• 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
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Last edited:
viriya

viriya

International Captain
aussie tragic said:
OMG, so this is your website...and because someone scored 52 out of 82 he deserves to be rated above Bradman...you're delusional
Click to expand...
This is just one innings, and you seem to equate current ratings with "this batsman is better than the other". It's just a temporary form gauge, and Gurusinha turned out to be quite mediocre (albeit average for SL test batsmen at the time).

He also had twin hundreds in a match vs NZ in NZ (with mediocre support in the first innings) which is mostly what pushed him to have a temporarily high current rating.

Zinzan said:
Yeah, but that could also mean the rest of his team just batting like *** in that innings & that's hardly Bradman's fault is it.

I get there's nuances, but 37 plays 95 suggests a fairly serious flaw in the existing method. I'd twiddle a few knobs.
Click to expand...
The argument is that he would've gotten more runs if he had some support. If you don't rate these type of innings highly, you would be underrating innings like Kim Hughe's 100* vs WI. The other thing to note is that Voge's high average is deceiving because in a lot of those innings he had good support and the team scored heavily, which devalues big hundreds.
 
Last edited:
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Also, Gurusinha's average was actually 45 when he achieved his highest current rating - not 37. But this is somewhat irrelevant to the point.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
It seems that you have no interest in actually responding to my replies or having a conversation, just some wild idea that somehow I'm saying Gurusinha > Bradman.. :blink:

Especially considering how Bradman's current rating after 25 innings was 1248, which is higher anyway..

How tragic.
 
Last edited:
D

DriveClub

International Regular
viriya said:
Test
Batting
- Bairstow and Azhar Ali reach top 10, Sarfraz and Cook drop out: cricrate | Current Ratings - Test Batting

Bowling
- Herath jumps to #2, Amir drops out of top 10: cricrate | Current Ratings - Test Bowling

Fielding
- Bairstow jumps to #3: cricrate | Current Ratings - Test Fielding
- Jadeja and Bairstow reach top 5: cricrate | Career Ratings - Test Fielding
Click to expand...
How did amir get into the top 10 in the first place? This is his first test series in 6 years
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
DriveClub said:
How did amir get into the top 10 in the first place? This is his first test series in 6 years
Click to expand...
I don't have a point deduction for missing tests. Most of the time it makes sense not to, in unlikely cases like Amir it feels weird I agree.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
viriya said:
I don't have a point deduction for missing tests. Most of the time it makes sense not to, in unlikely cases like Amir it feels weird I agree.
Click to expand...
But shouldn't older tests count for less and less as time goes by?
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Daemon said:
But shouldn't older tests count for less and less as time goes by?
Click to expand...
It's not based on time, it's individually calculated based on the Tests a player has been a part of. So if Amir had played without missing anything his 2010 tests would count for less, but since those are his last tests they are weighted as such. Adding a time component makes thing a lot more complicated just based on the fact that the frequency of Tests are not the same for each era.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
viriya said:
It's not based on time, it's individually calculated based on the Tests a player has been a part of. So if Amir had played without missing anything his 2010 tests would count for less, but since those are his last tests they are weighted as such. Adding a time component makes thing a lot more complicated just based on the fact that the frequency of Tests are not the same for each era.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that method complicate things for players who get injured? Say Pattinson for instance.

Also how do you deal with retirements?
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Daemon said:
Doesn't that method complicate things for players who get injured? Say Pattinson for instance.

Also how do you deal with retirements?
Click to expand...
I decided not to penalize players for missing matches because most of the time it's either to rest (say to miss an easy win series vs minnows) or for slight injuries and it doesn't make sense to penalize for them. It isn't ideal when a player has a long-term injury or a ban, but my thought was that's a decent trade-off.

When a player retires his name is taken off the current ratings list when his team plays next. This is manual though so I'm sometimes late on that.
 
viriya

viriya

International Captain
Migara said:
When Suranga Lakmal has a bigger win share over Kumar Sangakkara, that is an indication that you have to tweak your methodology
Click to expand...
Sangakkara has played 7 times as many matches as Lakmal. It is quite possible that Lakmal has had more impact on average in the <50 matches he has played as an opening bowler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top