ICC should introduce " IMPACT PERFORMANCES of the innings " award and they will be shown in Player Stats

[express bowling]

India has won the last 2 test series vs big oppositions based on lots of impact performances by different players. But traditionally speaking many of those performances did not reach statistical landmarks. But the importance of those performances are much more than centuries or fifers.

 

Pant has played important knocks of 97 and 89 not out in Australia and 58 n.o,  91 and 101 against England.  Sundar has scored 62 and 22 to win it for us in Brisbane. 85 n.o and 96 n.o against England. Gill has scored 50, 45 and 91 in Australia. Ashwin, Vihari and Pujara's innings in Sydney were very crucial for the series too.

 

 All of these were exceptionally important innings which have helped us win 2 crucial test series. But just a single century was scored.

 

Shardul  took 3 plus 4 wickets in Brisbane. Bumrah took 4 plus 2 wickets in Melbourne. Neither got a fifer. But these 4 innings were worth more than fifers as they helped us win those tests. 

 

The importance of those exceptional performances need to be recognised. The number of  IMPACT PERFORMANCES by each player will be checked for the last 1 year. And this will help us choose a more apt team.

 

Performances need to be gauged based on the quality of opposition too. Against weak teams, much more runs have to be scored ( say 170 + )  or much more wickets have to be taken ( say 7+ )  to have an Impact Performance. 

 

There has to be an Expert Panel consisting of the match referee, 1 nominee from home team and 1 nominee from the away team ... and they will decide impact performances after the completion of each innings.

 

There can any number of Impact Performances per innings. ( Maximum 22 )

 

The number of Impact Performances will be included in Player Stats ... just like centuries and fifers are.

 

Please discuss.

Edited March 7, 2021 by express bowling

[zen]

As I have said on many threads citing e.g. of players such as Pujara, the importance of impact performances 

[express bowling]

29 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

. When the fact is, it's the first innings runs that are vastly more impactful.

 

 

And those first innings runs will be considered too. 

 

Impact Performances can be from every innings.

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

Any such statistical model will be highly inconsistent. Far too many variables, many of which do not have linear trends and have multiple dependencies

[Jimmy Cliff]

This has been tried before although not by ICC. It led to some hilariously biased results. 

[express bowling]

There is a reason why I recommend this.

 

Our cricketing fraternity is very hung up on stats of players.

 

Listening to our commentators and experts will make this very clear.

 

Someone said that Shardul was released from the squad because he did not get a fifer while Siraj did.

 

Laxman was talking about replacing Gill with Mayank because he can score those centuries.

 

Gavaskar keeps lamenting about Pant's inability to score centuries.

 

Gavaskar actually talked about Sundar's inability to convert, referring to his innings of 85 ... forgetting that he was not out.

 

And our selectors and coaches ... the people who matter ... have the same mentality too. Shastri had referred to Pant's inability convert in an earlier interview.

 

They must have access to some tangible stats which refer to players' impactful contributions to the team's cause. Team concept should be paramount.

[express bowling]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

This has been tried before although not by ICC. It led to some hilariously biased results. 

 

 

Where and how ?

[express bowling]

40 minutes ago, ShoonyaSifar said:

Any such statistical model will be highly inconsistent. Far too many variables, many of which do not have linear trends and have multiple dependencies

 

 

It won't be much different from a Man of the Match award.

 

One issue with MOM award is that just 1 person gets it. While there are often 5 or 6 impactful performers in tough games.

[Jimmy Cliff]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Where and how ?

 

Impact Index was the attempt. They even have a book that they co-authored with Aakash Chopra. It was a system that tried to judge performances based on match and series context. So basically every player used to be rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest. Which means that a 90-odd in a total of 250 would get a higher rating than a 100 scored in a total of 500. It had other indices too like SR impact, partnership building impact etc etc. Sounds all nice and fuzzy but a big flaw in this system is that it assumed every player has the same opportunity/scope to make an impact in the game. It doesn't really differentiate between a top order batsman failing against the new ball and a lower order batsman failing while looking for some quick runs in the slog overs. They made a big hullabaloo about series defining performances being the primary criteria of judging players. This led to some dubious findings where Haynes was more impactful than Richards, Iqbal Qasim was more impactful than Wasim/Waqar, Bishop was more impactful than Ambrose and so on. I stopped taking them seriously when they claimed Rahane's 46 and 38* in the Dharamsala Test in 2017 counted as a series defining performance but Pujara's 92 and Rahul's 91 and 50-odd at Bangalore in the same series didn't . A much more detailed critique of the Impact Index can be found here - On The Mysterious Impact Index.

 

[express bowling]

40 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Impact Index was the attempt. They even have a book that they co-authored with Aakash Chopra. It was a system that tried to judge performances based on match and series context. So basically every player used to be rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest. Which means that a 90-odd in a total of 250 would get a higher rating than a 100 scored in a total of 500. It had other indices too like SR impact, partnership building impact etc etc. Sounds all nice and fuzzy but a big flaw in this system is that it assumed every player has the same opportunity/scope to make an impact in the game. It doesn't really differentiate between a top order batsman failing against the new ball and a lower order batsman failing while looking for some quick runs in the slog overs. They made a big hullabaloo about series defining performances being the primary criteria of judging players. This led to some dubious findings where Haynes was more impactful than Richards, Iqbal Qasim was more impactful than Wasim/Waqar, Bishop was more impactful than Ambrose and so on. I stopped taking them seriously when they claimed Rahane's 46 and 38* in the Dharamsala Test in 2017 counted as a series defining performance but Pujara's 92 and Rahul's 91 and 50-odd at Bangalore in the same series didn't . A much more detailed critique of the Impact Index can be found here - On The Mysterious Impact Index.

 

 

 

 

I am not talking about trying to find the impact of every performance. 

 

And I am not trying to quantify things either. ( like % of total runs etc. )

 

Just talking about giving awards for impact performances every innings ... like the Man of the Match award ... but not limited to just 1 player per match 

 

This is much more easy to implement. And will be right more often than not. 

 

Like in the 4th test vs England  (  Impact performances for India )

 

1st innings ... Axar

2nd innings ...Pant, Sundar, Rohit, Axar

3rd innings ... Axar, Ashwin, Pant ( keeping )

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by express bowling

[R!TTER]

1 hour ago, ShoonyaSifar said:

many of which do not have linear trends and have multiple dependencies

Impossible to even account for the variables - like the Don innings at Melbourne on a wet wicket, the one where Oz reversed the order! Everyone remembers that it was a great  innings on a tricky surface - how many mention that the wicket actually dried out on the rest day in between? These parameters are mostly useless because conditions change every hour, heck can change in half an hour!

Edited March 7, 2021 by R!TTER

[Jimmy Cliff]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

 

 

I am not talking about trying to find the impact of every performance. 

 

And I am not trying to quantify things either. ( like % of total runs etc. )

 

Just talking about giving awards for impact performances every innings ... like Man of the Match award ... but not limited to just 1 player per match 

 

This is much more easy to implement. And will be right more often than not. 

 

Like in the 4th test vs England  (  Impact performances for India )

 

1st innings ... Axar

2nd innings ... Rohit, Pant, Sundar, Axar

3rd innings ... Axar, Ashwin

 

 

But wouldn't that favour players from stronger sides? After all, their performances are more likely to be backed up by their team-mates in a match context resulting in greater "impact". 

 

Also, how different would these awards be compared to simply running a statsguru query that lists the number of 50+ scores/4+ wkt hauls in a match-winning cause? 

 

Plus while it might be relatively straightforward to rate performances in a winning cause, it will be much trickier when they aren't. So Pant's 100 in the 4th Test surely counts as a high impact performance, but what about his 90 odd in Chennai? In a game where England piled up 500+, does that count as an impact performance? What about Ashwin's 6-fer in the 1st Test at Chennai? Some would say that was a relatively inconsequential haul as England were looking for some quick runs in the 2nd innings. So there will always be a lot of ambiguity while rating such performances.

 

 

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

But wouldn't that favour players from stronger sides? After all, their performances are more likely to be backed up by their team-mates in a match context resulting in greater "impact". 

 

 

No.

 

An Afghan batsman scoring 43 against a tough Indian bowling side will be considered an Impact Performance.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Also, how different would these awards be compared to simply running a statsguru query that lists the number of 50+ scores/4+ wkt hauls in a match-winning cause? 

 

 

Winning cause is not necessary.

 

50+ scores or 4 wicket hauls not necessary either.

 

Ashwin 39 not out and Vihari 23 not out were super impact performances in a drawn test.

 

Axar's 43 was very impactful.

 

Pant and Sundar's fight in the first test first innings ... in s lost cause ... were impact performances too.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Plus while it might be relatively straightforward to rate performances in a winning cause, it will be much trickier when they aren't. So Pant's 100 in the 4th Test surely counts as a high impact performance, but what about his 90 odd in Chennai?

 

 

His 91 in Chennai was as impactful.

 

There is no confusion here.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

In a game where England piled up 500+, does that count as an impact performance? What about Ashwin's 6-fer in the 1st Test at Chennai? Some would say that was a relatively inconsequential haul as England were looking for some quick runs in the 2nd innings. So there will always be a lot of ambiguity while rating such performances.

 

 

Ashwin's 6 fer was definitely impactful as it gave us a chance to come back if we batted well.

 

Impact Performances won't be rare things.  Otherwise the purpose is defeated.

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

No.

 

An Afghan batsman scoring 43 against a tough Indian bowling side will be considered an Impact Performance.

 

Ok. 

 

But what if that batsman is scoring 43 after India have already piled on 500+ in the first innings? What "impact" is that 43 having on the match/innings. 

 

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

Winning cause is not necessary.

 

50+ scores or 4 wicket hauls not necessary either.

 

Ashwin 39 not out and Vihari 23 not out were super impact performances in a drawn test.

 

Axar's 43 was very impactful.

 

Pant and Sundar's fight in the first test first innings ... in s lost cause ... were impact performances too.

 

What about Pujara's 50 in the first innings in Sydney? Was that a high impact knock that helped us draw the Test or did that knock reduce our chances of winning the Test?

Btw will all impact performances be rated equally? I mean if we are rating them based on impact, surely Vihari's 23* and Laxman's 281 can't be in the same category.

 

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

His 91 in Chennai was as impactful.

 

There is no confusion here.

 

Disagree. His 91 was scored in a game where England racked up 570+. When he got out, India were still trailing by 350+. In the 4th Test, he got a 100 where England barely crossed 200. By the time he got out, India already had a lead of 50+. Not a major difference in terms of the runs scored or even the point of entry at the crease, but a huge difference in the terms of the impact those knocks had on the game. The first knock barely delayed the inevitable. The 2nd put India on the way to a victory. 

 

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

Ashwin's 6 fer was definitely impactful as it gave us a chance to come back if we batted well.

 

Impact Performances won't be rare things.  Otherwise the purpose is defeated.

 

But if we are ranking all and sundry performances as impactful, how is that going to be different from the various aggregate stats about 50s and 100s? I mean yeah every now and then, the odd 50/100 won't be rated as impactful and the odd 30/40 odd would be but it wouldn't really tell us something that we don't know already about the players in question.  

 

[express bowling]

5 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Ok. 

 

But what if that batsman is scoring 43 after India have already piled on 500+ in the first innings? What "impact" is that 43 having on the match/innings. 

 

 

What about Pujara's 50 in the first innings in Sydney? Was that a high impact knock that helped us draw the Test or did that knock reduce our chances of winning the Test?

Btw will all impact performances be rated equally? I mean if we are rating them based on impact, surely Vihari's 23* and Laxman's 281 can't be in the same category.

 

 

Disagree. His 91 was scored in a game where England racked up 570+. When he got out, India were still trailing by 350+. In the 4th Test, he got a 100 where England barely crossed 200. By the time he got out, India already had a lead of 50+. Not a major difference in terms of the runs scored or even the point of entry at the crease, but a huge difference in the terms of the impact those knocks had on the game. The first knock barely delayed the inevitable. The 2nd put India on the way to a victory. 

 

 

But if we are ranking all and sundry performances as impactful, how is that going to be different from the various aggregate stats about 50s and 100s? I mean yeah every now and then, the odd 50/100 won't be rated as impactful and the odd 30/40 odd would be but it wouldn't really tell us something that we don't know already about the players in question.  

 

 

 

Grade A and Grade B Impact Performances are possible.

 

Most people understand which performances are impactful when the game is being played or is just over.

 

But after some time has elapsed, they tend to forget them and just look at 100s, 50s and fifers. Remember Manju analysing a batsman. Said that he has X number of 100s and Y number of 50s. So, it means he has X super performances, Y good performances and the rest are failures. Won't be surprised if Chetan Sharma and Co. think similarly. 

 

Which is why this suggestion.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by express bowling

[BacktoCricaddict]

If it were up to me, I would just start recording the number of 90+ scores on stat sheets.  And then see players' father's whine when their son is stranded on a highly impactful 86* that helped the team win a key match.  

[BacktoCricaddict]

Still subjective.  I am betting there is an objective metric like average partnership score before and after the particular batsman came in to bat that can be fenagled into a numeric impact factor.  Certainly something better than 50s or 100s.  

 

In American football, it is a bit of an honor when someone gets 100 rushing yards.  But no one whines if someone ends up at 98 because the coach decided to put someone else in there for the last play because it would be a better personnel grouping, or because they didn't want to risk injury to their star player, or whatever other reason.  But in cricket, the century obsession is out of hand.  

[Vijy]

Setting aside impact performances, but one option is to convert runs and wkts to "smart" runs and wickets. Basically, 10 runs scored when the score is 200/1 chasing 220 would be very different from, say, scoring 10 runs when at 90/8 and chasing 105. While there is such a metric used by Cricinfo for T20s (which I don't like), it would be interesting to work with statisticians and develop something for Tests and ODIs. I recall some statistician doing an analysis of the greatest batting and bowling performances where a number of parameters were considered; in batting, for example, some scores < 100 made the list because of the circumstances. One can recall the likes of Laxman in Durban, Gavaskar in Bengaluru, and so on.

 

One can display both runs/smart runs, wkts/smart wkts and avgs/smart avgs. This would give a better measure of who have been impactful players, since their smart avgs and runs/wkts would be higher than regular avgs and runs/wkts respectively.

[zen]

One error is to associate impact with wins only (though that can carry more weightage based on your performance). Impact basically is how your performance made your team competitive in a game ... for e.g. a team is 100/4, now making a big score or engaging in a fighting p’ship to take it to a competitive/respectable total is impactful. Or you played out a tough session with bowlers on top to not give away the advantage to the other team. On the other hand, when a team is say 200/2, and a bowler picks up 2-3 quick wkts to bring his team relatively back in the game is impactful too (even though the bowler make not take a 4-er or a 5-er). A fielder taking 2-3 extremely difficult catches or creating runouts with tough direct hits has made an impact too 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by zen

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

One error is to associate impact with wins only. 

 

 

I haven't done that.

 

Usually, there are impact performances in losses too.