They are diminishing, otherwise 4 would be 1.33 and 3 would be 1.66. Not that I disagree with the point but no one will ever agree on the exact numbers anyway.Don't really like the fewer tests multiplier. I'd say hitting 100 in three separate innings does more for the team than hitting one 300.
You get diminishing returns on runs in the same innings after a while or we wouldn't have declarations.
Thanks for the table. I think catches should count for something. Any chance you could redo the table with catches counting as 10 points each?Decided to be less lazy and wrote a code for calculating the numbers, here are the top 20 - View attachment 23571
Thank you! :-)Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572
Shouldn't Imran 1982/83 vs India be in there? 40 wickets, 247 runs, 4 catches. 1,087 points if my mental arithmetic is up to scratch.Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572
He has 6 matches, so he gets downgraded by 10%.Shouldn't Imran 1982/83 vs India be in there? 40 wickets, 247 runs, 4 catches. 1,087 points if my mental arithmetic is up to scratch.
Bradman does not appear in the top 20 even though he holds the world record for most runs in a test series and also had three of the top nine most prolific series ever by total runs scored.Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572
Added 10 for catches and stumping.View attachment 23572
Understood. Thanks for the explanation.He has 6 matches, so he gets downgraded by 10%.
The formula isn't fair to batsmen.Bradman does not appear in the top 20 even though he holds the world record for most runs in a test series and also had three of the top nine most prolific series ever by total runs scored.
This does not sit comfortably with me. I wonder if 20 points is too heavy a weighting for a wicket, or if the weightings for 3 and 4 match series are too high. What do you think?
About the only thing in cricket that isn't.The formula isn't fair to batsmen.
Since 5 of the 6 instance of a bowler taking over 40 wickets in a series also don't appear in the list, I don't think you can claim it's biased in favour of bowlers... there's only three appearance by bowlers who hardly scored any runs plus a couple who scored just over 100; but on the other hand there are four batsmen in the list who took 0 or 1 wickets. I think the weighting for short series is more to blame.Bradman does not appear in the top 20 even though he holds the world record for most runs in a test series and also had three of the top nine most prolific series ever by total runs scored.
This does not sit comfortably with me. I wonder if 20 points is too heavy a weighting for a wicket, or if the weightings for 3 and 4 match series are too high. What do you think?
Yeah catches shouldn't be in the at all IMO. Its not a reflection of how well someone played at all, especially if you're a wicket keeper. How many catches you get is like 98% how many opportunities your bowlers create and 2% you catching them or not.Yeah and I am not sure catches are a fair reflection either. Its more a function of your team being good enough to create the opportunities, right? And bowlers don't always occupy catching positions, so not fully fair to them either. I wont mind them being downgraded if they are not specialist wicket keepers.