• 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.

How to think about longevity

miscer

U19 Cricketer
Thinking about tennis (or golf, or nba/nfl etc.) where all anyone cares about are grand slams, championship rings etc. got me thinking about longevity and how to value it. People don't really care about match win % or tournament win %. It's about the aggregate tally. Lets ignore the pre 70s days where a 20 year career could be 30 tests for simplicity.

If you only look at modern players say Jimmy Anderson, who has taken (in the last ~8 years) 300 wickets at 23, how do you compare him to a bowler who got 300 wickets in his entire career at 23? Do you only look at the best comparable 300 wicket stretch? Do you pick the best calendar years that get to 300? The best tests that sum to 300? Do you just ignore all that and say both careers breach some threshold of "long" and so you just look at the full career of ~600 wickets vs ~300 wickets and based on bowling average conclude the 23 averaging player is better?


What defines better in this context? Is it how many wins did Anderson contribute to (or losses avoided) throughout his career? Or how many wins (or losses avoided) did Anderson contribute in a comparable number of matches or wickets? In the case of Anderson he roughly averaged 29 for his first 330 wickets and ~23 in the last 300. You can conclude he was a fair bowler in the first half of his career but in the latter half was an ATG and took as many or more wickets than many ATGs in their entire career (and likely contributed to as many or more wins)

I think aggregate tally might be a bit unfair in cricket where some teams play less/more and different eras played less/more. But I would strongly advocate for selecting a player's best stretch (in my opinion it needn't even be a continuous stretch, just the best [x] years/matches) when comparing someone with a very long career vs someone with a shorter career.

The logic as i've alluded to is that the player with the very long career (Anderson in this case) has done everything that the player with the shorter career has done and then some. He has won England as many matches, as many Ashes, taken as many 5-fors etc. I think looking at career averages misses this nuance and underrates players with long careers. Who cares if Richards played on a bit too long and his average dropped? Does it diminish his decade + dominance ? Is Federer falling in esteem as he plays on? The answer is no. Longevity (and especially excellence over a long period) is incredibly important and should be properly rated. This is the primary reason why it's far too premature to call Smith the #2 after Bradman. Ponting has done what Smith has done and then some (scored as many runs at a similar average and then gone on to have a whole second career compared to Smith). So has Sangakkara etc.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
With a thesis that long there’s no point in using Anderson as a yardstick. He’ll always be carved to pieces depending on what ball was used and whether the sun was out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBU

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Peak 10 years should be good to consider really representative years of greatness. Then you get some bonus for playing each additional year as one of the premier players in your team if not in the world.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Peak 10 years should be good to consider really representative years of greatness. Then you get some bonus for playing each additional year as one of the premier players in your team if not in the world.
What is someone is equally good at a 90% level for 18 years compared to someone who is at 100% level for 10 years. Talking about ATG cricketers and not people who have replacement value, with equal amount of fitness, matches etc.

Regardless of whether the second cricketer has displayed a clearly greater level of skill over an extended period, the second is a lot more valuable to a team and I think the value is all that matters to me. I love the skill and art displayed in test cricket but I don't consider it particularly important in terms of how good a cricketer they are which to me is tied into pure value added.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What is someone is equally good at a 90% level for 18 years compared to someone who is at 100% level for 10 years. Talking about ATG cricketers and not people who have replacement value, with equal amount of fitness, matches etc.

Regardless of whether the second cricketer has displayed a clearly greater level of skill over an extended period, the second is a lot more valuable to a team and I think the value is all that matters to me. I love the skill and art displayed in test cricket but I don't consider it particularly important in terms of how good a cricketer they are which to me is tied into pure value added.
There has to be a balance surely, you can't look at it purely from a value perspective and say it's all that matters. Value changes depending on the makeup of your side as well.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I have said it elsewhere before, but cricket as a sport is so context dependent, that bare numbers like averages and strike rates are not usually a completely accurate indicator of value to the team and impact on the game. One indicator of value would be whether you were keeping out someone who can provide better value to the team and that is hard, coz we are bringing in a completely subjective parameter on top of heavily subjective parameters already.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
What is someone is equally good at a 90% level for 18 years compared to someone who is at 100% level for 10 years. Talking about ATG cricketers and not people who have replacement value, with equal amount of fitness, matches etc.

Regardless of whether the second cricketer has displayed a clearly greater level of skill over an extended period, the second is a lot more valuable to a team and I think the value is all that matters to me. I love the skill and art displayed in test cricket but I don't consider it particularly important in terms of how good a cricketer they are which to me is tied into pure value added.
i think the clear thing here is reducing it to formulae like this masks the true inquiry and saps it bare of all context.

some players are incredibly valuable to their teams for their incredibly mercurial peaks like marnus has been for aus in the past two years - while others are so valuable to their team for being atvg honest toilers such as jimmeh anderson - and trying to find a proscriptive formula or set of check boxes is too reductionist an exercise for me to consider worthwhile. you have to look at Player A and Player B on merits and in context, and make an evaluative judgement on said merits.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
There has to be a balance surely, you can't look at it purely from a value perspective and say it's all that matters. Value changes depending on the makeup of your side as well.
Yes, I’m referring to true value based on replacements, makeup etc. not some raw batting/bowling average.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes, I’m referring to true value based on replacements, makeup etc. not some raw batting/bowling average.
Wouldn't players from weaker teams be more 'valuable' then? Shakib adds a hell of a lot more to his side than Sobers did.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
I have said it elsewhere before, but cricket as a sport is so context dependent, that bare numbers like averages and strike rates are not usually a completely accurate indicator of value to the team and impact on the game. One indicator of value would be whether you were keeping out someone who can provide better value to the team and that is hard, coz we are bringing in a completely subjective parameter on top of heavily subjective parameters already.
hb went to his sig and just thought "i have to reword this or i'll be accused of plaigiarism here"

(he's right though)
 

Migara

International Coach
What is someone is equally good at a 90% level for 18 years compared to someone who is at 100% level for 10 years. Talking about ATG cricketers and not people who have replacement value, with equal amount of fitness, matches etc.

Regardless of whether the second cricketer has displayed a clearly greater level of skill over an extended period, the second is a lot more valuable to a team and I think the value is all that matters to me. I love the skill and art displayed in test cricket but I don't consider it particularly important in terms of how good a cricketer they are which to me is tied into pure value added.
Provided that rest of the 8 years you could find a replacement. The usual situation is you can't.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Painstakingly calculated peak 10 calendar year bowling averages for best bowlers of last 50 odd years.

Bowler10 yearsMatWktsWPMAvg
Imran1979-1988552584.6918.74
Hadlee1979-1988543025.5919.27
Murali1998-2007845887.0019.62
Marshall1981-1990603045.0719.66
Ambrose1990-1999713094.3520.14
McGrath1995-2004974584.7220.47
Akram1988-1997552694.8921.13
Steyn2007-2016763855.0721.18
Waqar1989-1998552755.0021.57
Donald1992-2001703284.6921.77
Pollock1995-2004893614.0621.88
Lillee1972-1981563075.4822.79
Walsh1992-2001823454.2124.19
Warne1993-20021024794.7025.30

Edit: Added Pollock
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Warne's peak 10 year average is almost exactly the same as his career average. Hard done by the fact that his weak phase was in between two purple patches at either end of his career.

I might repeat this for batsmen too later.
 

ma1978

International Debutant
I do not believe this board appropriately values longevity and I think that’s partly because the statistical tools do not really exist in cricket to assess career value.

In baseball which ha smart similarities to cricket in terms of career length, statistical analysts have developed WAR (wins over replacement player) as an overarching value metric that takes into account a host of statistical factors, contextualises them and creates a single estimate to win contribution over a “replacement player”(ie the average player who could be picked up any time from the minor leagues). Over time this has become the gold standard for measuring baseball players. Generally a player with career WAR of 60+ stands a good chance of making the hall of fame, someone with 85-90+ is seen as an inner circle hall of famer, 100+ is truly elite


Jay Jaffa a well known analyst created JAWS which combines career and peak WAR and this is starting to take hold


It would be great to see this for cricket

now the idea of a replacement player is not valid because that’s different in every team but I would compare to average
 

Coronis

International Coach
Painstakingly calculated peak 10 calendar year bowling averages for best bowlers of last 50 odd years.

Bowler10 yearsMatWktsWPMAvg
Imran1979-1988552584.6918.74
Hadlee1979-1988543025.5919.27
Murali1998-2007845887.0019.62
Marshall1981-1990603045.0719.66
Ambrose1990-1999713094.3520.14
McGrath1995-2004974584.7220.47
Akram1988-1997552694.8921.13
Steyn2007-2016763855.0721.18
Waqar1989-1998552755.0021.57
Donald1992-2001703284.6921.77
Pollock1995-2004893614.0621.88
Lillee1972-1981563075.4822.79
Walsh1992-2001823454.2124.19
Warne1993-20021024794.7025.30

Edit: Added Pollock
Pleasantly surprised to see Wasim so relatively high on that list.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
I can live with that top 4 of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Murali as my four man bowling attack in my ATG team. Will also bat till 10 which is a huge bonus. Wasim Akram will be my 12th man.
 

Top