How many tests is sufficient to judge a cricketer in a country?

[subshakerz]

This question often comes up in cricket comparisons and I notice a hypocrisy at play here.

If a player succeeds with a small sample, no problems. If he fails, it is not consider sufficient a sample size.

Ambrose has 5 tests in Pakistan averaging 25 and most posters here consider him to be successful there.

Murali has 5 tests in Australia averaging 75 but most posters here don't consider him a definite fail there.

Steyn has 5 tests in England averaging 31, and posters go back and forth on whether that is enough.

How much is sufficient?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Murali has 5 tests in Australia averaging 75 but most posters here don't consider him a definite fail there.

Which posters are you talking about since apart from Miagra and a few others most posters consider him a failure in Australia?

But the thing is this is generally brought up in Warne vs Murali debate and the Australian team the Murali faced was the second best spin playing batting lineup of that era and Warne never had to face them.

 

[Ali TT]

Suggests that maybe some form of analysis by checklist may not be a good idea.

 

[loterry1994]

Probably 10-15 tests but the problem is teams are less likely to give players are longer rope these days for a few failures especially when a team isn’t winning or going well I felt it was much different in the older eras. Say England for example they might of lost a lot of good test players over the years cause they were quick to drop them after they got smoked 4/5-0 away from home.

Think India also has this problem but more in the shorter formats

 

[Slifer]

For me it's not the amount of tests. I'd say at least 3 series if possible. That's why for example, looking at a Lara in NZ people would say he's a failure but for me he wasn't. He played 3 very very short series in NZ and had one great, one good but one God awful series. So overall, a lay person would say he failed there but imo, he didn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

Probably like 50.

This is the prime reason analysis by checklist is ****ing stupid.

 

[Saket1209]

I think 5 or more test is more than enough to judge a player performance in a particular country. Less than 5 ,not applicable. Because if any player play even 5 test in a country and there are total of 10 different nations playing test cricket , he will play 50 test away games. Any most of the players who play 50 odd games away play 100 tests. So I think 5 test is a good sample size.

 

[Andy19]

It's not set number rather multiple series or even few for me.

 

[Saket1209]

2 series or more than 5 tests. 5 tests in 1 series I think isn't a good sample size.Because maybe the player who toured for that 5 test match series was not in prime form. Like Ambrose in SA. Average23 in 4 tests in 1 series. if he have toured sa in his prime ,his record would be better. Same Ambrose had a very good series in Pak in his prime and an awful series in Pak so we can say he was average in PAK.

 

[number11]

[Within parameters], stats are for prats. You have to watch a cricketer to really judge him. The context, the conditions, how he fared relative to others, how in control he was etc.

 

[loterry1994]

[Within parameters], stats are for prats. You have to watch a cricketer to really judge him. The context, the conditions, how he fared relative to others, how in control he was etc.

This is a good point. I think too many test players will have a good series or two at home against weaker opposition and get their stats up then start to fade away when it gets to tougher opponents or away conditions. I remember Kohli scoring centuries I think 2014/15 Australia tour while a lot the other batters were falling over or Stokes getting that debut century against peak Mitch Johnson while everyone else was getting bounced that’s the sort of character you want

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

This question often comes up in cricket comparisons and I notice a hypocrisy at play here.

If a player succeeds with a small sample, no problems. If he fails, it is not consider sufficient a sample size.

Ambrose has 5 tests in Pakistan averaging 25 and most posters here consider him to be successful there.

Murali has 5 tests in Australia averaging 75 but most posters here don't consider him a definite fail there.

Steyn has 5 tests in England averaging 31, and posters go back and forth on whether that is enough.

How much is sufficient?

6.

 

[centurymaker]

Minimum 10-15 Tests across at least 3 series.

But it still isn't a sufficient sample size. It's a bare minimum.

 

[Coronis]

1. Any more is just icing on the cake.

Marshall and Sobers are overrated hacks who couldn’t even get it up against minnow NZ.

Probably like 50.

This is the prime reason analysis by checklist is ****ing stupid.

Wow someone’s done a complete 180.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wow someone’s done a complete 180.

How so?

 

[Coronis]

How so?

You’re always prattling on about how analysis by checklist is the best way to judge a player.

Thats the joke.

 

[Prince EWS]

You’re always prattling on about how analysis by checklist is the best way to judge a player.

Thats the joke.

Ah right, sarcasm. Went right past me

 

[Daemon]

I’ll draw the line at how many KW has played in places where he’s sucked

 

[Son Of Coco]

For a player you like: 1

For a player you don't like: They need to perform at ATG level for a minimum of 250 tests to be considered 'alright'.

 

[honestbharani]

For a player you like: 1

For a player you don't like: They need to perform at ATG level for a minimum of 250 tests to be considered 'alright'.

Saltshakerz in a nutshell