• 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.

cricrate: new cricket ratings website

viriya

viriya

International Captain
***** said:
Jayasuriya averaged 34.6 opening the batting WTF how is 26 @ 102 close to that.

If you are genuinely just 'valuing innings and then rating their career using that' then a) Longevity shouldn't be a factor and b) You need to give -ve rating for dismissals that cost the side the game. Afridi has played enough dumb shots and fallen at enough crucial hurdles to cancel out the matches he has won IMO.
Click to expand...
35 @ 90 vs 26 @ 100 - not saying it's the same but it's not like Afridi opening was useless.

a) longevity not being a factor makes no sense when rating careers. Tendulkar would be below Kohli already if that was the case for example.
b) there is no possible way to figure out if a player "cost the side a game". it's just the impression you have after seeing that happen a few times. it's an impossible argument to prove/disprove anyway.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
I'm sure if you can statistically prove that a player's 'impact' won the side a game, you can prove their 'impact' lost the side one.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Why do you value 'impact' so much then if you don't think it wins games?

I really don't get what your list is representing. It's not a list of the best batsmen. Now neither is a list of batsmen who have won their team more games. What on earth is it?
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
***** said:
Why do you value 'impact' so much then if you don't think it wins games?

I really don't get what your list is representing. It's not a list of the best batsmen. Now neither is a list of batsmen who have won their team more games. What on earth is it?
Click to expand...
Best ODI Batting Careers. It's says that at the top.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
How You aren't valuing their careers by either their performance in their roles, or by how often they won game/set their side up for winning, or simply by their ability.

What does this list mean. I still don't get it. How on earth is Afridi's ODI career within 3% of Dravid's as a batsman. It isn't. No way.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
***** said:
How You aren't valuing their careers by either their performance in their roles, or by how often they won game/set their side up for winning, or simply by their ability.

What does this list mean. I still don't get it. How on earth is Afridi's ODI career within 3% of Dravid's as a batsman. It isn't. No way.
Click to expand...
I already went through why I think Afridi has had a comparably great ODI career to Dravid.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
You think that because

a) Afridi is more 'Impactful' and
b) Afridi played longer


But

a) Being 'Impactful', according to you, does not equate to match-winning ability. So why it is even relevant?
b) Afridi played longer as a bowler. Fair to say he would have had a much shorter career had he not been able to bowl. Why this should act as a credit to a measure of "Best ODI Batting Careers" you still haven't explained.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
a) Impactful = more great innings (runs * SR combo usually a prereq)
b) He maintained his average innings rating over the course of his career.. doesn't matter if he's primarily a bowler. We aren't debating whether Dravid could've played longer in a weaker batting team here (he probably would've) - that's beside the point.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
viriya said:
a) Impactful = more great innings (runs * SR combo usually a prereq)
b) He maintained his average innings rating over the course of his career.. doesn't matter if he's primarily a bowler. We aren't debating whether Dravid could've played longer in a weaker batting team here (he probably would've) - that's beside the point.
Click to expand...
a) You can have great innings at a low strike rate.
b) It does though, doesn't it? Doesn't matter if he maintained it, you said the longevity added to his career. He would not have had that longevity if he couldn't bowl. Why is he getting rewarded for that.

And you do bring up an interesting point. Say Afridi was a pure batsman who got selected and had such a long career due to the absolute lack of options. Does that mean he had a greater career than a better batsman who had more competition of a spot?
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
***** said:
a) You can have great innings at a low strike rate.
b) It does though, doesn't it? Doesn't matter if he maintained it, you said the longevity added to his career. He would not have had that longevity if he couldn't bowl. Why is he getting rewarded for that.

And you do bring up an interesting point. Say Afridi was a pure batsman who got selected and had such a long career due to the absolute lack of options. Does that mean he had a greater career than a better batsman who had more competition of a spot?
Click to expand...
a) You can, but in general you would have to make a big score, so your runs * SR is still going to be high. I just used that as a quick way of measurement, obviously innings are rated with a lot more factors (11 to be precise):
cricrate | ODI Batting Ratings

b) Dravid being the victim of India's batting talent cannot be used as an excuse - it's just outside the scope of the ratings which only looks at scorecards. You have to realize I'm not making a judgment call on whether I think Dravid is a better ODI batsman or not compared to Afridi. I'm comparing results, their actual careers and nothing more.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
ankitj said:
This rating has Murali as #1 bowler in both tests and ODIs. I think I like this rating.
Click to expand...
Any ratings system worth following would have him up there (at least in Tests, and most likely in ODIs as well) imo. Murali was just too dominant to be dismissed as just a Ban/Zim beneficiary as some do.
 
G.I.Joe

G.I.Joe

International Coach
OverratedSanity said:
You can argue about the system being flawed all you want, but if you're actually going to argue that Afridi wasn't a much worse batsman, I have to vehemently disagree. Dravid in his 1999-2005 played the anchor role superbly. You can argue about "impact" all you want. It's a completely meaningless term because Afridi comes in at no. 7 and basically starts slogging from ball 1. His impact is severely overrated because for every "impact innings", he loses the team 20 matches.

What about Mark Waugh? Do you think Afridi wasn't much worse than him too?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the problem is the rewarding of impact in the absence of a failure to penalize disimpact (or whatever the opposite is). Dravid might not play a match winning innings as often, but he also much more likely to substitute it with an innings that his team mates can build upon. Afridi is incapable of the latter and his failure to play foundation or anchor innings actively harms the chances of his team winning. The ratings system needs to factor in both to decide on the net worth of a batsman, not just the noteworthy highs.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
G.I.Joe said:
Yeah, the problem is the rewarding of impact in the absence of a failure to penalize disimpact (or whatever the opposite is). Dravid might not play a match winning innings as often, but he also much more likely to substitute it with an innings that his team mates can build upon. Afridi is incapable of the latter and his failure to play foundation or anchor innings actively harms the chances of his team winning. The ratings system needs to factor in both to decide on the net worth of a batsman, not just the noteworthy highs.
Click to expand...
Afridi fails more than Dravid, and that affects him negatively. Consistency is valued in the career ratings.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
G.I.Joe said:
I don't think it is valued enough if Afridi ends up > than Dravid.
Click to expand...
More of the reason why Dravid isn't rated higher is because even though he was consistent, he didn't really carry his bat as much as you'd expect from a player who batted at #3/#4 for the majority of his career. Having just 12 tons in 318 innings with a SR of 71 should be more of the focus - not why he should/shouldn't be rated higher/lower than Afridi.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Consistency matters, great performances matter.

Only Viv Richards (6) has more top 100 ODI batting performances than Afridi (4 - equal with Jayasuriya, Ganguly and Lara). Dravid has 0 in that list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top