Years or Test - Which is the best way to test longevity?

[subshakerz]

I have seen posters evaluate performances based on a large number of years of a player's career which only amount to a minority of overall tests played, and then equate players who had similar length careers though one may have played substantially more tests.

Which is the best way to evaluate longevity?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I have seen posters evaluate performances based on a large number of years of a player's career which only amount to a minority of overall tests played, and then equate players who had similar length careers though one may have played substantially more tests.

Which is the best way to evaluate longevity?

Years.

People playing all the Tests available to them rather than missing Tests during their career is valuable, and so more Tests is obviously better than fewer relative to the opportunity a player has. But yeah longevity = time. A modern player who plays 50 Tests in 5 years has (much) less longevity than an earlier player who played 40 Tests across a decade due to scheduling.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tests, each test is a data point, which demonstrates a further proving of the player.

If we don't take Tests as the criteria, the mileage on the players varies widely, and that's not even comparing eras, some players are in more "active" competitions and leagues than others. Going by a tine based measure of longevity instead of data point measured, opens up all of these inconsistencies as to whose longevity was actually more valuable, etc. Stick to number of Tests, to keep things fair. (And no, I don't think that cricket from pre World War II, and a more modern cricketing Era can be compared anyway, so I don't have any interest in making any consistency to aid longevity comparison in that regard either.)

The #of Tests measure, should of course be thrown out for all England players, in whose case we should of course resort to whichever measures keep the likes of Alistair Cook out of any listing of "greats" of the game.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Years are more important. Perhaps a 70/30 split for years/tests played.

Two of the top dozen bowlers of all time played just 27 tests for example.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah with the ancient era needing ship travel, modern era expecting 3 formats but some teams play a lot more etc then years is fairest. Better to be an option for a long time rather than luck into the right era/team for max tests.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Years.

People playing all the Tests available to them rather than missing Tests during their career is valuable, and so more Tests is obviously better than fewer relative to the opportunity a player has. But yeah longevity = time. A modern player who plays 50 Tests in 5 years has (much) less longevity than an earlier player who played 40 Tests across a decade due to scheduling.

Tests, each test is a data point, which demonstrates a further proving of the player.

If we don't take Tests as the criteria, the mileage on the players varies widely, and that's not even comparing eras, some players are in more "active" competitions and leagues than others. Going by a tine based measure of longevity instead of data point measured, opens up all of these inconsistencies as to whose longevity was actually more valuable, etc. Stick to number of Tests, to keep things fair. (And no, I don't think that cricket from pre World War II, and a more modern cricketing Era can be compared anyway, so I don't have any interest in making any consistency to aid longevity comparison in that regard either.)

The #of Tests measure, should of course be thrown out for all England players, in whose case we should of course resort to whichever measures keep the likes of Alistair Cook out of any listing of "greats" of the game.

Both correct, but only the former is specifically relevant to the "longevity" point

 

[OverratedSanity]

Years, while keeping in mind how many of his team's tests the player misses.

 

[Line and Length]

Definitely years. Imagine Hobbs' record of games had WWI not intervened and if there had been more than 15 series (between 1907/08 and 1930) in which he could participate.

 

[ankitj]

Given English test spam, years is the only valid way to assess longevity.

 

[ataraxia]

As it's important to account for earlier eras where FC games were more important than tests and careers were longer, and given the fact of the matter that longevity > all, to automatically adjust for era this is the correct way to rate players (+ for batters; − for bowlers):

([FC career span in years * 100]^[Year of FC debut]) ± (standardised average)

With regard to seamers, even greater accuracy can be attained by dividing the final result by the probability that a slip catch is caught.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

As it's important to account for earlier eras where FC games were more important than tests and careers were longer, and given the fact of the matter that longevity > all, to automatically adjust for era this is the correct way to rate players (+ for batters; − for bowlers):

([FC career span in years * 100]^[Year of FC debut]) ± (standardised average)

With regard to seamers, even greater accuracy can be attained by dividing the final result by the probability that a slip catch is caught.

I like this method because Woakes rightly comes out on top.

 

[subshakerz]

Tests, each test is a data point, which demonstrates a further proving of the player.

If we don't take Tests as the criteria, the mileage on the players varies widely, and that's not even comparing eras, some players are in more "active" competitions and leagues than others. Going by a tine based measure of longevity instead of data point measured, opens up all of these inconsistencies as to whose longevity was actually more valuable, etc. Stick to number of Tests, to keep things fair. (And no, I don't think that cricket from pre World War II, and a more modern cricketing Era can be compared anyway, so I don't have any interest in making any consistency to aid longevity comparison in that regard either.)

The #of Tests measure, should of course be thrown out for all England players, in whose case we should of course resort to whichever measures keep the likes of Alistair Cook out of any listing of "greats" of the game.

I agree completely.

 

[srbhkshk]

imo reducing this to a single factor is fraught with risks and will just not work with the wide variety of circumstances a player goes through . If I was to try to determine a single number anyway for each player, I'd go something like this -

1. Start with number of years played, obviously this needs to be the actual number of years where you played at least one (maybe even 2-3) tests, (so not just retirement - debut.) [N]
2. Percentage of tests played by the available actual tests, so tests you played / total tests your team played over this period. Relevant because being actually available to play cricket is quite important when considering longevity. [N * Played %]. This played % can either be the overall %ge over career or the average of yearly %, both will have pros and cons.
3. Adjust for the actual number of tests played per year, if two players play the exact same number of years but one plays double the tests he still does have higher longevity. This can not be linear, as in double the tests does not mean double the longevity so some sort of diminishing function. [N * Played % * (Avg test per year)^ Some number less than 1]. This "some number less than 1" needs to be different for express pacers , normal pacers , spinners, batsman etc. given how much harder it's for a pacer to play 15 tests in a year compared to a batsman.
4. Adjust for years where you were willing and capable of playing tests but your team simply didn't play any so there was no chance for you. So something like the sum of all years between your debut and retirement where your team played no tests. This might need further refinement for players who had to debut late or (effectively) retire early due to lack of team games. [ (N + N') * Played % * (Avg test per year) ^x ]

This is roughly where I will start with but I am sure even this will fail for a wide variety of cases, simple example would be a pacer playing 17-18 tests in a single year is pretty much certain to get injured so there should maybe be some bonus for years where you just play an absolute shitload of tests to compensate for the expected low amount of play in the next couple years.

 

[Starfighter]

Tests, each test is a data point, which demonstrates a further proving of the player.

If we don't take Tests as the criteria, the mileage on the players varies widely, and that's not even comparing eras, some players are in more "active" competitions and leagues than others. Going by a tine based measure of longevity instead of data point measured, opens up all of these inconsistencies as to whose longevity was actually more valuable, etc. Stick to number of Tests, to keep things fair. (And no, I don't think that cricket from pre World War II, and a more modern cricketing Era can be compared anyway, so I don't have any interest in making any consistency to aid longevity comparison in that regard either.)

The #of Tests measure, should of course be thrown out for all England players, in whose case we should of course resort to whichever measures keep the likes of Alistair Cook out of any listing of "greats" of the game.

More tests is akin to increasing the sample rate. This might mean more reliable data with less likelihood of unrepresentative performances skewing things, but it isn't longevity. Number of tests is only partly under a player's control, so you couldn't 'value' a players longevity that way anyway, and the total amount of cricket played is going to bear on fitness regardless of whether it's in tests.

 

[subshakerz]

More tests is akin to increasing the sample rate. This might mean more reliable data with less likelihood of unrepresentative performances skewing things, but it isn't longevity. Number of tests is only partly under a player's control, so you couldn't 'value' a players longevity that way anyway, and the total amount of cricket played is going to bear on fitness regardless of whether it's in tests.

Shouldnt performance over a greater sample size be valued more than longer years but much less tests?

 

[Starfighter]

Shouldnt performance over a greater sample size be valued more than longer years but much less tests?

Did you read beyond the first line? The number of tests played is only partly under a player's control. They influence their fitness and form, which keeps them in the team. They usually don't have a say over the schedule.

 

[subshakerz]

Did you read beyond the first line? The number of tests played is only partly under a player's control. They influence their fitness and form, which keeps them in the team. They usually don't have a say over the schedule.

I get that, but somehow I assume that international cricket has such an intensity that a greater amount of tests even in a shorter period is a test of a players capacity to sustain into performance akin to longevity.

 

[shortpitched713]

Both correct, but only the former is specifically relevant to the "longevity" point

Well, in a way that's true of "longevity" in a strict sense of the word

However, let's imagine there are 2 players who each had a Test career spanning 10 years. One plays 4,000 hours of cricket in that span, and the other plays 16,000 hours of cricket (in all formats, including domestic). Technically, they both have 10 years worth of "longevity". But the durability, reliability, and value associated with that word really could only be attributed to the latter.

 

[shortpitched713]

More tests is akin to increasing the sample rate. This might mean more reliable data with less likelihood of unrepresentative performances skewing things, but it isn't longevity. Number of tests is only partly under a player's control, so you couldn't 'value' a players longevity that way anyway, and the total amount of cricket played is going to bear on fitness regardless of whether it's in tests.

Right, but even within that "years played" measure, two cricketers can end up with large disparities in total amount of cricket played.

I think it's both more expedient, and "fair" to focus on Tests as the actual data point and entities of concern in and of themselves.

Otherwise we start having to parse through how much we value domestic cricket, limited overs cricket, and opportunity and availability for these formats in order to determine what "longevity" really means.

The fact is, there hasn't ever been a time period in history where Test cricket alone made for a full season worth of substantive cricket play ( not to mention pay ). So to me, even if a batsman played every Test for his country in a given year, it's not necessarily an outstanding performance ( other than maintaining the level required for selection throughout the year ). So the "wear" and "volume" argument, I think falls apart, unless we include formats outside of Test cricket, which for me is opening up an unnecessary can of worms.

 

[shortpitched713]

I

imo reducing this to a single factor is fraught with risks and will just not work with the wide variety of circumstances a player goes through . If I was to try to determine a single number anyway for each player, I'd go something like this -

1. Start with number of years played, obviously this needs to be the actual number of years where you played at least one (maybe even 2-3) tests, (so not just retirement - debut.) [N]
2. Percentage of tests played by the available actual tests, so tests you played / total tests your team played over this period. Relevant because being actually available to play cricket is quite important when considering longevity. [N * Played %]. This played % can either be the overall %ge over career or the average of yearly %, both will have pros and cons.
3. Adjust for the actual number of tests played per year, if two players play the exact same number of years but one plays double the tests he still does have higher longevity. This can not be linear, as in double the tests does not mean double the longevity so some sort of diminishing function. [N * Played % * (Avg test per year)^ Some number less than 1]. This "some number less than 1" needs to be different for express pacers , normal pacers , spinners, batsman etc. given how much harder it's for a pacer to play 15 tests in a year compared to a batsman.
4. Adjust for years where you were willing and capable of playing tests but your team simply didn't play any so there was no chance for you. So something like the sum of all years between your debut and retirement where your team played no tests. This might need further refinement for players who had to debut late or (effectively) retire early due to lack of team games. [ (N + N') * Played % * (Avg test per year) ^x ]

This is roughly where I will start with but I am sure even this will fail for a wide variety of cases, simple example would be a pacer playing 17-18 tests in a single year is pretty much certain to get injured so there should maybe be some bonus for years where you just play an absolute ****load of tests to compensate for the expected low amount of play in the next couple years.

I like it. I like it a lot.