• 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)

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, was expecting that. Wasn't gonna lie though.





:laugh:

The fact that I'm not even remotely qualified to do any of this on paper will ensure it's a hobby/general waste of time only. I probably couldn't even get hired to write the program I wrote to do the task even if someone else came up with the stats stuff, because I have no genuine programming qualifications, despite obviously being able to actually do it. ****s with stats PHDs will always be taken more seriously in this field than lazy cricket-obsessed ****s with Economics degrees who play with numbers on VB.net in their spare time, regardless of how rubbish the findings of the former seem. For good reason too, probably.
clear case of market failure imo




that joke doesn't even make sense i'm sorry
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Sample size issues are different to longevity issues, for the 900th time.
Haha seriously...


And for the 0932498th time, the concept of longevity that you have is completely unrealistic. You got it in your head that the player X who played for 5 years longer than player Y actually did the same or better than his career stats during that period, which is your whole basis for assuming he is better than player Z who would have, hypothetically, replaced him for THAT period... Which is utter codswallop as you have no means to measure these parts of the players' tenure seperately, not to forget that the 5 years is a completely arbitrary period which is relevant in this case only because player Y retired that many years earlier than player X...


In other words, you are trying to quantify something that is intrinsically unquantifiable..
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
While we are at it (Walsh vs McGrath), it is interesting to note that 2 oldest and respected members of CW (SJS and JBMAC) both keep Walsh higher than McGrath based on their subjective view on the game.
really? can we get some links to such posts? I am genuinely curious why they would rate so...
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
really? can we get some links to such posts? I am genuinely curious why they would rate so...
I am not a Mod :p

JBMAC keeps Walsh in his list of top 10 bowlers ever, and McGrath was not in it.

SJS doesn't rate McGrath much anyways. McGrath doesn't make his AT Aussie XI. To him, McGrath was a medium pace bowler who got more wickets with 'unforced errors' than with 'winners'.

It is important to note that I disagree with both of them (except the unforced errors part), and to me McGrath was a better bowler than Walsh, though not by much.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
'unforced errors', what!? He was one of the best bowlers ever at getting wickets with bounce and deviation off the seam. Sure he didn't have the fire power of someone like Donald, but nevertheless he was still very much a strike bowler. Surely a bowler who gets wickets mostly through 'unforced errors' would have a high percentage of caught dismissals anyway? But he doesn't...in fact his caught percentage is the same as someone like Steyn. About 50% of his dismissals were caught behinds or LBWs. And that's not to mention the opinion that getting wickets through 'unforced errors' is somehow bad is frankly ridiculous. Bowling in test cricket is just as much about outlasting your opponent with patience and consistency as it is about producing jaffas.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Just think longevity is being a given a little too wuch weight, for me.. Otherwise, I am ok with the formula..
+1
would also like to see a greater emphasis on runs and wickets againts minnows and getting tailend wickets.

But as I had said. Wonderful effort all round. Just skip the longevity bit. :)
 
Last edited:

kyear2

International Coach
Would be interesting to see it if the qualification was changed to 20, 30, 40 and 50 tests. 30 and above rules out players like Headley and Pollock which seems totally wrong, but really 20-odd tests isn't the greatest sample size. Probably only really starts approaching something more reliable around 40-50 tests.
And leave out the greatest batsmen from the West Indies and South Africa respectively.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah I acknowleged that? The problem is though, whilst batsmen like them undoubtedly deserve to be in the top echelon, it also allows a fair few others who really probably shouldn't be up there to occupy higher places in the list #statingtheobvious.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I am not a Mod :p

JBMAC keeps Walsh in his list of top 10 bowlers ever, and McGrath was not in it.

SJS doesn't rate McGrath much anyways. McGrath doesn't make his AT Aussie XI. To him, McGrath was a medium pace bowler who got more wickets with 'unforced errors' than with 'winners'.

It is important to note that I disagree with both of them (except the unforced errors part), and to me McGrath was a better bowler than Walsh, though not by much.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-each-nation-you-have-seen-8.html#post2130214
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Weldone - Downlaod my worksheets from following links:

Value of Wicket - 1.xlsx
Value of Wicket - 2.xlsx
When I applied my formula (to include sample size and longevity) on your list, here is the ranking the formula came up with (among those 41 bowlers only):

Code:
Rank	Bowler
1	CEL Ambrose (WI)
2	GD McGrath (Aus)
3	Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)
4	MD Marshall (WI)
5	M Muralitharan (SL)
6	Imran Khan (Pak)
7	SF Barnes (Eng)
8	AK Davidson (Aus)
9	CA Walsh (WI)
10	WJ O'Reilly (Aus)
11	SM Pollock (SA)
12	KR Miller (Aus)
13	AA Donald (SA)
14	RR Lindwall (Aus)
15	DK Lillee (Aus)
16	FS Trueman (Eng)
17	GA Lohmann (Eng)
18	JC Laker (Eng)
19	SK Warne (Aus)
20	J Garner (WI)
21	Waqar Younis (Pak)
22	Wasim Akram (Pak)
23	MA Holding (WI)
24	CV Grimmett (Aus)
25	DW Steyn (SA)
26	RGD Willis (Eng)
27	A Kumble (Ind)
28	N Kapil Dev (Ind)
29	LR Gibbs (WI)
30	H Verity (Eng)
31	WPUJC Vaas (SL)
32	M Ntini (SA)
33	JH Kallis (SA)
34	IT Botham (Eng)
35	JN Gillespie (Aus)
36	AME Roberts (WI)
37	GS Sobers (WI)
38	Harbhajan Singh (Ind)
39	B Lee (Aus)
40	DL Vettori (NZ)
41	FR Spofforth (Aus)
At this stage, let's just say that the result is quite different from what I got using PEWS' standardised averages (though I haven't published those results yet).
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
this isn't that different from PEWS list is it?
The top 25 or so is quite different.

After that it doesn't matter much, because 8ankitj's list has only 41 bowlers...So for example, if we apply this method to all bowlers, Harbhajan's ranking might be much poorer than 38.
 

Top