Mariyam Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Came across this article in today's ToI. Thought I'd share it with you guys . King ViV greatest ODI player ever According to the 'impact index' , this is how the cricketers stack up #1 Sir Viv Richards #2 Imran Khan #3 Richard Hadlee #4 Adam Gilchrist #5 Ian Botham #6 Hansie Cronje #7 A Flintoff #8 Jacques Kallis #9 Kapil Dev #10 Carl Hooper #11 S Jayasuria #12 Shaun Pollock #13 M S Dhoni #14 Lance Klusner #15 Wasim Akram #16 Shane Watson #17 Chris Cairns #18 S Tendulkar #19 Chris Gayle #20 Joel Garner ( who???) #21 Jeremy Coney (again, who??) #22 S O'Donnel ( dunno who he is either) #23 S Afridi #24 Lance Cairns (???) #25 Heath Streak The way the impact index works is that players are given an impact rating from 0-5 for every game they play. A rating of 1 indicates that the player has performed equivalent to the effort of one player in that game. A rating of 5 ( max rating) indicates that the player has done equivalent to 5 peoples work in that game. :shock: The basic philosophy behind the new performance measurement system is that in a team game how well you have done has to be seen in the context of how much it helped your team win, which after all is the ultimate objective of whatever you do as a cricketer. Hence, it measures performance in a match on a 0 to 5 scale, which roughly translates into saying that someone who gets a score of 3 on this scale contributed the equivalent of what three people did in that particular game and so on. Read more: King Viv greatest ODI player ever - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/icc-world-cup-2011/top-stories/King-Viv-greatest-ODI-player-ever/articleshow/7350208.cms#ixzz1BvMZnH3K I don't quite agree with the rating, but an interesting way to look at it. Especially , as this takes into account how big a match winner each player is. #23
Mariyam Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 For those of you who are interested in knowing how the 'impact index' functions, here are the broad guidelines http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/icc-world-cup-2011/top-stories/Understanding-the-Impact-Index/articleshow/7349927.cms 1) Based on the innings totals, a base figure is generated for the match. This is measured in runs, for all players (batsmen and bowlers and wicketkeepers). 2) Every performance in the match is thereafter measured against this base figure (as a ratio). One Impact Index (II) point is procured when the performance is equal to the base. That is seen as the basic minimum performance per player in this particular match. 3) For a batsman, II points are garnered for a) the runs tally b) strike rate c) pressure d) chasing and staying not out in the second innings. 4) The strike rate II can go into negative or positive depending on his strike rate vis-Ã -vis the base strike rate in the match. 5) The pressure II only kicks in when a batsman comes in to bat in a tough situation and scores more than the base runs. Tough situations are defined as per the base runs. 6) For a bowler, II points are garnered for a) wickets (the top 8 wickets and the last 3 have different weightings, in most cases) b) The economy rate (again, calculated against the base economy rate of the match — in T20 matches, the economy rate is slightly higher weighted) c) Breaking partnerships (its limit is set by using a multiple of the base). 7) Catches, stumpings and credited run-outs all get extra II points (a fraction of the base). The winning captain also gets an addition to his II (again, a fraction of the base). 8) All the above points are measured against the base figure, and are therefore ratios of the base in some way. 9) For Strength of Opposition — all teams in all matches are graded in categories of A, B or C in terms of team strength (with A being the strongest). All performances over 3 II are given additional points to allow for performances against the stronger teams to be rewarded. This depends on whether the corresponding team is graded A or B (no extra points against C). 10) For series/tournament defining performances — the highest weighted single component in this system rewards outstanding performances in critical circumstances for a team (within a tournament or a series context). 11) In a career context, the figures from all heads are tallied. All numbers are necessarily between 0 and 5, up to two decimal points. Read more: Understanding the Impact Index - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/icc-world-cup-2011/top-stories/Understanding-the-Impact-Index/articleshow/7349927.cms#ixzz1BvNn8lnU
Mariyam Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 No Sehwag? Apparently he doesn't have that much of an impact. To the administrators, I've made the thread twice. Could you please delete one of the threads. :embarrassed: thank you
satyam1729 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Came across this article in today's ToI. Thought I'd share it with you guys . King ViV greatest ODI player ever According to the 'impact index' , this is how the cricketers stack up #1 Sir Viv Richards #2 Imran Khan #3 Richard Hadlee #4 Adam Gilchrist #5 Ian Botham #6 Hansie Cronje #7 A Flintoff #8 Jacques Kallis #9 Kapil Dev #10 Carl Hooper #11 S Jayasuria #12 Shaun Pollock #13 M S Dhoni #14 Lance Klusner #15 Wasim Akram #16 Shane Watson #17 Chris Cairns #18 S Tendulkar #19 Chris Gayle #20 Joel Garner ( who???) #21 Jeremy Coney (again, who??) #22 S O'Donnel ( dunno who he is either) #23 S Afridi #24 Lance Cairns (???) #25 Heath Streak The way the impact index works is that players are given an impact rating from 0-5 for every game they play. A rating of 1 indicates that the player has performed equivalent to the effort of one player in that game. A rating of 5 ( max rating) indicates that the player has done equivalent to 5 peoples work in that game. :shock: The basic philosophy behind the new performance measurement system is that in a team game how well you have done has to be seen in the context of how much it helped your team win, which after all is the ultimate objective of whatever you do as a cricketer. Hence, it measures performance in a match on a 0 to 5 scale, which roughly translates into saying that someone who gets a score of 3 on this scale contributed the equivalent of what three people did in that particular game and so on. Read more: King Viv greatest ODI player ever - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/icc-world-cup-2011/top-stories/King-Viv-greatest-ODI-player-ever/articleshow/7350208.cms#ixzz1BvMZnH3K I don't quite agree with the rating, but an interesting way to look at it. Especially , as this takes into account how big a match winner each player is. #23 Flintoff > kapil and watson> sachin :haha::haha::haha:
don_corleone840 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 ms dhoni > s.tendulkar:giggle: even i would not agree on that (i am dhoni's biggest fan)
satyam1729 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Kallis is an impact player in ODI :hysterical:
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 What's so unique about this? Trying to make a mathematical model when the initial assumption is arbitrary. I am sure this kind of model works in other fields, but in cricket or any sports, it's no different than, someone saying that Sachin is the greatest batsman since he has scored more 100s than Bradman, in an internet message board.
Mariyam Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 What's so unique about this? Trying to make a mathematical model when the initial assumption is arbitrary. I am sure this kind of model works in other fields' date=' but in cricket or any sports, it's no different than, someone saying that Sachin is the greatest batsman since he has scored more 100s than Bradman, in an internet message board.[/quote'] The only thing 'unique' about this is that the Times of India have this on their front page today. I know that the ToI are no paragons of exceptional journalism, but still making it to the front page gives this ranking system some credence. The initial assumption is based on fair grounds, IMO. The whole concept of rating a player on his impact in a game sounds (which is a relative scale wrt that game) sounds more appealing to me than the absolute scale of just comparing the number of centuries/catches etc. But then again, what do I know. I'm no mathematician.
Mariyam Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 This may be the biggest BS list ever. :giggle: Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting what I read. Thought it might provide an interesting perspective. I am not saying I necessarily agree with any of the rankings. Just being an unbiased reporter. :winky: Maybe I should open thread # 95615612754 on Sachin is the best batsman in the whole wide world or #55215124 drop Yuvraj thread. That would be better received :P
satyam1729 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 T The initial assumption is based on fair grounds, IMO. The whole concept of rating a player on his impact in a game sounds (which is a relative scale wrt that game) sounds more appealing to me than the absolute scale of just comparing the number of centuries/catches etc. But then again, what do I know. I'm no mathematician. Tendulkar has 61 man of the match. I don't know what more can be an impact ? And moreover TOI is a rubbish congress funded tabloid.
Clarke Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 No real match winner Inzi bhai in top 5, what impact r u talking about :hitler: :fail:
Mariyam Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 Tendulkar has 61 man of the match. I don't know what more can be an impact ? Thats a good question. My guess is that 61 MoM in 445 ODIs is probably not as good a ratio as that Sir Viv Richards had. I did put up the conditions based on which the impact is calculated. Maybe you should read those and try and find answers to Sachin's lower rank. After all its not my ranking, and neither do I agree with it. And moreover TOI is a rubbish congress funded tabloid. Oh yes, and the Congress party's 5 year plan includes putting down Sachin Tendulkar's ODI records using dubious statistical analysis. After all, it is a matter of national importance. Why didn't I realize that? It was there on their election manifesto also. Really stupid of me to miss that :haha: :omg: , Even if what you claim is true, what has it to do with this article? Why mix politics and cricket?
satyam1729 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Thats a good question. My guess is that 61 MoM in 445 ODI's is probably not as good a ratio as that Sir Viv Richards had. I did put up the conditions based on which the impact is calculated. Maybe you should read those and try and find answers to Sachin's lower rank. Oh yes, and the Congress party's 5 year plan includes putting down Sachin Tendulkar's ODI records using dubious statistical analysis. After all, it is a matter of national importance. Why didn't I realize that? It was there on their election manifesto also. Really stupid of me to miss that :haha: :omg: , Even if what you claim is true, what has it to do with this article? Why mix politics and cricket? No what i am saying is TOI can publish any rubbish report on its front page. And going by the report heath streak is more impact player than Mcgrath :haha:
yoda Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting what I read. Thought it might provide an interesting perspective. Well I only said BS list, not BS thread. :winky:
vaibhav_delhi Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The basic flaw is that it doesnt have longevity as criteria. Tendulkar is possibly the greatest odi cricket ever and he is ranked 18.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now