***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Sanz]

I generally think it is a better philosophy though to embrace your mistakes/flaws, rather than sweep them under the carpet.

How is he sweeping them under the carpet ?

 

[Maximus0723]

DeusEx, you are looking at from wrong perspective.

 

[Ruckus]

How is he sweeping them under the carpet ?

By not talking about them...

 

[ankitj]

Don't know if this has been posted here before:

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | Cricinfo.com

 

[Cevno]

Don't know if this has been posted here before:

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | Cricinfo.com

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't know if this has been posted here before:

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | Cricinfo.com

Very interesting. Not too dis-similar to what I'm doing, although it looks more at individual bowlers in attacks than teams. Deserves its own thread.

 

[Jono]

Haha Tendulkar and Ponting overrated

 

[vcs]

Don't know if this has been posted here before:

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | Cricinfo.com

Lolworthy "analysis". Does he post on CW?

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd like someone to tell me what's actually wrong with that analysis other than the results not falling in line with their opinions. It's the process rather than the outcome by which an analysis should be judged. There are a couple of flaws with it, but no-one's bothered pointing them out other than just lol'ing.

 

[Jono]

Hey I didn't laugh at the analysis. I just love that it shows Sachin and Ponting up in a thread about Sachin vs. Ponting

Also Laxman's record against the best attacks also not that good based on the analysis

Shiv and Rahul

 

[Dasa]

If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's flawed imo because the match average isn't a good indicator of the difficulty of batting in that match, and because it disproportionately rewards a good batsman in a poor team. I haven't looked at it in much detail though.

 

[Prince EWS]

If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's flawed imo because the match average isn't a good indicator of the difficulty of batting in that match, and because it disproportionately rewards a good batsman in a poor team. I haven't looked at it in much detail though.

 

[vcs]

I don't understand his methodology properly but saw this comment posted by Arnab Gupta -

"Interesting to consider that Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid have played identical opposition in the 2000s, but where Tendulkar's and Sehwag's averages drop by about 10 points each, Dravid's average barely drops at all.

Would you consider that a flaw in your method of analysis, or in the way you assign "strength" to bowling attacks?"

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't understand his methodology properly but saw this comment posted by Arnab Gupta -

"Interesting to consider that Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid have played identical opposition in the 2000s, but where Tendulkar's and Sehwag's averages drop by about 10 points each, Dravid's average barely drops at all.

Would you consider that a flaw in your method of analysis, or in the way you assign "strength" to bowling attacks?"

That's not really identifying a flaw though; that's just suspecting a flaw from the conclusion, which is poor IMO. Find out why that happened and we're talking.

 

[vcs]

Well, the article doesn't make the methodology very clear at all, and resorts to usual cliches "played in a top-class team", "weaker attacks in easy conditions", "run-glut against minnows", "boosting their averages". That makes it really hard for me to take it particularly seriously. Still, I'd appreciate it if anyone could clarify exactly how he comes up with that quality measure matrix and how he translates it into effective runs.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't understand his methodology properly but saw this comment posted by Arnab Gupta -

"Interesting to consider that Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid have played identical opposition in the 2000s, but where Tendulkar's and Sehwag's averages drop by about 10 points each, Dravid's average barely drops at all.

Would you consider that a flaw in your method of analysis, or in the way you assign "strength" to bowling attacks?"

Let me put it this way - playing against the same attacks for similar returns doesn't mean you performed equally when you weight the quality of the attacks.

Obviously that analysis is suggesting that, when India came up against better attacks or played on bowler-friendly surfaces, Dravid did better than Tendulkar and Sehwag. Tendulkar and Sehwag obviously made a lot of big scores in high-scoring matches and/or against bowlers who had high averages to close the gap in scorebook terms.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, the article doesn't make the methodology very clear at all, and resorts to usual cliches "played in a top-class team", "weaker attacks in easy conditions", "run-glut against minnows", "boosting their averages". That makes it really hard for me to take it particularly seriously. Still, I'd appreciate it if anyone could clarify exactly how he comes up with that quality measure matrix and how he translates it into effective runs.

I haven't examined the formula closely, but it seems to take into account:
- the career bowling averages of the opposition bowlers to determine the quality of the attack
- the amount of runs scored in the game to determine the state of the pitch

There are flaws with that methodology but it's not something to be completely dismissed IMO.

 

[vcs]

He just seems to have bunged down that quality measure matrix by opponent/venue for each batsman, and **** knows how he uses that to come up with the effective average/runs. Such as it is, I'll remain skeptical.

 

[ankitj]

@PrienceEWS - Could you branch it off into a new thread. Might be worthy of good discussion.

@vcs - The methodology is sound tbh. Of course there would be some parameters unaccounted for. But this analysis at least removes one or two flaws from conventional averages.

 

[vcs]

Still waiting for someone to explain it to me in words of one syllable.