWI should only reflect the state of pitches, not the number of tests played.

Centuries scored AND centuries ratio overstates the value of scoring 100 which in the end is an arbitrary number. Is an innings of 110 really that much more important than an innings of 95? It also penalises lower order batsmen and pre WWI batsmen.

quote:

10 out of 10 for effort Steve, but no Tom Graveney?

Graveney has a rating of 533

going by 'bare' stats you are bound to get many anomalies, like batsmen in high run-scoring eras dominating the list (ponting, moyo, etc). the best way is to obviously factor in opposition and pitches like pwc does (though pwc also gives points for winning the match, which heavily favours batsmen in good teams)

the arbitrary 20% plus/minus seems too much like 'fixing' the method to suit the results you want. a more robust method wont need this

I would have thought that the best way to create a "system" is to put down your gut feel for, say, the top 10 or 20 then find a system which generates that.

As it happens, basic averages seem to be as good a system as any (at least in categorising groups of batsmen) although one which also takes into account speed of scoring would be even better.

Whilst I would love to have a computer system like PWC and Charles Davis, I only have career stats, which I get from cricinfo. Anyway, this is only a hobby I do in my part-time.

quote:

Originally posted by JGK:
I would have thought that the best way to create a "system" is to put down your gut feel for, say, the top 10 or 20 then find a system which generates that.

if you know what you want, why create a system? a computer feed-out will never match with your expectations, unless you bring in wholly arbitrary 'fixes'

in the end bare stats, ratings, etc are just guides. most people will decide who is better on something that is not reflected in stats alone

quote:

Originally posted by The One:

quote:

Originally posted by JGK:
I would have thought that the best way to create a "system" is to put down your gut feel for, say, the top 10 or 20 then find a system which generates that.

if you know what you want, why create a system? a computer feed-out will never match with your expectations, unless you bring in wholly arbitrary 'fixes'

Everything is arbitrary to an extent. What I am suggesting is to find "fixes" as you call them that give you the results you think are instinctively right for at least the top dozen or so batsmen and then apply this to everyone.

would be impossible i think. there are too many variables and too many differences across eras to reconcile. unless your top 10-20 are pretty much in line with averages, etc

I can't decide if SF is an idiot savant or something less.

For the last 7 years, Zim has been making a life size replica of the NLWL using only dried pasta, losing betting slips and wallpaper paste. Who has been better occupied?

.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ferrier:

centuries scored x7

Batsmen who played only a few tests are penalised as follows:

Less than 20 tests: -20% of rating
Less than 10 tests: -30% of rating
Less than 5 tests: -40% of rating

These methods give an inbuilt advantage to players who play lots of test matches. This would be OK if the number of tests was equal over history but as we all know this is decidedly not the case.

No wonder pre WW1 players are dramatically under-represented.

No absolute values such as nuber of centuiries should ever be included. Ratio of innings/centuries is much better.

The length of a career in years may be a better guide to a players worth than the number of tests played.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ferrier:

quote:

10 out of 10 for effort Steve, but no Tom Graveney?

Graveney has a rating of 533

That put's him below Chanderpaul! I know who I would rather watch and have in my side.

Steve, are you, or have you ever been, known as, Kartikeya?