Removing statistics against Bangladesh and Zimbawe

[Ikki]

this is a dream come true. always wanted to stay on ikki's side and fight the bad guys as a team; like richard burton and clint eastwood coming together in "where eagles dare" or t.cruise and v.rhames in the MI series. and here is the moment.... i totally completely agree with your words here, mate. now, i hope my support doesn't make you change your mind.

LOL, it's an honour.

 

[honestbharani]

Totally arbitrary. They don't transform into a different team competence-wise, the day they win a game.

good luck trying to talk sense here..

 

[honestbharani]

I discount performances against them in ODIs as well though, but I do it for a different reason to Uppercut. I think they're basically an outlier on the performance chart - the standard they play at is so far removed from the rest of cricket that performances against them are generally a terrible indicator of likely performances against every other team. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if some players didn't play a higher percentage of games against Bangladesh than others - but they do.

When I do things 'properly' I just standardise matches against them (and every team) by statistically recognising exactly what the difference between them and the rest of the world is and adjusting the numbers accordingly, but it's a very slow process. As Uppercut said, neither including them or removing them is perfect, but removing them gives a more realistic outlook so if you're just looking for a quick indication of someone's career record it's the best starting part. Irfan Pathan's Test bowling average of 32 or so is IMO wholly misleading when you consider that if you take out the four Tests he played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, he played 25 matches for an average of 45. For 86% of his career he played against genuine opponents and produced a rubbish average - that he dominated weak batting lineups for four matches means pretty much nothing to me but it has a massive effect on his average.

BTW, I sorta agree with what Bagapath says reg. comparisons right now.. Where it gets a bit muddled is that, a guy could be in 5 years in his career and suddenly see Bang or Zim emerge as a good side... And another could be in his 9th year and just spend one more year playing against them... It just gets way too complicated... As long as the difference is not "marked" a la Irfan Pathan or Ian Bell, I think it is better to include all stats...

 

[Uppercut]

India didn't win a Test match for fifteen years overseas - from 1986 onwards. Should we take them (their overseas matches) out when comparing players?

Of course not. Here's their record in the period you speak of, and here's Bangladesh's record forever. Bear in mind that two of Bangladesh's draws were total washouts, and their only victories were against the West Indies during the contract dispute. How are they even comparable? India drew considerably more matches than they lost.

EDIT: Should have included Zimbabwe- makes very little difference though.

 

[honestbharani]

The whole point of doing it the day they win a game is that it's not arbitrary. Otherwise I'd need to pick a date out of thin air using my own ****ty judgment. In hindsight we might be able to agree on a better date, but that really isn't the point of my argument.

Anyway, there's another interesting angle. To turn the question around, why do you include performances against Bangladesh? If Richard were here he would ask why a match against Bangladesh becomes a test match when a higher-standard NSW/Victoria game is merely a first-class match. Do you just count them as tests because that's what the ICC arbitrarily claim they are?

And I would ask how he knows the game is of a higher standard and what the hell is meant by this "standard" anyways? I mean, for folks who think things can't be judged on personal views and ideas etc., you guys certainly use this "standard" card way too much... What is standard, if not a completely arbitrary and personal definition term?

 

[Uppercut]

Hey, it's not my argument, it's Richard's. I was just interested in vcs's thoughts on it.

Whether you define Bangladesh as "test-standard" isn't really relevant to my argument.

 

[Migara]

Why don't you standardize the frikkin thing? Take a weighted average.

Ex. Player A - 20 matches against X avg, 40, 20 matches against Y avg 35, 10 matches against Z (a minnow) averaging 75 = The overall average = 45

Player B, 10 matches against X, avg 45, 20 matches against Y, avg 40, 20 matches against Z avg 50. Average = 45

If we assume that A, and B played similar number of matches against X, Y & Z

As average = (40+35+75)/3 = 50
B's average = (45+40+50)/3 = 45

That will allow to find the better batsman. Of course batsmen should ahve played meaningful number of matces against each team

 

[Furball]

Why don't you standardize the frikkin thing? Take a weighted average.

Ex. Player A - 20 matches against X avg, 40, 20 matches against Y avg 35, 10 matches against Z (a minnow) averaging 75 = The overall average = 45

Player B, 10 matches against X, avg 45, 20 matches against Y, avg 40, 20 matches against Z avg 50. Average = 45

If we assume that A, and B played similar number of matches against X, Y & Z

As average = (40+35+75)/3 = 50
B's average = (45+40+50)/3 = 45

That will allow to find the better batsman. Of course batsmen should ahve played meaningful number of matces against each team

Because cricket just doesn't work like that.

 

[Uppercut]

See, I don't really like that because runs for (say) a New Zealand batsman against South Africa will then be worth more than runs against the West Indies, when the latter are surely more likely to get the Kiwis a win on the board.

I dunno though, maybe that doesn't matter. Would the New Zealanders around here prefer to beat South Africa in a series then lose to the West Indies or vice-versa? Or is it much the same?

 

[Howe_zat]

See, I don't really like that because runs for (say) a New Zealand batsman against South Africa will then be worth more than runs against the West Indies, when the latter are surely more likely to get the Kiwis a win on the board.

I dunno though, maybe that doesn't matter. Would the New Zealanders around here prefer to beat South Africa in a series then lose to the West Indies or vice-versa? Or is it much the same?

Or, as an equivalent idea, would you rate a player who performed against India/South Africa and flopped against Bangladesh, or vice versa?

The idea of removing them from the averages suggests that the former is equivalent to performing against both, which blatantly isn't true.

 

[Uppercut]

Or, as an equivalent idea, would you rate a player who performed against India/South Africa and flopped against Bangladesh, or vice versa?

The idea of removing them from the averages suggests that the former is equivalent to performing against both, which blatantly isn't true.

Well, obviously not for New Zealand lately. Vettori played one unbelievably crucial knock against them last time they played tests in Bangladesh.

If you take the case of- say- AB De Villiers, it is. Why does it matter in the slightest that AB didn't score many runs in the middle of a couple of unholy South African massacres? The South African side were probably entirely indifferent as to whether he got any runs or not. It's not like it was ever in danger of changing the outcome.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well, obviously not for New Zealand lately. Vettori played one unbelievably crucial knock against them last time they played tests in Bangladesh.

If you take the case of- say- AB De Villiers, it is. Why does it matter in the slightest that AB didn't score many runs in the middle of a couple of unholy South African massacres? The South African side were probably entirely indifferent as to whether he got any runs or not. It's not like it was ever in danger of changing the outcome.

Because cricket doesn't work that way. AB I'm sure is nothing if not a professional and would have felt it was his responsibility to play to his ability, even if it didn't mean as much as winning in India or Australia.

When KP, for example, didn't make a hundred against Bangladesh, it was seen as further evidence of poor form. He would have felt the pressure on him and a good knock in those series would have given him a much greater degree of confidence heading into what turned out to be a tricky series against Pakistan. Failing meant something to him.

Similarly, Tim Bresnan had a great deal of his criticism based around how Tamim Iqbal got the better of him in May. It works both ways, and simply removing these matches from your data is a pretty crude and arbitrary way of trying to refine it.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Runs against wi and nz attacks after 2000 must be removed and ind has to be removed away 4rm home for batsmen.

 

[Uppercut]

Because cricket doesn't work that way. AB I'm sure is nothing if not a professional and would have felt it was his responsibility to play to his ability, even if it didn't mean as much as winning in India or Australia.

When KP, for example, didn't make a hundred against Bangladesh, it was seen as further evidence of poor form. He would have felt the pressure on him and a good knock in those series would have given him a much greater degree of confidence heading into what turned out to be a tricky series against Pakistan. Failing meant something to him.

Similarly, Tim Bresnan had a great deal of his criticism based around how Tamim Iqbal got the better of him in May. It works both ways, and simply removing these matches from your data is a pretty crude and arbitrary way of trying to refine it.

You clearly didn't see the shot he played to get out for a duck against them .

You're right that it's crude and arbitrary, although I'd argue that including them is even cruder and comes from the equally arbitrary judgment of the ICC. It's obviously crude to suggest that not scoring against Bangladesh and scoring against Bangladesh are of the same value but I think it's even worse to suggest that scoring against Bangladesh and scoring against England or Australia are the same.

You seem to be asking "why exclude them?" and want a definitive answer, I'm just asking, "which is better out of excluding and including them?" Neither are perfect, obviously, and an average will never be able to demonstrate the details of a match such as those you mention above relating to Bresnan and KP.

But I think a figure without them is better than the alternative. Irfan Pathan's figures including Bangladesh give an absolutely horrendously inaccurate estimation of both his performances at test level and his general ability, whereas his figures without them give a pretty good one. Is there any cricketer for whom the reverse is true?

 

[Howe_zat]

You clearly didn't see the shot he played to get out for a duck against them .

You're right that it's crude and arbitrary, although I'd argue that including them is even cruder and comes from the equally arbitrary judgment of the ICC. It's obviously crude to suggest that not scoring against Bangladesh and scoring against Bangladesh are of the same value but I think it's even worse to suggest that scoring against Bangladesh and scoring against England or Australia are the same.

You seem to be asking "why exclude them?" and want a definitive answer, I'm just asking, "which is better out of excluding and including them?" Neither are perfect, obviously, and an average will never be able to demonstrate the details of a match such as those you mention above relating to Bresnan and KP.

But I think a figure without them is better than the alternative. Irfan Pathan's figures including Bangladesh give an absolutely horrendously inaccurate estimation of both his performances at test level and his general ability, whereas his figures without them give a pretty good one. Is there any cricketer for whom the reverse is true?

To be fair, I didn't. (I assume it was moronic in the most professional possible way )

What I'm saying is that in general, this is not going to work because there are so many other variables in a match than who the opposition is - and how they're playing you is very hard to judge just from who they are.

On a specific basis, of course, such as when you mention Irfan, than yes, it is of course relevant when discussing his merits. But the same isn't true for everyone, far from it.

So it's perfectly relevant to point these things out on occasion, but not to try and generally remove the significance of all these performances, or lack thereof. I dare say Gambhir and Tendulkar's innings were pretty relevant to the outcome of this match.

Crucially, a lot of the time international cricket isn't about beating the best while playing their best. Sometimes it's about whethering the storm one day and seizing the advantage while you have it. Take, for example, Strauss and Cook just surviving until the end of day 3 at Brisbane only to take apart some sub-par bowling on the second day. Being able to do that can often be the difference between winning and losing.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why don't you standardize the frikkin thing? Take a weighted average.

Ex. Player A - 20 matches against X avg, 40, 20 matches against Y avg 35, 10 matches against Z (a minnow) averaging 75 = The overall average = 45

Player B, 10 matches against X, avg 45, 20 matches against Y, avg 40, 20 matches against Z avg 50. Average = 45

If we assume that A, and B played similar number of matches against X, Y & Z

As average = (40+35+75)/3 = 50
B's average = (45+40+50)/3 = 45

That will allow to find the better batsman. Of course batsmen should ahve played meaningful number of matces against each team

Aha. Need to take a representative sample, especially since I doubt the distributions for each batsman's record against each country would look the same.

Even then, I do wonder whether a batsman's average against specific country should even be the strata from where we take a sample, give how the distribution from each country changes so radically as they get better or worse.

 

[marc71178]

Because cricket just doesn't work like that.

Added in is the fact the number of games against each of the 3 is stated and then followed up with "If we assume that A, and B played similar number of matches against X, Y & Z"

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yeah, I've posted my view on this before. Runs are only worth anything if they might help change the result of a cricket match in your favour, and since Bangladesh have so far lost every game they've played against a test-standard opposition, it's fair to say that the chance of a batsman's runs changing the result is small enough that it's better to discount it.

Please tell me I didnt read that.
I actually had to read that post twice to be sure you werent being sarcastic..

Have you considered even for a second that the reason Bangladesh might have lost all test matches might be because some players did score runs that changed the result of their game in their favour??

Just admit it..you are not familiar with most of Bangladesh's matches..and that is fine..if their cricket does not interest you, you dont have to be aware..but if you are making an argument that involves them, please make sure you do some research.
Here is a start

1st Test: Bangladesh v Australia at Fatullah, Apr 9-13, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Both centuries, Gilchrist and Ponting came at a time when Bangladesh were on top. Ponting was dropped once in his second innings..had that catch been taken..the result might very well have been different.

1st Test: West Indies v Bangladesh at Gros Islet, May 28-Jun 1, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Chris Gayle

3rd Test: Pakistan v Bangladesh at Multan, Sep 3-6, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Inzamam ul Haq

2nd Test: Bangladesh v England at Dhaka, Mar 20-24, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Ian Bell

Now reading scorecards has its limitations because often they reveal very little about the various situations players might find them in. So you might also want to read up some of the articles that describes the match situations.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It's interesting whether Cricketers would have liked to face Bangladeshi spinners on dry ,spinning tracks in recent times at home or the west indies struggling pace attack(begore roach and co.) on some of the most flattest wickets in the world in west indies.

And at the same time do we also remove the srilankan stadiums that are really flat?
And what about removing India when Zaheer and Harbhajan are not playing?

With Newzealand having lost in Bangladesh,do we remove them as well?

Very good point..
Also, the bowling attack India had in the first test match against South Africa was one of the worst bowling attacks I have seen. Yet do we discount Kallis and De Villiers records in that match?

 

[Hit Wicket]

Very good point..
Also, the bowling attack India had in the first test match against South Africa was one of the worst bowling attacks I have seen. Yet do we discount Kallis and De Villiers records in that match?

The assumption is that over a significant number of innings the discrepancies being talked about even out - they might not perfectly, but then no statistical analysis is perfect. I can easily name 5-8 FC sides in the world of better quality than Bangladesh. Should we start including the stats of players scoring and taking wickets against them in test records?

Your second point is rubbish. South Africa aren't the only side who have feasted on an impotent attack on a flat pitch at home. As India showed in the second innings, the only reason they could not make runs was because they were caught on a damp track. Are you going to discount all such matches from history where inequitable conditions prevailed due to rain to a much larger extent? Are you going to discount centuries from Sehwag, Tendulkar, Laxman, and Dhoni against the South African attack at Calcutta?