Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by fcxx: quote: Originally posted by Kartikeya: quote: Originally posted by fcxx:
because it simply will not be fair!300 all out is better than 240 for 8!
500 all out is better than 250 for 5!
And by the way what your suggesting is not true. Because 240/8 leave the theoretical possibility of making more than 300 while 300 all out doesnt. So 240/8 is not worse than 300 all out.
BAN have a theoretical chance of beating AUS, so does that mean that an AUS win is as worthy as a BAN win?
But thats the whole point. Youre not trying to figure out whats more worthy and whats less worthy. Thats why you consider more than one game. Thats why you play a series and not one of games, because statistically, the better team is always more likely to win a series of matches rather than winning one match. The point is - that who is better and who is worse is decided by the result of the match. The ratings need not point out who is less better or more better. If Bangladesh beat Australia, it suggests that for that one match, Bangladesh were better than Australia. If Australia beat Bangladesh, then it suggests that for that match, Australia are better than Bangladesh, and for both matches considered together, both are approximately equal (note that i use the word approximately). Thats why you have series of a certain length. The role of a rating is to faithfully put all the cricket together. Ratings do not decide who is better, the Cricket that is played does. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mirchy:
fcxx, you are moving away from the realm of reality. Somehow, I think you've missed the point why draws should be weighted in any system based on points with an ultimate target of determining which is the better team on an international platform. Shouldn't away wins/draws be weighted higher than the same results at home?
My orginal point was: If you want to give extra points to a team for having a better "drawn" game then maybe you should also consider giving extra points to the team that won more convincingly! For example PAK's win over IND at Karachi should receive more points than their win over ENG in Multan. Now the problem is how do you determine which win is more convining a 300 win or an 8 wicket win? If you give points/ wicket then a team that has scored 285 for 6 will earn more points than a team will 500 all out, now how is that fair???
Now let's play cricket......
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by fcxx: quote: Originally posted by mirchy:
fcxx, you are moving away from the realm of reality. Somehow, I think you've missed the point why draws should be weighted in any system based on points with an ultimate target of determining which is the better team on an international platform. Shouldn't away wins/draws be weighted higher than the same results at home?
My orginal point was: If you want to give extra points to a team for having a better "drawn" game then maybe you should also consider giving extra points to the team that won more convincingly! For example PAK's win over IND at Karachi should receive more points than their win over ENG in Multan. Now the problem is how do you determine which win is more convining a 300 win or an 8 wicket win? If you give points/ wicket then a team that has scored 285 for 6 will earn more points than a team will 500 all out, now how is that fair???
that should read "305 for 6".
Now let's play cricket......
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by fcxx: quote: Originally posted by mirchy:
fcxx, you are moving away from the realm of reality. Somehow, I think you've missed the point why draws should be weighted in any system based on points with an ultimate target of determining which is the better team on an international platform. Shouldn't away wins/draws be weighted higher than the same results at home?
My orginal point was: If you want to give extra points to a team for having a better "drawn" game then maybe you should also consider giving extra points to the team that won more convincingly! For example PAK's win over IND at Karachi should receive more points than their win over ENG in Multan. Now the problem is how do you determine which win is more convining a 300 win or an 8 wicket win? If you give points/ wicket then a team that has scored 285 for 6 will earn more points than a team will 500 all out, now how is that fair???
Show me a Test Match - any Test Match and i'll show you how to do a runs and wickets based points assessment of that match. |
| |
|
|
Karti is a genius.
This ad was sponsored by Karti For President (of India) Electoral Committee.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by fcxx: Here you go Karti bhai
The Scorecard: Pakistan 462/10 and 268/9 England 446/10 and 164/6 Result: Match Drawn Match Runs/wicket 38.286 Pakistan total points - 46.2 + 26.8 + 38.286(16) England total points - 44.6 + 16.4 + 38.286(19) Pakistan total points - 134.258 England total points - 134.769 That makes it a 0.500-0.500 contest. |
| |
|
|
Graph of the MatchThis is a graph of the match, measuring runs and wickets. It is quite representative. England took early wickets in the first innings after which the Pakster middle order dominated. England batted competently in their first innings, staying with Pakistan, continuing to compete in the match, not conceding the first inning advantage. In the second innings, Pakistan briefly sought to dominate, trying to run up a lead and reached 163/3 because England came back with 6/106 to hold Pakistan. Early in the 4th innings, Pakistan were on top and had England reeling at 20/4, which explains the horizontal portion in the English line near the 120 mark, but Englad fought back well from there, pulling things back to 164/6 (134/2 from then on). So its pretty representative. What the graph reveals is that the Test Match finished with one side, probably Pakistan poised to make the kill. But that kill wasnt made yet. The last 2 hours of the game represented strong English recovery.
|
| |
|
|
though i always use to wonder wether these rankings are good enough to look into the every part of games,i mean the nature of win,the way it came ,the circumstances in which it came etc etc..
but i guess this question of mine is answered now after watching india actually go down into the rankings despite of winning the series against windies by 1-0
i mean if we look at indian test performnace for the past 6 months thn all we can see is a down fall
1-they lost 1-0 to pak in pak
2-they draw 1-1 with an unexperienced english side on their home soil(the biggest evidence of india performing badly in tests)
2-they could just manage to win a 4 test series form an 8th ranked windies side by 1-0
p.s(if we look at india's recent to test series thn we will notice tht it is mostly india who is performing badly in tests rather thn the opposition peforming out of their skins i.e the draw with freddie's young team in india which most people think as was an out of skin performnace from england is actually a bad performance by india and i think now the way they have won from an 8th ranked team is an evidence to it tht it is india who is performing badly)
so the thing tht has really impressed me, is the fact tht how so many times we wonder and raise questions about wether these ranking whoz bases are just some mathematical points and numbers, would see to it tht every angle of a team's performance is observed or not. so after looking at the present ind vs win series, i can say tht atleast for once these rankings have answered my doubts.
|
| |
|
|
Quite impressive (yet unconvincing) mad_hero, the way you blow into your own horn. Would you just remind me once again (without explanatory excuses, if possible) of the results of your tour to the WI just last year?
|
| |
|
|
quote:
Quite impressive (yet unconvincing) mad_hero, the way you blow into your own horn. Would you just remind me once again (without explanatory excuses, if possible) of the results of your tour to the WI just last year?
well it was two matche serie and it ended up in a draw with both the team winning one match each.. now having said tht ,would u plz like to tell me ,wht does it has to do with the topic we are discussing??? now plz dont get me wrong here dude but all i wanted to show by tht indian example was the depth of these icc rankings which we usually take for granted!!! now tht is another case tht even on being a pakistani i couldn't give any other example other thn india as i cant cahnge the fact tht forunately or unfortunately it is india who is performing badly in the tests by ist allowing an in-experienced england side to draw a series in their own backyard(which previously , both u and me know ,has been an uphill task even for the likes of aussies) and thn just managed to win a 4 match series by a margin of 1-0 and hence dropping its place in rankings!!! just because iam a pakistani,it doesnt mean tht all i wanted to do was to insult india ..u can see my post is related to the topic and is not asking totally stupid questions like "wht happened to pakistan in windies?" in a thread which discusses icc rankings! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by madrasi hero:
well it was two matche serie and it ended up in a draw with both the team winning one match each..
Wee willy winkie.... |
| |
|
|
I'm afraid I'm no expert in deciphering hieroglyphics. Can't be of help. But do come back when you've cleared your thoughts.
Over and out.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kartikeya: Graph of the MatchThis is a graph of the match, measuring runs and wickets. It is quite representative. England took early wickets in the first innings after which the Pakster middle order dominated. England batted competently in their first innings, staying with Pakistan, continuing to compete in the match, not conceding the first inning advantage. In the second innings, Pakistan briefly sought to dominate, trying to run up a lead and reached 163/3 because England came back with 6/106 to hold Pakistan. Early in the 4th innings, Pakistan were on top and had England reeling at 20/4, which explains the horizontal portion in the English line near the 120 mark, but Englad fought back well from there, pulling things back to 164/6 (134/2 from then on). So its pretty representative. What the graph reveals is that the Test Match finished with one side, probably Pakistan poised to make the kill. But that kill wasnt made yet. The last 2 hours of the game represented strong English recovery.
FC bhai.... did you follow this? |
| |
|
|
rankings are meaningless
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kartikeya: Graph of the MatchThis is a graph of the match, measuring runs and wickets. It is quite representative. England took early wickets in the first innings after which the Pakster middle order dominated. England batted competently in their first innings, staying with Pakistan, continuing to compete in the match, not conceding the first inning advantage. In the second innings, Pakistan briefly sought to dominate, trying to run up a lead and reached 163/3 because England came back with 6/106 to hold Pakistan. Early in the 4th innings, Pakistan were on top and had England reeling at 20/4, which explains the horizontal portion in the English line near the 120 mark, but Englad fought back well from there, pulling things back to 164/6 (134/2 from then on). So its pretty representative. What the graph reveals is that the Test Match finished with one side, probably Pakistan poised to make the kill. But that kill wasnt made yet. The last 2 hours of the game represented strong English recovery.
Karti bhai i greatly appreciate all the time that you spent trying to figure out the ranking system, those graphs surely look impressive but i must say that i don't agree with it at all! The reason is quite simple when play was stopped due to bad light ENG still needed 121 runs to win with only 4 wickets in hand yet your rating suggest that ENG got more points than PAK!
Now let's play cricket......
|
| |
|
|
Who gives a sh!t everyone has their own opinion you don't have to agree with anyone.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by fcxx: quote: Originally posted by Kartikeya: Graph of the MatchThis is a graph of the match, measuring runs and wickets. It is quite representative. England took early wickets in the first innings after which the Pakster middle order dominated. England batted competently in their first innings, staying with Pakistan, continuing to compete in the match, not conceding the first inning advantage. In the second innings, Pakistan briefly sought to dominate, trying to run up a lead and reached 163/3 because England came back with 6/106 to hold Pakistan. Early in the 4th innings, Pakistan were on top and had England reeling at 20/4, which explains the horizontal portion in the English line near the 120 mark, but Englad fought back well from there, pulling things back to 164/6 (134/2 from then on). So its pretty representative. What the graph reveals is that the Test Match finished with one side, probably Pakistan poised to make the kill. But that kill wasnt made yet. The last 2 hours of the game represented strong English recovery.
Karti bhai i greatly appreciate all the time that you spent trying to figure out the ranking system, those graphs surely look impressive but i must say that i don't agree with it at all! The reason is quite simple when play was stopped due to bad light ENG still needed 121 runs to win with only 4 wickets in hand yet your rating suggest that ENG got more points than PAK!
Yeh..... Pak still had to take 4 wickets to win. If we go back to when England were 20/4 (if the match had ended there), then the rating would have been England 0.485, Pakistan 0.515 The point is this...... what this method does is calculates what actually happened, rather than calculating what might have happened. Pakistan needed 4 out of 10 wickets to win, but hadnt actually gotten them. Indeed, for their last 2 wickets, they had labored over 144 english runs. As the graph shows, Pakistan were running away with it at 20/4 in the 4th innings, but they didnt. So its fair. It just so happens that it ends up at 164/6. If it had ended at say 164/8, then it would have ended 0.515 - 0.484 in favor of Pakistan. If it had ended with 164 all out, then It would have ended 0.685 - 0.314 in favor of Pakistan (adding the Win Bonus, which is the average points secured per team in the match) So the rating cannot take into account what could have happened, it does take into account what did happen. |
| |
|
|
As it happens, England made 38.1 runs/wicket in the match, while Pakistan made 38.4
|
| |
|
|
Karti, satisfy my curiosity please. I don't want details, just yes or no answers. Do you have...
- A wife?
- A girlfriend?
- A job?
- Anything else to do with your time other than pore over cricket stats?
|
| |
|
|
Actually FC bhai, if i do the rounding off properly its is 0.4992 - 0.50077 (England - Pakistan).
So counting upto 3 decimal places, i get 0.499 - 0.501
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zat: Karti, satisfy my curiosity please. I don't want details, just yes or no answers. Do you have...
- A wife? No
- A girlfriend? No
- A job? Yes
- Anything else to do with your time other than pore over cricket stats? Yes
And i study as well....
|
| |
|
|
Studies stats.
Karti is a good guy. Has an interesting blog and so on.
Whats the link.
|
| |
|
|
