CSK Fan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Looking at the criteria, I am not surprised to see so many all-rounders at the top of the list. I read that some folks talked abt MoM but MoM's won is not the criteria here. Neither do MoM's show clearly what percentage of work did a player do in a team's win Let's look at Sachin's numbers: In 444 ODIs he has played in, Ind has won 223 (which is like 50%). In won games, he avg 58 w/ 33 hundreds, along w/ picking up 97 wkts @ 33. Let's look at Sir Viv's numbers: In 182 ODIs he played in, WI won an amazing 132 games (which is like 72%). In won games, Viv avg 57 (in a time where avg and match totals weren't that high) with 11 hundreds (all his 100s in won games!), along w/ picking up 99 wkts @ 32. It's not that difficult to see why Richards would top the impact index. Those won games number would make sense if both had an equally strong team with equally strong bowlers and fielders. As soon as a variable which are not in the hand of the players creep in (there is a reason 11 players play a match, do you think the other 10 will have 0 impact on win/loss in all those games cited because thats exactly what you are trying to say), then the comparison stops making sense For example, a batsman playing for New Zealand and a batsman playing for australia both make the same amount of runs, with same average and strike rate but the later will be ranked much higher than the former because of Australia winning much more than New Zealand. Does that seem fair to you while comparing individual players? Its like you and me appearing for an interview where the selection of us for the job would depend on how our team does. I am given 4 excellent programmars and you are given four college drop outs. Would it be fair to compare you and me on that basis? Another thing is that All-rounders and bowlers will have an edge in this rating over batsmen
CSK Fan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 :rotfl: Too many *******s with SQL knowledge pretending to be analysts! Next they would be doing an analysis of which stud had more pleasure while banging hot chicks based on numbers and base indexes while all the experience they themselves would have had would be fapping
CSK Fan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Hmm..ok...Any article that does not have Sachin=GOD as No.1 has got to be comedy. Only if the article swapped the positions of Richards and Tendulkar then it would gospel. Who are these guys who wrote the article? Have you ever heard of them? What makes them qualified to do a cricket analysis? Do you understand the logic and parameters they have used? Do you agree to them? For me it seems the reverse way. You are ready to jump onto any bandwagon which can potray Sachin in a negative light without even judging the merits. If you need such articles, all you have to do is to search for threads started by Patriot, you will find dozens
zen Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Those won games number would make sense if both had an equally strong team with equally strong bowlers and fielders. As soon as a variable which are not in the hand of the players creep in (there is a reason 11 players play a match' date=' do you think the other 10 will have 0 impact on win/loss in all those games cited because thats exactly what you are trying to say), then the comparison stops making sense[/quote'] If we see the index, you might find others with lower win percentage higher than Tendulkar too. Win, I believe, is the major compononent in that index. Than there are other factors like SR, how many you score, wkts taken, pressure and so on. So merely swaping Richards and Tendulkar would not automatically mean that Tendulkar would top the index. Let's take SR for example, Tendulkar isn't exceptional for his time, while Richards' was in is time. I don't think the author considers the impact of others as zero. If I am not wrong, it is stated that he takes the contribution as a ratio then awards points based on how many it would take to do the job and what percentage of work you do. From what I understand, this index is more suited to all-rounders and the bowlers as if they pick up more wkts in their quota of 10 overs (20% of resources) their score is going to go up. I don't know if what the author said makes sense or not but commenting on whether the author makes sense based on Tendulkar positioned at 18 w/o understanding properly how the index works definately doesn't make sense. Which is my point! :winky:
CSK Fan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 If we see the index, you might find others with lower win percentage higher than Tendulkar too. Win, I believe, is the major compononent in that index. Than there are other factors like SR, how many you score, wkts taken, pressure and so on. So merely swaping Richards and Tendulkar would not automatically mean that Tendulkar would top the index. Let's take SR for example, Tendulkar isn't exceptional for his time, while Richards' was in is time. I don't think the author considers the impact of others as zero. If I am not wrong, it is stated that he takes the contribution as a ratio then awards points based on how many it would take to do the job and what percentage of work you do. From what I understand, this index is more suited to all-rounders and the bowlers as if they pick up more wkts in their quota of 10 overs (20% of resources) their score is going to go up. I don't know if what the author said makes sense or not but commenting on whether the author makes sense based on Tendulkar positioned at 18 w/o understanding properly how the index works definately doesn't make sense. Which is my point! :winky: I am not complaining about Richard topping the index, there is no doubt about his capabilty in ODIs. But this doesnt take away from the fact that if win rate is consider so important, its going to be a handicap for players from weaker teams. Similalry all rounders, even mediocore ones like Kronje(God rest his soul), will have an upper hand What do you mean Sachin isnt exceptional for his time(the 90s)? Where is Ponting on the list? I always had issues with any kind of player comparison which included team results. That just doesnt make any sense
zen Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I am not complaining about Richard topping the index, there is no doubt about his capabilty in ODIs. But this doesnt take away from the fact that if win rate is consider so important, its going to be a handicap for players from weaker teams. Similalry all rounders, even mediocore ones like Kronje(God rest his soul), will have an upper hand What do you mean Sachin isnt exceptional for his time(the 90s)? Where is Ponting on the list? I always had issues with any kind of player comparison which included team results. That just doesnt make any sense This impact index takes wins in to account so it's no surprise that guys with more wins would get the advantage, no? And there are not too many pros for measuring a players impact in a lost cause! Impact is usally taken with wins, no? I think he skipped taking Ponting because may be he is a bigger Sachin fan than Ponting so didn't want Ponting to be higer than Sachin :P Seriously, all this complaining fails to see that for a pure batsman to be ranked at 18 on an index that appears to favors all-rounders and bowlers more shows good thing about Tendulkar. I wouldn't take it as a negative. And for Richards to top it is just mind blowing!
Ganeshkumar Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Who are these guys who wrote the article? Have you ever heard of them? What makes them qualified to do a cricket analysis? Do you understand the logic and parameters they have used? Do you agree to them? For me it seems the reverse way. You are ready to jump onto any bandwagon which can potray Sachin in a negative light without even judging the merits. If you need such articles, all you have to do is to search for threads started by Patriot, you will find dozensIs Patriot banned?:nervous:
CSK Fan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 This impact index takes wins in to account so it's no surprise that guys with more wins would get the advantage, no? And there are not too many pros for measuring a players impact in a lost cause! Impact is usally taken with wins, no? I think he skipped taking Ponting because may be he is a bigger Sachin fan than Ponting so didn't want Ponting to be higer than Sachin :P Seriously, all this complaining fails to see that for a pure batsman to be ranked at 18 on an index that appears to favors all-rounders and bowlers more shows good thing about Tendulkar. I wouldn't take it as a negative. And for Richards to top it is just mind blowing! I thought I was arguing against the usefullness and the point of such a ranking system
Ganeshkumar Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 This impact index takes wins in to account so it's no surprise that guys with more wins would get the advantage, no? And there are not too many pros for measuring a players impact in a lost cause! Impact is usally taken with wins, no? I think he skipped taking Ponting because may be he is a bigger Sachin fan than Ponting so didn't want Ponting to be higer than Sachin :P Seriously, all this complaining fails to see that for a pure batsman to be ranked at 18 on an index that appears to favors all-rounders and bowlers more shows good thing about Tendulkar. I wouldn't take it as a negative. And for Richards to top it is just mind blowing! Agree,in that way;there is a positive.:--D
zen Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I thought I was arguing against the usefullness and the point of such a ranking system I guess, most didn't take the index seriously in the first place. But based on how that index was created, as I said before, I am not surprised to see all-rounders doing well on it.
Raghav_12 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Some BS list. No Lara, Ponting, Bevan? But a place of Afridi, Streak, Hooper, Cronje?? Of course Sachin being at number 18 also doesn't make any sense. IMHO, not worth discussing.
Jersey #10 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 http://penandpaperblog.org/2010/12/20/bradman-sobers-hadlee-botham-kallis/ This is a much better ranking system!! Ghanta better :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: It says that Shakib al Hasan, Gayle and Kallis are better ODI players than Sachin and Sehwag :giggle: Oh wait, Richards, Lara, Ponting etc. are not even on the list :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha: Look at the all time best players in history of cricket on your site... 1. Sir Donald Bradman – 7186 points (138.19 per game) 2. Sir Garfield Sobers – 12101 points (130.13 per game) 3. Jacques Kallis:cantstop: 4. Sir Richard Hadlee – 9784 points (113.77 per game) 5. Sir Ian Botham – 11545 (113.19 per game) 6. Sakib Al Hasan:cantstop::cantstop:
Jersey #10 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 TOI is the most garbage news paper out there
Mariyam Posted January 25, 2011 Author Posted January 25, 2011 TOI is the most garbage news paper out there Its quite evident that you haven't had the opportunity to read DNA yet. :P
thongale Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 No Jayasuriya in top 25 in ODI impact index! SRT at 18, and no Bevan there. :finger:
Sachin=GOD Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 TOI is the most garbage news paper out there No it is'nt.
akshayxyz Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Win% is most unfair parameter to rate a player. Win is a team effort!!!! Still if one wants to analyze won matches only - Another way to look at the 'impact' should be - Whether the team would have won, in absence of 'said' player. e.g. in Viv's won matches, if you replace VIv with some other Windies player, or normalize his contribution - (going by how strong/dominant WI team was) they would still have won majority of the matches. Whereas in case of Sachin's Won matches, most likely most of the matches would have gone down the drain. Anyway, looks like there are two ways to attract viewer/readership: a) Write articles praising legends ( esp. Sachin, Don, Ponting or other country favorites) b) Make some sort of stats /list/ All time XI - and omit/bring-down one of the legends. 'prove'/'expose' of the legend's "deficiencies" in comparison to someone not so known or 'one-time-hero'. most of the times - (b) works quite well.
zen Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Win% is most unfair parameter to rate a player. Win is a team effort!!!! Still if one wants to analyze won matches only - Another way to look at the 'impact' should be - Whether the team would have won, in absence of 'said' player. e.g. in Viv's won matches, if you replace VIv with some other Windies player, or normalize his contribution - (going by how strong/dominant WI team was) they would still have won majority of the matches.Whereas in case of Sachin's Won matches, most likely most of the matches would have gone down the drain. Anyway, looks like there are two ways to attract viewer/readership: a) Write articles praising legends ( esp. Sachin, Don, Ponting or other country favorites) b) Make some sort of stats /list/ All time XI - and omit/bring-down one of the legends. 'prove'/'expose' of the legend's "deficiencies" in comparison to someone not so known or 'one-time-hero'. most of the times - (b) works quite well. Are you implying that anyone would have done what Richards did? If I am not wrong, in the index, you are rewarded for performing in a win :winky: "b)" is what you probably did with Richards to bring down the index because Sachin is at 18 :P
Sachin=GOD Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Are you implying that anyone would have done what Richards did? If I am not wrong, in the index, you are rewarded for performing in a win :winky: "b)" is what you probably did with Richards to bring down the index because Sachin is at 18 :P Certainly not. The point is that if Viv Richards was removed from that West Indies team, even then that particular team might not have been as badly affected as India would have been affected if you remove Goddy's performances.
zen Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Certainly not. The point is that if Viv Richards was removed from that West Indies team' date=' even then that particular team might not have been as badly affected as India would have been affected if you remove Goddy's performances.[/quote'] So I guess Ind only wins because of Tendulkar, while WI would have won despite resting Richards :giggle: .... If that's the case then the performances of the likes of Ganguly, Dravid, Sehwag, GG, Yuvi, Raina, Dhoni with the bat means little (WI team was the best because it also had likes of Richards as its main batsman)
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