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

[ankitj]

average in matches won

lolololol

 

[Red]

I don't know why people are picking on Siddle being ranked bigger than Lillee. Srinath and Brett Lee are far more egregious examples in this list.

Any system ranking Siddle, Lee or Srinath above Lillee is flawed.

 

[aussie tragic]

Actually, the longegivity factor seems to be the most flawed about this, which makes sense because it is such a subjective measure in a stats based algorithm.

Lillee debuted in Jan 71 and played his last test in Jan 84, so 13 year international career, but is only given 8.05 years here. I know WSC took off 2 years and his career threatening back injury took out 20 months between Mar 73 and Nov 74, but why should that injury be held against him? He bowled express pace and therefore suffered injuries like most express pace bowlers. He was not a fast-medium like McGrath, Andersen or Walsh who can have long careers because they bowl slower.

Thommo and Gillespie are other bowlers who suffered in the ratings because of fielding accidents that took them out of the game, nothing to do with their skills as bowlers.

Also, in earlier years bowlers would play 8 or so shield games with the tests, and an Ashes tour would be more than 20 games...now there are only 2 tour games in an Ashes series and the first test Ashes bowlers don't even play the first tour game due to resting (I'm sure 2nd tour game will be the same). Why should they be considered to have more longevivity because they play in cotton wool?

Above are genuine queries.

 

[jimmy101]

This is why i dont understand why so many people obsess over stats so much. No matter what stats measure is used there will always be outliers that cannot be accounted for. Especially when it comes to cricket, which is an ever evolving sport.

 

[Teja.]

Actually, the longegivity factor seems to be the most flawed about this, which makes sense because it is such a subjective measure in a stats based algorithm.

Lillee debuted in Jan 71 and played his last test in Jan 84, so 13 year international career, but is only given 8.05 years here. I know WSC took off 2 years and his career threatening back injury took out 20 months between Mar 73 and Nov 74, but why should that injury be held against him? He bowled express pace and therefore suffered injuries like most express pace bowlers. He was not a fast-medium like McGrath, Andersen or Walsh who can have long careers because they bowl slower.

Thommo and Gillespie are other bowlers who suffered in the ratings because of fielding accidents that took them out of the game, nothing to do with their skills as bowlers.

Also, in earlier years bowlers would play 8 or so shield games with the tests, and an Ashes tour would be more than 20 games...now there are only 2 tour games in an Ashes series and the first test Ashes bowlers don't even play the first tour game due to resting (I'm sure 2nd tour game will be the same). Why should they be considered to have more longevivity because they play in cotton wool?

Above are genuine queries.

Regarding the injury:

I presume the list is built to calculate the value added by a player to his international side over their career - not their skill level, speed, ferocity, psychological tenacity etc.

The injury that Lillee suffered probably should not put him out of contention for recieving a golden Rolex on his retirement day but from a team POV, it is more incredibly more valuable that a player did not get injured and performed at a high level for those two years instead.

The more appropriate question to ask is not why Lillee is rated lower but rather why should McGrath be not rated higher for avoiding injury and being at least as effective when on the field? Bowling fast is a means to an end and not an extenuating factor. If you’re able to bowl slower, get the same results and play more matches due to not being injured, that is a massive plus for a bowler.

Also, regarding fielding injuries, whether or not they are related to the skill level of the bowler is immaterial. The list (I presume) is not interested at all in computing that. If you’re injured on the field, and you’re out for a year, you are not adding value to your side for that year which somebody else is doing.

The same logic applies to modern cricketers playing less F.C. games. All the list is considering is value added to your international side, not why players of the past were is a worse position to do so - whether that is due to lower FC matches, higher quality medicine, better travel, more *** etc. is a not within the purview if the list.

You are framing this as a moral question of whether or not a player deserves a better rating due to xyz factors. The list is completely agnostic as to the individual extenuating factors behind performances of cricketers. It only contextualises the performances to the extent of standardising for the quality of batting/bowling and the nature of the pitches. The fact that batsman A and batsman B are opening in Perth in 92 against Australia are all relevant factors. Whether batsman B is battling cancer at the same time is not a relevant factor in the system.

If you think it should be, that’s fine. Then, it’s just that you and Cribbage worship completely different gods.

 

[Victor Ian]

Im guessing one angle for why longevity matters is that, if you are picking great players for your team, you want to be assured they are on the park. Players who lose too much form get dropped and can't rack up longevity. Players who get injured...**** em. They are risky propositions. Express bowlers take this risk. While fit, they may be worth heaps to the attack, but then again, they may be off the ground and worth nothing.

Ultimately, the longevity factor is subjective, but my understanding is that it is small. I'd imagine the true ranking of a player is somewhat of an average of this ranking, the regular stats, the icc rankings and however much of player accounts you wish to be swayed by.

The Siddle ranking might seem bananas - that is apt. It can probably do with some tweaking to knock Siddle down a few places, but then again, maybe this is doing its job and showing us that Siddle is actually better than most people give him credit for.

 

[jimmy101]

I dunno. If you have a player that gets injured on the field and is sidelined for a year because they were bowling their heart out trying to win the Ashes, for example, then i would valuethat bowler overa bowler that bowledwithin themselves in order to protect their body.

We must alsokeep in mind that Lillee played well before the age of "workload management"

 

[aussie tragic]

Another way to look at it is that Siddle has never been close to being the best bowler in his Team...and yet?

 

[jimmy101]

Not sure about that either, Siddle was most certainly Australia's go-to bowler during the mid 2010s

 

[jimmy101]

South African tour of Australia in 13/14. Might have gotten the year wrong, but i recall him being thown the ball and bowling at almost every key moment ofevery match.

 

[Jarquis]

Another way to look at it is that Siddle has never been close to being the best bowler in his Team...and yet?

Stan McCabe was never the best batsman in his team yet is rated higher than Ponting, so here we are.

 

[Flem274*]

worth keeping in mind these rankings came along during a time where cw atg threads were basically worshipping conventional wisdom, crap opinions of blokes we would or do despise as commentators and extreme subjectivity and pining for bygone eras by posters themselves. this list was a welcome shake up of stale discussions.

the most egregious crime pews committed was editing his own rankings to remove jack the bull cowie from the top bowling spot. he knows that naturally jack cowie is the goat, he just cannot accept it in his little robot, more sensitive and loving than you'd expect, cpu.

 

[aussie tragic]

Lol, just read the initial ratings on 1st page. McGrath was 13th and Lillee 26th. It must have had a lot of tweaks to end up with McGrath 1 and Lillee 83

 

[Burner]

Yes. I guess it also helps that McGrath was a good bowler who could bowl in any condition.

 

[aussie tragic]

Yes. I guess it also helps that McGrath was a good bowler who could bowl in any condition.

Well keeping it below 130km/h does help with that

 

[Jarquis]

Faster =! Better


Burgey to respond

 

[aussie tragic]

Faster =! Better


Burgey to respond

Doesn't need Burgey, faster is better, would much rather watch 150+ bowling any day of the week

 

[Flem274*]

lillee is the bowler baby boomers wish they were and mcgrath is the bowler baby boomers wish lillee was

mcgrath is the goat.

 

[aussie tragic]

lillee is the bowler baby boomers wish they were and mcgrath is the bowler baby boomers wish lillee was

mcgrath is the goat.

Weren't baby boomers like 35 when Lillee made his debut? And McGrath was like watching paint dry. Aggressive fast bowling was worth paying for, Lillee, Hadlee, Garner, Holding....McGrath was not.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Lillee will suffer in any stats manoeuvring and historical reading because Australia didn't tour the sub-continent much during his time. Detractors claim that he suddenly became ill because he wanted to avoid the tours, but he actually missed one that he could have gone on. On his one tour of Pakistan he didn't do well. The first pitch was a dead, slow turner where the spinners did most bowling and took most wickets. The other two pitches were "roads" on which 24 and 12 wickets fell in the entire game and were obvious draws very early on. There's probably a spreadsheet somewhere that proves that McGrath would have bowled them out twice in under a day, but it's a bit speculative. There's plenty of reasons to believe that McGrath was a better bowler than Lillee, although I don't agree. But Siddle is rather potty.