Your inputs please

[Vijay.Sharma]

Folks, if you remember I had embarked upon an update of the Test Cricket's Virtuoso Batsmen analysis a few months ago (when I used the Nirvanam id). I've received lots of inputs from the people from different countries and I have modified the analysis to reflect that. All the raw data has been collected and before I proceed I would like to present to you the modified elements of the analysis for a final sanctity check. It's a questionnaire consisting about 11 items - all multiple choice with the ability to provide specific recommendations as well. I request you to take the survey. I am hoping to have the analysis published before the start of the WI tour. I'll write articles for each parameter here on ICF before publishing the entire analysis so you can see how the ATGs score on each of the parameters. So, please take 2-3 minutes to respond to the questionnaire here because it is from you guys' inputs that the analysis has been fundamentally modified. Click here

[Vijay.Sharma]

Folks, I am getting decent number of responses for the survey and I'd like to thank you all for participating. Just one thing I wanted to point out was that if you choose the option "Other", please see if you can specify what that 'other' is. Some respondents have done that but some haven't. Thanks again for your participation. I'll work on the parameter, Contribution to Team Index first and then publish an article on that during the week of 23rd May. Also, please let your friends and acquaintances who may be interested in cricket, know about the project too, if you feel it is worth it and that they may also give their inputs

[Vijay.Sharma]

Folks, thanks for your feedback...I have received some good suggestions and will be making changes by accepting a few of them while for others where the majority felt otherwise I will go with the majority. But in any case my responses to some specifically given feedback (I do not know the people who had given them but if it's your feedback, you have my response). FB1 and 2: Item - Different weights for regular: minnow teams: "weightage could be a little more generous 1:0.75 - it may be easier but it still has to be done and Cricket is filled with talent that hasn't delivered (in any condition and against any opposition)". Reduce factor to 1 to .75 IMO you highly overrate the statistcal importance of this factor Possibly. I also find the next feedback even more accurate although will not be able to implement it this time around (reasons mentioned for that one). As for 1:0.75, majority went with 1:0.5. FB3: Item - Deciding when status changes to regular: Good idea but the numbers are too high. IMO minnow status goes away faster than you think and is more a function of matches played rather than results. Develop a sliding scale to cover the first 50 test matches a team plays, break it on every 5 or 10 so that they get less mennow-like as the approch 50. After which they are non-minnows. I think this is a damn neat idea and it can also accordingly change the weightages for Item 1 to a continuous scale. However, right now it requires a huge effort to include this continuous scale so I'll target it for version 3.0. In the meanwhile, I'll go with the majority. FB4: Item - Different weights for Home:Away Not too sure. For eg when India plays Pak in Pak, the conditions are not that different per se. So should Indian batsmen get a factor of 1.2 adjusted into their scores? Worth pondering Yep, sounds logical. But this particular thing is being addressed indirectly in the Condition Difficulty Index parameter. And hence going with the majority here too which is to keep it the way it is. FB5: Item - Peer Comparison Index...reference to what should be the Top Order I almost think the TOB should go 1-7 because of the number of strong al-0rounders and WK-Batsmen that show up at 7. Data from Statsguru says that typically the effect of the number 7 is closer to the tail than the top 6. For example, in case of the following 3 batsmen Barrington: Top6 - 75.36% of runs, Top7 - 80.14%. Therefore influence of seventh batsman is about 5% which is closer to 4% of the tail than 12.5% of the top 6. Border: Top6 - 72.54% of runs, Top7 - 79.87%. Therefore influence is about 7% which is half way between top6 and tail Bradman: Top6 - 76.32%, Top7 - 81.18%. Again influence is closer to tail than top6. Actually the effort required to gather data for top7 is much simpler thru statsguru coz they have a 'quick pick' than the top6 so I'd have liked to go with the top7 to make it easier for gathering data. However, the data is quite clearly showing that the influence of the 7th batsman is nowhere close to the top order and instead it is closer to the tail. If we even consider a batsman of recent vintage, say Viru: Top6 - 78.06%, Top7 - 83.79%. Again influence is lesser.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Vijay.Sharma]

^ BossBhai, I agree with you. But even given that the stats of players are a function of the time, space, and contexts of their performances I just feel that my original hypothesis can be tested. My original hypothesis was that among the ATG bats there are only 3 batsmen who are comfortably better than the rest and that these 3 are so close to each other that statistical comparison between them is useless. The 3 are Buddha, Lara, and Bradman. But, please do have a look at the results that come out...I am just trying to be as unbiased as possible and hence reaching out to others to critically look at the parameters and the methodology chosen.

[panther]

sorry but it looks to complicated for me

[asterix]

sorry but it looks to complicated for me

That's because of this: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=266213 You still have time..

[panther]

That's because of this: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=266213 You still have time..

lol

[yoda]

There is no way in hell bowlers of that pace can avg under 25 in modern times. It is a totally different game altogether now.

Why should a player who played eons ago come today and prove himself? They did all their proving when they played. Do you expect them to be re-born every 25 years just to make people like you happy? :giggle: Sorry for the digression, however. :nervous:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Because that is what is directly implied when people start comparing averages ... so if you want us to believe that Jack Hobbs' date=' Wally Hammond, Len Hutton etc are in the same class as Tendulkar based on a simplistic comparison of avgs then people should also consider Bill Bowes, Toshack , Lindwall and Miller to be of the same class as Ambrose, Steyn , Donald etc.[/quote'] So, using sheer volume of runs is a perfectly ok way to declare someone a great, but using averages all of a sudden makes it look silly. :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Vijay.Sharma]

Well, the methodology and the parameters are trying as much as possible to create a level playing field where the contexts (i.e. pitch difficulty, bowler difficulty, variety of pitches, variety of oppositions, frequency of performance, etc) of batsmen can be normalized. Of course I am the first one to claim it is not complete. However i feel it is way more decent than a simple comparison based on averages. Secondly, the endeavor is to determine if all ATG batsmen were/are similarly capable and performed more or less in the same manner, or if some of these ATGs are a class apart from the rest The Test Hypothesis is: All 20 ATG batsmen were/are equally capable and in deed performed thusly. To test the hypothesis, I have set a separation of +/-10% from the norm (mean performance of the 20 ATG batsmen) on an index called Virtuoso Index. Of course, as happened in the previous project it was easily noticeable that except 3 all others fell in the +/-10% band. But more interestingly, these 3 were so far ahead...Sachin, Lara, Gavva...almost 30% that it is rather clear that they were ahead of the others by miles. Anyway, hold on for the first parameter's results to come up soon.... Contribution to Team Index. Mods and Admins, I hope I can publish a series of these articles here? I'll also be publishing them on my blog.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Folks, I received a new feedback. Unfortunately I don't have the whole sentence but if any of you had given this feedback, I would definitely like to see your model. The item was: "I constructed the ICC Test team ratings back to 1877 - this would help identfy minnow transition if you would like to see a copy" ps: Thanks for "virtuosity" I always thought it had to do with virtue and not virtuoso type skill and talent and hence I used virtuoso-ness. Yep virtuosity is the appropriate noun Edit: You can pm me or write me at viz.nirvanam.sharma@gmail