• 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.

What is the best way to determine which player is better?

What is the best way to determine which player is better?

  • Total voters
    20
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Extension of the other thread that ataraxia has started. Adding a poll with the options.

We have loads of comparison threads running in CW at any point of time. What do you base your selection on when you vote for a player? Discuss.
 
A

Ali TT

International Vice-Captain
I remember someone on another forum doing a statistical analysis to show that averages have to be quite some way apart even over a long career to be statistically significantly different. I can't quite remember the range but giving egs on this thread of discussions about KP and Flower or VK and AB, there's nothing statistically that really separates their test career averages.

So basically I just judge it on what I see. There are players I'd rather see score a fifty than others with far superior records score a century. Cricket is an entertainment, after all.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Ali TT said:
I remember someone on another forum doing a statistical analysis to show that averages have to be quite some way apart even over a long career to be statistically significantly different. I can't quite remember the range but giving egs on this thread of discussions about KP and Flower or VK and AB, there's nothing statistically that really separates their test career averages.

So basically I just judge it on what I see. There are players I'd rather see score a fifty than others with far superior records score a century. Cricket is an entertainment, after all.
Click to expand...
I've done a similar analysis to this in the past but I don't remember if I posted it here. Basically with very crude but fairly reasonable statistical approximations to how batting statistics work, you could get a rough guesstimate of the confidence interval that surrounds even a highly established Test batting average and it is massive - mid-single digit plus/minus after 100 Tests or something like that. Basically the gaps between averages have to really enormous, like Smith vs everyone else big, to be genuinely significant, and that's not taking into account stuff like variation between eras, context of certain crunch performances vs mere stat-padding, etc.

It's not that average is useless, but it's subject to way way way more uncertainty than I think 95% of cricket analysis accounts for. And that's before we get into the analysis by checklist greatest hits like average in country; which when deployed naively as an uncorrected statistical measure really is borderline useless.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Stage 1: Check the overall record for any major discrepancy to merit one player automatically ahead of the other, like a 15 point average difference

Stage 2: Check their general peer/pundit rating to see how which particular tier he is generally viewed as, like ATG, great, worldclass, useful, etc.

Stage 3: Analysis by checklist to see any holes in the record or particularly outstanding record to set them apart

Stage 4: Detailed analysis on playing style/eye test, country/team/position/era to put context to the numbers
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
subshakerz said:
Stage 1: Check the overall record for any major discrepancy to merit one player automatically ahead of the other, like a 15 point average difference

Stage 2: Check their general peer/pundit rating to see how which particular tier he is generally viewed as, like ATG, great, worldclass, useful, etc.

Stage 3: Analysis by checklist to see any holes in the record or particularly outstanding record to set them apart

Stage 4: Detailed analysis on playing style/eye test, country/team/position/era to put context to the numbers
Click to expand...
Other important considerations:

-How significant were their contributions to Warwickshire CCC?

-Has this player given us any decent memes?

-Were they directly responsible for torching Himannv's first car in their younger days?

-Deduct points if player is Nathan Lyon.
 
A

Ali TT

International Vice-Captain
Spark said:
I've done a similar analysis to this in the past but I don't remember if I posted it here. Basically with very crude but fairly reasonable statistical approximations to how batting statistics work, you could get a rough guesstimate of the confidence interval that surrounds even a highly established Test batting average and it is massive - mid-single digit plus/minus after 100 Tests or something like that. Basically the gaps between averages have to really enormous, like Smith vs everyone else big, to be genuinely significant, and that's not taking into account stuff like variation between eras, context of certain crunch performances vs mere stat-padding, etc.

It's not that average is useless, but it's subject to way way way more uncertainty than I think 95% of cricket analysis accounts for. And that's before we get into the analysis by checklist greatest hits like average in country; which when deployed naively as an uncorrected statistical measure really is borderline useless.
Click to expand...
You're not Gabe, by chance?

Yes, I think the Flower v KP discussion shows this. Flower has a higher average but only played 3 tests total in Eng, SA and Aus, with over a third of his matches in Asia. So really hard to make any comparison - we just can't judge how good or not Flower was against all comers, whereas KP got to demonstrate how strengths and weaknesses more broadly around the cricketing world.
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
watching a player for a long time to know their style, strengths, weaknesses and also watching the other player they’re being compared to over similar periods is the best way imo but its not feasible enough unless both players have played for your side and you watch your side matches regularly
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
- Raw career average
- The opposite of what contemporaries say, because we all know sportsmen and media pundits are idiots (and if you don't know this, you are definitely an idiot). Also, this corrects for aura, an irrelevant factor but a bias that needs to be accounted for.

And that's it, my friends
 
CricketFan90s

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
It’s very tough to determine but not impossible. For example if you see 90s hardly players like Gooch, Tendulkar, Waugh, Lara had an Average of 50+ but in 2000s the averages increased for many players to 50+ which is an indication of changes to Bat Size, Boundary Size etc., 2000s saw a rise in Batting Averages. So we cannot compare eras but only judge a player based on how good he was in that particular period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top