-
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.
Do you, CWian, endorse analysis by checklist?
- Thread starter ataraxia
- Start date
/s
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lol no
Howe_zat
Audio File
It's crap. Usually deployed as a massive reach for something to back up the conclusion someone already drew before looking at any figures, but even if it wasn't, it'd still be crap. As though the aim of any cricketer in history has ever been to have a nicely lined up column of equal figures on statsguru.
And no this isn't a grouchy 'boo numbers' post. This is coming from someone who shitting loves statsguru.
And no this isn't a grouchy 'boo numbers' post. This is coming from someone who shitting loves statsguru.
Last edited:
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Not sure but I think Nufan started a thread to prove that analysis by checklist is fake. One can compare any player to any other player and through analysis by checklist determine whether they are better and at the same time worse as well.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Someone's going to have to define it for me.
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Don't endorse any sort of attempted statistical analysis done during these comparison threads, complete nonsense. And largely just shows peoples general ignorance of how to analyze data and what they think statistics is.
About the only truly decent analysis I`ve seen is people like DaysOfGrace, who's analysis should be stickied. If you not going into full blooded, with clear criteria and explanation its otherwise rather useless cherry picking of numbers.
About the only truly decent analysis I`ve seen is people like DaysOfGrace, who's analysis should be stickied. If you not going into full blooded, with clear criteria and explanation its otherwise rather useless cherry picking of numbers.
Spark
Global Moderator
1. Compile list of Test nations.
2. Compile list of [batting/bowling] career average against each Test nation in list. If average [greater/less] than [arbitrary threshold], proceed.
3. Compile list of [batting/bowling] career away average against each Test nation in list. If average [greater/less] than [arbitrary threshold], proceed.
4. If you got to this stage, congratulations, good player. Else, overrated hack.
5. If at any stage your favourite player/agenda player failed any of these steps, or if your least favourite player/anti-agenda player passed these steps, adjust [arbitrary threshold] until rectified.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I invented this criticism, partly to start a counter-culture. Now that I've succeeded so much that it's the actual culture I'm half-tempted to endorse it for the lulz.
But nah I hate it.
Burn baby burn.
But nah I hate it.
Burn baby burn.
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The counter-culture clearly existed... it just did not have a dedicated thread.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Here's my checklist:
Do my forum enemies like this player? If yes, he sucks arse.
Do my forum enemies like this player? If yes, he sucks arse.
Shady Slim
International Coach
anderson, warner, and root aren't atgs because of their failings in away ashes.
Flem274*
123/5
No, though selectors should be mindful of common trends with their own players.
ATG discussions in general are a bit removed from reality imo, because they encourage a binary view. That's how you end up with statements like this bloke who was a champion being several tiers higher than another champion.
Years and years ago someone (PEWS?) posted that the difference between the bowling averages of Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath were essentially one boundary every eight overs. That put things into perspective for me. You're pretty well served with any ATG really.
I also think past player discussion is way too harsh on the midlisters, who make up the bulk of test history and have collectively shaped it as much as the greats.
It had its time but I think there are more interesting statistical analyses we can do now. Things like PEWS standardised averages and the DoG great innings' studies are fun new ways to shine a light on both the greats and the midlisters.
ATG discussions in general are a bit removed from reality imo, because they encourage a binary view. That's how you end up with statements like this bloke who was a champion being several tiers higher than another champion.
Years and years ago someone (PEWS?) posted that the difference between the bowling averages of Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath were essentially one boundary every eight overs. That put things into perspective for me. You're pretty well served with any ATG really.
I also think past player discussion is way too harsh on the midlisters, who make up the bulk of test history and have collectively shaped it as much as the greats.
It had its time but I think there are more interesting statistical analyses we can do now. Things like PEWS standardised averages and the DoG great innings' studies are fun new ways to shine a light on both the greats and the midlisters.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Another thing that's grating about analysis by checklist is that it gets pushed extra hard when people are less aware of the context surrounding a player's stats. No one who argues that Ashwin has failed in Australia should be taken seriously when he's been instrumental in winning his side *two* series there. Other great hits include Steyn's average of 31 in England and Imran averaging 28 in Australia.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
It's useful if it demonstrates something specific. Like someone's failures to score in England and NZ show the batsman has weakness against swing. Or failure of a spin bowler to pick wickets outside subcontinent shows a reliance on conditions. But there are other kind of analysis by checklist that's just too brute force. Ponting's failure in India to me don't mean a great deal given he did fairly well against Murali in SL. Ambrose' failure against India don't mean anything because he only played India at home and when playing in Caribbean, India did not pose any special kind of challenge that other teams wouldn't have mounted.
Howe_zat
Audio File
No it doesn't.
If you want to show a weakness against swing you're going to have to construct a real argument.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Why does his success in one series somewhere mean his failures over multiple tours somewhere else "don't mean anything"? Aren't you pointing to a smaller sample to say the other larger sample is meaningless.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Don't know what is his sample in SL tbf. I have never quite resolved what explains his poor stats in India. Did he have a real weakness against spin (to the extent that would explain his sub 30 average in India) or his average just suffers because of that Harbhajan storm in 2001?