ODIs || Matchwinners || Batsmen || 2009-2019

[DarkProfile]

[zen]

Del

Edited April 26, 2022 by zen

[Majestic]

After looking at these averages, I thought they guys are definitions of true match winners but then I realised it is only counting runs for matches where they got 50+ score and in winning cause. 

 

What should we derive from these stats is something I would like to know from OP?

[DarkProfile]

4 minutes ago, Majestic said:

After looking at these averages, I thought they guys are definitions of true match winners but then I realised it is only counting runs for matches where they got 50+ score and in winning cause. 

 

What should we derive from these stats is something I would like to know from OP?

 

My criteria for a match-winner is:

 

1) India should win the match

2) Against a good ODI team

3) Excluding meaningless bilaterals

4) And the batsman who scores 50 or more runs in such a match is a match-winner.

 

Where did I err?

[DarkProfile]

I think if the stats included the total matches played by each batsman (for the criteria of good ODI teams and excluding bilaterals), then we can divide the number of their match-winning knocks by the total knocks to come up with some measure?

 

Like, if Sachin played 20 match-winning knocks out of 100 knocks, then 20% match-winner. If Sehwag played 10 winning knocks against 20 total knocks, then 50% match-winner?

[DarkProfile]

22 minutes ago, Majestic said:

After looking at these averages, I thought they guys are definitions of true match winners but then I realised it is only counting runs for matches where they got 50+ score and in winning cause. 

 

What should we derive from these stats is something I would like to know from OP?

 

You see Jaddu's name there?

[Majestic]

25 minutes ago, DarkProfile said:

I think if the stats included the total matches played by each batsman (for the criteria of good ODI teams and excluding bilaterals), then we can divide the number of their match-winning knocks by the total knocks to come up with some measure?

 

Like, if Sachin played 20 match-winning knocks out of 100 knocks, then 20% match-winner. If Sehwag played 10 winning knocks against 20 total knocks, then 50% match-winner?

Okay so these stats means that in 3+ ICC tournaments,

 

Kohli has 16 scores of 50+ in winning cause in that 10 year period vs top teams.

 

Rohit has 10 scores of 50+ in winning cause and Dhawan also has 10 such scores vs top teams.

 

Raina has only one such score of 50+. Dhoni has 4.

 

If it is that then I agree with the utility of stats here.I got confused there because I feel a top knock albeit in a losing cause sometimes will go missing while just a good knock in winning cause will make a difference to these stats. So, that is something which obviously cannot be articulated from these stats.

 

Also, you left England there.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Majestic

[DarkProfile]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Okay so these stats means that in 3+ ICC tournaments,

 

Kohli has 16 scores of 50+ in winning cause in that 10 year period.

 

Rohit has 10 scores of 50+ in winning cause and Dhawan also has 10 such scores.

 

Raina has only one such score of 50+. Dhoni has 4.

 

If it is that then I agree with the utility of stats here.I got confused there because I feel a top knock albeit in a losing cause sometimes will go missing while just a good knock in winning cause will make a difference to these stats. So, that is something which obviously cannot be articulated from these stats.

 

I compiled them in a jiffy because I was bored and wanted to bait some discussion. But you're right that such stats often conceal more than they reveal.

Edited April 26, 2022 by DarkProfile

[zen]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

Okay so these stats means that in 3+ ICC tournaments,

 

These #s are not just about ICC events but for 3 or more team events ... They could include tri-series too where applicable, though not many happen now 

Edited April 26, 2022 by zen

[Adamant]

Only one King. 

[Vijy]

On 4/26/2022 at 10:29 AM, DarkProfile said:

 

I compiled them in a jiffy because I was bored and wanted to bait some discussion. But you're right that such stats often conceal more than they reveal.

yes, agreed. in this case, there are a lot of other variables. and they do not tell us much about recent form, which is that ro-ko seem finished

[DarkProfile]

5 hours ago, Adamant said:

Only one King. 

 

Actually, I filtered out preliminary matches from my filter. And guess what, Kohli and Sharma plunged to the bottom with only 1 knock each. Dhoni, Gambhir and Yuvraj are the most consistent match-winners in the big games during the last decade.

 

I do wonder why India has stopped playing tri or quad series tournaments??? These tournaments are good simulations of ICC tournaments and may actually help the temperaments of some eternal chokers.

Edited April 27, 2022 by DarkProfile

[DarkProfile]

1 hour ago, Vijy said:

yes, agreed. in this case, there are a lot of other variables. and they do not tell us much about recent form, which is that ro-ko seem finished

 

I thought a bit about determining the time period during which a set of players can be measured.

 

I guess we can pick the start period from a WC where India has hit the bottom. The dismal WC performance slaps that selectors out of their slumber and they chop off all the old baggage players and go for rebuilding the team.

 

Then, India performs good, better and so on... but after a phase of zero returns, the performance starts declining until it hits the nadir again. Then, again the cycle of rebuilding starts.

 

So, for example, I'd pick one cycle from 2008 WC onward till 2023 WC (???), where I expect India to hit nadir again...

 

My cycle is inspired from the lifecycle of a business:

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by DarkProfile

[DarkProfile]

I think it's a 15 years cycle.

 

After 1992 WC, all the passengers from 83 WC and 85 World Championship were dumped and the team was rebuilt with new talent.

 

1992-2008 - one cycle.

 

2008-2023 - another cycle.

 

And so on...

 

Players who enter the team during the start of a cycle enjoy comparatively longer career than players who enter in the middle of the cycle.

 

[cricketpitch]

On 4/26/2022 at 11:56 PM, Majestic said:

Okay so these stats means that in 3+ ICC tournaments,

 

Kohli has 16 scores of 50+ in winning cause in that 10 year period vs top teams.

 

Rohit has 10 scores of 50+ in winning cause and Dhawan also has 10 such scores vs top teams.

 

Raina has only one such score of 50+. Dhoni has 4.

 

If it is that then I agree with the utility of stats here.I got confused there because I feel a top knock albeit in a losing cause sometimes will go missing while just a good knock in winning cause will make a difference to these stats. So, that is something which obviously cannot be articulated from these stats.

 

Also, you left England there.

Unfair on someone like Raina. His 36* against Pakistan in the World Cup semi-final was one of the most important innings in getting India to 260+. Now such innings will be lost and will be considered not match winning. Also Raina came lower down the order and played many such innings but might not have had the opportunity to score those 50's because of lack of overs. For example in the same world cup Quarter Finals, India were 180 odd for 5 chasing 260. Yuvraj's innings of 57 would have been counted but Raina who partnered him to remain unbeaten on 34 will not be considered match winning. He could have got out for a duck and India might have lost the game despite Yuvi's knock. Suresh Raina also played such an innings against Pakistan in Asia cup 2010 where he scored 34 to guide India to a win when India were 219/6 chasing 270. There is a flaw in this stat which only favours top order batters.

 

The reason the top 3 have most such innings as they get to play more overs than the others in the list. The middle/lower order cannot be painted with the same brush as the top order.