• 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.

Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I like the multiplication thing better since it brings Imran ahead of Hadlee :p
Yeah, what my system is suggesting is that Hadlee was a better cricketer than Imran but Imran was the better allrounder of the two. Obviously I disagree with it on its first conclusion. :p
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Yeah, that's fair. I suppose it could be argued that taking wickets in a shorter time is slightly more valuable to the team (as it stops you from fielding for longer, buys you more time in the game, cuts down on extras and misfields and requires less part-time/meh bowling), but obviously I've nothing reliable to back that up.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yeah, that's fair. I suppose it could be argued that taking wickets in a shorter time is slightly more valuable to the team (as it stops you from fielding for longer, buys you more time in the game, cuts down on extras and misfields and requires less part-time/meh bowling), but obviously I've nothing reliable to back that up.
Yeah, a lower strike rate is statistically desirable for a bowler who is better than the mean rating of the best of his team, as (assuming all the bowlers bowl roughly the same amount of overs) it increases the impact that bowler has over the attack - the game moves faster when he's bowling if his strike rate is better, and you want it to because when he's not bowling your attack is worse on average. Once you get down to support bowlers though it's statistically desirable for them to be more economy based as to lessen their impact on the attack, and basically just put the game on hold until the better bowlers are back into the attack. This "support bowler" theory ignores the effects of long-term fatigue though and basically assumes all bowlers will be at prime fitness as long as they aren't bowling more than 25% of the overs in a day, which arguably makes it rubbish. :p

Accounting for bowling strike rate would probably give more accurate results at the top of the ladder but could actually have the opposite effect as we moved further down.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I thought it'd be fun to look at the bottom of the batting+bowling list, to see who the most insignificant cricketer to play at least ten Tests was.

The bottom three players were wicket keepers, which didn't surprise me since wicket keeping used to be considered a specialist art, and the formula does not yet take wicket keeping into account at all. I think it's far to say that the wicket keeping of those three players would see them go up the list quite a bit if its value could be added in. Just above those three was none other than Jehan Mubarak. No-one here will be surprised.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.

If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.

If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.

And that's before we even start looking at his bowling - no small matter of 2800 First Class wickets.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Prince, if it's not too difficult could I have the standardised average for Sachin at the end of the Pakistan series in 2004 using the same formula as the quoted post?
I will get to this in the next day or two, by the way. It's not quite as simple as you'd imagine to stop the thing after a certain point. :p
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.

If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.

If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.

And that's before we even start looking at his bowling - no small matter of 2800 First Class wickets.
That is just absurd.

Have for a while been persuaded by the argument made be people on here and in print that he is at the very least second to Bradman and that more than supports it.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
So I've been working on a few ways to make this take longevity and team influence (wickets per match mainly) into account here so it's not just based on averages, and in fact of measure of how valuable a player's performances were throughout his career. I spent quite some time working on a formula I thought was fair to all eras of cricket and accounted for the changing nature of cricket scheduling, and implemented it into my system.

The results suggested that Jack Cowie was the greatest bowler, and fourth greatest cricketer, in the history of Test cricket. Eek. So much for that then. :p

The problem with that seems to stem from the fact that even though he only played nine Tests, they were over a twelve year period and in fact the only nine Tests New Zealand played. It treats him the same as, for example, someone who played for twelve years without missing a single Test for England between 1998 and 2010 - that'd be 167 Tests or so. And given his standardised bowling average ended up below 20 (better than Barnes or in fact anyone with a decent number of wickets), it's easy to see why I got the results I did with that. Not sure if it's worth posting them up until I find a way around that particular anomaly.
Once I gave a long thought about how to measure longevity of cricketers. And I came up with a formula which according to me is very fair to all. The formula worked like this:

(summation from debut year till retirement year)(no. of matches played by that cricketer in the year / no. of matches played by the cricketer from the same country who played the most matches that year).

According to the formula, when your team plays insanely high number of test cricket in a year (England in the 90s for example) - you might not need to play all test matches in a year to get a whole point. Rather you need to be the player from your team who plays the highest no. of matches in that year. This rule seemed fair to me.

However, I applied one more tweak to the formula. Whenever the denominator is zero, I calculated the ratio as zero too. So, for example, Bradman doesn't get any longevity points for the year 1941 because Australia didn't play a test match (for whatever reason, WWII or anything). This tweak might not seem fair at first look, but I can explain in detail how it is fair - whenever the argument comes up.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, Grace is a monster! It's a pity that he played very few tests and that too at the fag end of his career.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Love your work Prince, an amazing list to go through in both disciplines. Martindale at 15th is a massive surprise, but who cares in the end, there is always going to be a few players that look slightly out of place when the sample size is so large.

One small thing I noticed is that you didn't include the official Australia vs World XI match, Hayden and MacGill are ripped off a bit.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Love your work Prince, an amazing list to go through in both disciplines. Martindale at 15th is a massive surprise, but who cares in the end, there is always going to be a few players that look slightly out of place when the sample size is so large.

One small thing I noticed is that you didn't include the official Australia vs World XI match, Hayden and MacGill are ripped off a bit.
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Given they only played one match, it was impossible to truly determine how good a side that World XI outfit was, so the match was excluded.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Given they only played one match, it was impossible to truly determine how good a side that World XI outfit was, so the match was excluded.
They were **** FTR. Harmison Flintoff and Kallis as a pace attack? No thanks.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I will get to this in the next day or two, by the way. It's not quite as simple as you'd imagine to stop the thing after a certain point. :p
While you're at it, can you go through all the top batsmen in the list and rework it to include things up to their highest point, in the interests of comparability.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
While you're at it, can you go through all the top batsmen in the list and rework it to include things up to their highest point, in the interests of comparability.
I've been working on a way to isolate a player's peak - to find their best possible standardised average in a period of a certain number of Tests (working on 15 at the moment but I could change it). Merely finding their career high standardised average would give an unfair advantage to players who started well and finished poorly.
 

shankar

International Debutant
I will get to this in the next day or two, by the way. It's not quite as simple as you'd imagine to stop the thing after a certain point. :p
Thanks. :) Take your time.

While you're at it, can you go through all the top batsmen in the list and rework it to include things up to their highest point, in the interests of comparability.
If you want to perform a comparison, that wouldn't work - the time periods compared have to be the same.

Anyway, my intention is not an evaluation upto a peak. Basically Sachin has had 2 careers - One of ~15 years upto his tennis elbow injury and the one since then upto this point of ~7 years. I just want to compare the standardized averages of the two periods. While the raw averages of the two periods are similiar, the latter was during a much easier period of run-scoring.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I've been working on a way to isolate a player's peak - to find their best possible standardised average in a period of a certain number of Tests (working on 15 at the moment but I could change it). Merely finding their career high standardised average would give an unfair advantage to players who started well and finished poorly.
Might be able to help you with that.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Once I gave a long thought about how to measure longevity of cricketers. And I came up with a formula which according to me is very fair to all. The formula worked like this:

(summation from debut year till retirement year)(no. of matches played by that cricketer in the year / no. of matches played by the cricketer from the same country who played the most matches that year).

According to the formula, when your team plays insanely high number of test cricket in a year (England in the 90s for example) - you might not need to play all test matches in a year to get a whole point. Rather you need to be the player from your team who plays the highest no. of matches in that year. This rule seemed fair to me.

However, I applied one more tweak to the formula. Whenever the denominator is zero, I calculated the ratio as zero too. So, for example, Bradman doesn't get any longevity points for the year 1941 because Australia didn't play a test match (for whatever reason, WWII or anything). This tweak might not seem fair at first look, but I can explain in detail how it is fair - whenever the argument comes up.
So I just applied this formula to all my stats. I'd like an explanation of why players really should get 0 for playing either side of a year in which their country played no Tests though, because the first thing I wanted to do after looking at the data was change that - even if not to 1, maybe to 0.5 or something. Seems harsh to players like Bruce Mitchell who played 40 odd consecutive Tests and no doubt would've been playing in those missing years if South Africa actually played any Tests.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
So I just applied this formula to all my stats. I'd like an explanation of why players really should get 0 for playing either side of a year in which their country played no Tests though, because the first thing I wanted to do after looking at the data was change that - even if not to 1, maybe to 0.5 or something. Seems harsh to players like Bruce Mitchell who played 40 odd consecutive Tests and no doubt would've been playing in those missing years if South Africa actually played any Tests.
Take the imaginary case of player A and player B: both start their careers in 1925 for different countries, play all matches till 1933. Both the countries don't play any test matches in 1934 and 1935. However, in 1936 A's country plays one test (where A also plays and retires after that), but B's country doesn't - however, B is still bossing it in FC and would have walked into the side. B's country, in fact, plays the next test in 1938 by which time B has just retired. Now, is it fair to B if A gets 3 more maturity years than him?

In essence, the reason Bruce Mitchell shouldn't get any points for years when SA doesn't play any test matches is the same as the reason WG Grace doesn't get any points for years prior to the first test, or, Graeme Pollock doesn't get any points for any of the apartheid years - i.e., 'they were unlucky that their countries haven't played any test matches'. Saying that Mitchell would've been playing in those missing years is in fact speculation, however realistic that speculation might be.
 

Top