How good is Ryan Harris?

[viriya]

Yeah, I've not looked at yours too much but they're not perfect either. As I said, not an exact science. Whoever is creating the rankings will put in their own little biases that reflect the way they view the game and what they think is important.

Obviously not perfect, but I would think I take more things into account better, and criticism/comments appreciated (via PM so we don't derail this thread).

 

[Jono]

Everyone knows ICC's ratings is ****.

I didn't say it was or wasn't. Just said Steyn 1 and Harris 2 is awesome. Fatty Herath 3 is even more awesome.

You know what is **** though? The ****ing roll eyes emoticon.

 

[Teja.]

Viriya, I dunno what factors you take into account but your ratings put Herath ahead of Steyn for number one which indicates something problematic about them surely?

 

[viriya]

Viriya, I dunno what factors you take into account but your ratings put Herath ahead of Steyn for number one which indicates something problematic about them surely?

Right now, yes. I'm not sure if you followed what he did vs Pak. That's current form btw.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Viriya, I dunno what factors you take into account but your ratings put Herath ahead of Steyn for number one which indicates something problematic about them surely?

It also has Lara's 153 at No.53 in the all time greatest innings list, Tendulkar's 248 against Bangladesh at No.28 (!), and VVS's 281 is nowhere in the top 100.

So, yeah, a tiny bit flawed I'd say.

 

[viriya]

It also has Lara's 153 at No.53 in the all time greatest innings list, Tendulkar's 248 against Bangladesh at No.28 (!), and VVS's 281 is nowhere in the top 100.

So, yeah, a tiny bit flawed I'd say.

While I would like Lara's 153 to be up there, it's hard to rate it high based on a formula that's the same every single innings.. It was a great innings, but Warne was not in good form back then (he was in his mid career). Even then, it's rated an ATG innings and it's actually the lowest score to be in the top 100.

Tendulkar's 248 is automatically discredited because it's vs Bangladesh, but if you look at the scorecard - he had very little support, and batted very well with the tail (Zaheer for the last wicket).. aside from the fact the bowling was average, that innings ticks a lot of the right boxes.

VVS's 281 just missed out on the top 100.. the innings gets a bonus because it's made on a follow on and results in a win, but he got great support from Dravid in that innings.. also even though it seems a great bowling attack, only McGrath was in great form in 2001.

You might note that high scores are automatically given a high rating. While low scores in low team totals are rated higher, if actual runs don't have a significant enough base reward you start seeing names that shouldn't be up there in the ATG career lists (which are compiled by an average of all a player's innings ratings with a longevity bonus).

Good observations, but when you're going by a formula that applies to all innings, it doesn't matter what innings are remembered most, if the scorecard data doesn't allow it to be rated higher it's hard to do much about it. Any suggestions on anything else I should consider is appreciated:
cricrate | Test Batting Ratings

 

[OverratedSanity]

While I would like Lara's 153 to be up there, it's hard to rate it high based on a formula that's the same every single innings.. It was a great innings, but Warne was not in good form back then (he was in his mid career). Even then, it's rated an ATG innings and it's actually the lowest score to be in the top 100.

Tendulkar's 248 is automatically discredited because it's vs Bangladesh, but if you look at the scorecard - he had very little support, and batted very well with the tail (Zaheer for the last wicket).. aside from the fact the bowling was average, that innings ticks a lot of the right boxes.

VVS's 281 just missed out on the top 100.. the innings gets a bonus because it's made on a follow on and results in a win, but he got great support from Dravid in that innings.. also even though it seems a great bowling attack, only McGrath was in great form in 2001.

I agree with precisely zero of this. There's just no justification for ranking Tendulkar's 248 25 places higher than Lara's 153, and not having the 281 in such a list is a ****ing crime.

My primary criticism is that it seems to place waaaayyyyyy too much importance on the size of the innings. It often has zilch to do with the quality of the knock.

 

[viriya]

My primary criticism is that it seems to place waaaayyyyyy too much importance on the size of the innings. It often has zilch to do with the quality of the knock.

I do discount high scoring innings past 200 since usually they don't make an effect on the match result (the difference between a 200 and a 250 is much less than a 100 and a 50), but base runs scored remains the most important factor.

If you don't have enough weightage given to the size of the innings, you will get middle-late order batsmen that averaged 30-40 as ATGs since they generally come in at a tough time and contribute valuable runs. What I've found is people generally rate player careers based on the average, strike rate etc, but when rating innings, runs scored doesn't matter much. It's hard to reconcile the two.

One thing to keep in mind is that this is rating innings based on scorecard data - how green the pitch was, how great the innings looked etc don't matter at the end of the day if the player got a lot of support (suggesting easier conditions), or came in to bat at a comfortable situation, or batted vs bowlers who might've been ATGs, but were in bad form.

Good point though - I'm probably gonna take a look again and lower the runs scored factor a bit, but it won't be significant enough to make you think the ratings formula isn't garbage

 

[cnerd123]

It often has zilch to do with the quality of the knock.

Any statistic-based analysis of a batting innings would do this tbh.

 

[Coronis]

Your ratings automatically lose all meaning when Jack Hobbs is rated 24th.

 

[viriya]

Your ratings automatically lose all meaning when Jack Hobbs is rated 24th.

This was mentioned in a previous thread, but the main reason is due to the relatively low quality of bowling attacks in his time.. Please refer to this thread:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/62989-cricrate-new-cricket-ratings-website.html
for any further discussion on the ratings so this thread isn't derailed.

 

[Spark]

It also has Lara's 153 at No.53 in the all time greatest innings list, Tendulkar's 248 against Bangladesh at No.28 (!), and VVS's 281 is nowhere in the top 100.

So, yeah, a tiny bit flawed I'd say.

Haha yeah it's one of those cases where basic sanity checks have to apply.

 

[GotSpin]

Thread got **** very quickly

 

[Pratters]

I actually thought Philander would do fine on the flatter wickets, because I saw him in the UAE and he bowled superbly. Thought he also did ok in SL, even though he didn't really get many wickets.

But if people consider him a Green track bully now, I still wholeheartedly agree. WAFC he is.

Have been impressed with Philander's length v Windies. If he bowls in this rhythm, can do fine on less bouncier tracks as well. Will try and see how he goes in the next series in. the subcontinent.

 

[Furball]

There are no words for how good he is. Phenominal cricketer.

He'd be an ATG if he 1) hadn't been rubbish for ages in FC cricket and b) had knees.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are no words for how good he is. Phenominal cricketer.

He'd be an ATG if he 1) hadn't been rubbish for ages in FC cricket and b) had knees.

Yeah spot on. He's absolutely awesome right now and a lock for any World XI, but short of an ATG because of how dire he was early on. I'd be willing to call him an ATG if he'd even just been good at FC level but not selected due to strong competition, but he was hopeless to the point of not justifying his place for SA, who themselves weren't a good Shield side. You just get so much more value out of the career of a real ATG who contributed for so much longer.

 

[Furball]

That's what endears him to me all the more though. It's not that he was a decent to good cricketer who just didn't get a chance in his early career (even if he'd been a 24-25 averaging Shield bowler in his early 20s he wouldn't have gotten near the side), it's that he was legitimately rubbish and has still ended up a ****ing brilliant bowler.

 

[Furball]

He's genuinely been an inspiration to me as well though. The last series I watched a significant amount of was the 2013 Ashes in part due to recovering from knee surgery; seeing a bloke with basically no knees perform to a world class level in his chosen sport was a huge deal to me when I was going through my rehab.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah spot on. He's absolutely awesome right now and a lock for any World XI, but short of an ATG because of how dire he was early on. I'd be willing to call him an ATG if he'd even just been good at FC level but not selected due to strong competition, but he was hopeless to the point of not justifying his place for SA, who themselves weren't a good Shield side. You just get so much more value out of the career of a real ATG who contributed for so much longer.

Yeah but it's even a bit more nuanced than that and as **** as the SA team was, places in the bowking unit were harder to come by than in the bats. Has always been highly-rated with the ball in the grade setup but he a) played bugger-all rep cricket b) was injured all the time and c) because of that and competition for bowling spots, told he had to be a batting all rounder to get a gig with SA. So his bowling took a back-seat whilst he concentrated on scoring grade tons and bowling 4th behind Gillespie/Rofe/Tait. Once Tait quit FC cricket, that's when he was given the enforcer role and ****s like GChapp and Nobes then let him slip away to QLD just as his stock as a quick was surging.

How he treated his batting was, for me, a decent pointer to the sort of cricketer he is. His Northern Jets captain from the time once told me when he first came out to training, barely knew which end of the cue to hold. Went away and worked on it, within a season or two was scoring regular grade tons. In his first couple of Pura Cup (SPIT) games, faced Lee and claimed he didn't see a single ball but hung in and again, just willed himself to get better. Worked super hard on his batting because he thought he had to to play higher. Once he was given the new ball, applied the same work ethic to his bowling and, fairly quickly, picked up both speed and movement off the seam he never really had, was generally trying to do his work in the air at his former med-quick speed but had to change his approach as what he was sending down changed and his batting backed off.

Basically, has the willingness to fundamentally (and quickly) alter his game to get where he wants to but I reckon he always thought he had it in him to go higher. Assimilates stuff that works into his game quicker than anyone around and doesn't wrap himself in knots worrying about whether it'll work or need time to feel comfortable, just ****ing does it. Is incredibly sensitive to the needs of the team but not in a compromising way; if asked to bowl line, just does it and if asked to be the gun, just does it. Very rare. Ryan Harris just equals self-belief.

 

[Dan]

Seriously, how can anybody not love Ryno? WAFG.