Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Haha, this was caused by the bug it seems.Fazal > Waqar
Haha, this was caused by the bug it seems.Fazal > Waqar
So were these (although Warne is still higher than I'd have expected -- 5th, still ahead of Murali).
- I never thought I'd see a statistical analysis built around averages and longevity that ranked Warne ahead of Murali, at least not without just straight up excluding some games. Given the algorithm does address the two main things Warne point to -- Murali playing on more helpful pitches and disproportionately playing weaker opposition -- I suppose it makes some sense, but I'm still pretty surprised we've got Warne at #2 now.
- Cowie h4x is bigger than ever.
- We now have Nissar and Amar h4x to join him, I guess owing to their dead home wickets.
Nah, it doesn't rate a country's pitches pace-friendly just because the bowlers are good. It compares the home bowlers do with how the quicks from the same team do away, and then it also compares how the quicks of visiting teams do with how they did against the same team's batting lineup at home. So your quicks can average 12 at home and still not have your pitches rated as friendly if they also only average 13 away, or touring bowlers get rekt. As an example, right now the Australian pitches are rated worse than the Bangladesh pitches for fast bowling (dead last) even though they've had Starc, Haze, Cummins, Patto etc bowling for them on them. You can see how multiple good bowlers didn't cause the great West Indians to suddenly have bad standardised averages too.Actually Lillee, Thomson and Walker all treated harshly here. Could it be that because they were one of the best pace attacks Australia ever had, the resulting Australia pace friendly rating has unfairly impacted on their individual rating?
Spin-friendliness:Let's say Jan 1954. Whenever you can.
On this, I suspect that if I looked into the methodology the article below dives into for dealing with not outs, Chanderpaul would be more accurately rated (and possibly Barrington as well).Chanderpaul's batting ranking is a bit of a put-off for me personally.
Yeah, there could be a number of explanations for bowlers of the same type in the same team to all have an increase. Off the top of my head:Thanks for detailed response. Still seems strange that every Aussie pace bowler from the 70s and 80s have such increased averages compared to other nations bowlers from the same period.
Lillee, McDermott, Thomson, Hughes, Walker, Alderman, Hogg and Lawson all have significantly higher averages ( I couldn't find one that didn't)
I had to lol at this one...obviously you never watched Australia play cricket in the 80'sYeah, there could be a number of explanations for bowlers of the same type in the same team to all have an increase. Off the top of my head:
* their team playing a disproportionate amount of games against weak opposition
No no no, I was just listing all the possibilities I could think that could make all players from one team (in a general sense) in one area suffer a hit. Obviously some of them don't apply to this particular case at all.I had to lol at this one...obviously you never watched Australia play cricket in the 80's
Allrounders are interesting. If you take the square root of the multiples of bat value and bowl value, to find a sort of "rounded allrounder value", this is the top 25:I love that with the standardised averages, Don Bradman has could be flimisily argued to have been a better allrounder than Jacques Kallis.
I wouldn't have guessed Goddard would've been so high. Wally Hammond is a bit of a weird one in there as well.Allrounders are interesting. If you take the square of the multiples of bat value and bowl value, to find a sort of "rounded allrounder value", this is the top 25:
1. GS Sobers (WI) - 2.46
2. JH Kallis (SA) - 2.33
3. Imran Khan (Pak) - 2.20
4. TL Goddard (SA) - 2.08
5. WR Hammond (Eng) - 2.03
6. KR Miller (Aus) - 2.00
7. SM Pollock (SA) - 1.91
8. N Kapil Dev (Ind) - 1.89
9. Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) - 1.88
10. FMM Worrell (WI) - 1.84
11. MA Noble (Aus) - 1.83
12. Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) - 1.80
13. W Rhodes (Eng) - 1.79
14. R Benaud (Aus) - 1.77
15. GA Faulkner (SA) - 1.76
16. AK Davidson (Aus) - 1.75
17. Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) - 1.73
18. G Giffen (Aus) - 1.73
19. WW Armstrong (Aus) - 1.71
20. W Bates (Eng) - 1.71
21. JR Reid (NZ) - 1.70
22. IT Botham (Eng) - 1.69
23. Asif Iqbal (Pak) - 1.69
24. KD Walters (Aus) - 1.67
25. SR Waugh (Aus) - 1.66
Seems to be slightly bat-skewed, which doesn't surprise me much when you look at the values at the tops of the batting and bowling lists (ie. the best batsmen are slightly higher than the best bowlers, even ignoring Bradman). This seems to be because great batsmen tend to play on a bit longer than great bowlers and therefore have more longevity.