subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
A most contentious issue.
-
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.
Peer rating - Value it or discard it?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Nil. I don't care about peer value. Only my "objective" parameters. Just like I don't care if a poet is critically acclaimed or not.
Coronis
International Coach
I don’t take it into account when rating players.
Stories written by peers or by writers of the time are always a fun read but they generally don’t give much real value. (The only exception I’ve seen in any recent time is the stories regarding Sobers’ bowling styles and success with each type throughout his career)
Stories written by peers or by writers of the time are always a fun read but they generally don’t give much real value. (The only exception I’ve seen in any recent time is the stories regarding Sobers’ bowling styles and success with each type throughout his career)
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Do you assess skill level only by stats?
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Peer value is biased towards the bigger nations of that period. Just like history written by historians and poems by the poets are biased towards the emperors of that time. It is all about money.
Peer value can be may be 5% of your evaluation. Rest should be objectivity.
Peer value can be may be 5% of your evaluation. Rest should be objectivity.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Doesn't it get more standardized as more cricketers play each other more often?
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Stats is a good measure to assess skill and is underrated here compared to eye test. But stats should not be blindly followed upon. Else Ganteaume will be the best batsman in history. Your way of evaluating stats is good;away/home average, longevity, opposition strength, nature of pitches, era average etc. But your way of evaluating through peer reviews is bad.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't get it. What is the connection?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
My way is probably 80 percent record to establish which level a player should be placed and 20 percent peer rating to decide his order and relative placement compared to others at the same level.
For example, if I judge Wasim just on record, he wouldn't be in the top ten pacers. Peer rating gets him over the line.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
How?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Wasim's basic stats overall and across countries are still worldclass but still below the level of other top ten pacers. If on record only, I would put him between 11-15. But he was largely seen as the best pacer of the nineties by his peers so that means he belongs up there.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Below which 10? Apart from the top 6 his stats aren't much different from other pacers.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
IMO it has a tendency to rating style over substance.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I like how you put "objective" in parentheses, as a nod to the fallibility of humankind and the dangers of hubris.
You should come over for tea sometime, my good man.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Lillee, Trueman and Donald have better overall stats, though the first two have gaps in their records. Akram has a higher than usual average and very low WPM. One can make a case for Holding and Garner over Wasim too based on stats.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Donald yes, others no. Lillee has higher average than Wasim and Trueman played in most bowling friendly era and his standardised average is similar to Wasim. Wasim has more longevity than either.
Holding and Garner? No lol.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Wasim's was a pretty bowling friendly era too. Lillee took 5 wickets a test, Wasim not even four, that's a big difference. Holding and Garner are only held back by not crossing the 300 threshold.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Yeah but not compared to the 50s. That was something else.
Wasim had to share wickets with Waqar and Saqlain and for a good part of his career, Imran and Shoaib.
Lillee only with Jeff.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There is no objectivity in these things. People will ascribe their own weight to the variables and get results accordingly.
Surely peer rating is something to take into account like anything else? More so if there's some broad peer consistency. But it's no more or less a relevant factor than how a player went in a given country as a metric. And we all use that to some extent or another in rating players. TBH the idea people "objectively" rate players because they use the same criteria across all players and eras is laughable, because the criteria you choose are themselves variable.