CSK Fan 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 No, what I mean if two players score the same runs, with the same strike rate and same average and one's team is stronger than the other, one will be rated higher on the win rate index which doesnt seem fair As have been told 100 times performing in a win depends a lot on the bowlers too! And none of the Indian greats you mentioned in the subsequent post are bowlers. as we learn in basic physics, to compare two objetcs on one parameter all other parameters should remian consistant. if you want to measure the weight of two objects, they should be in the same medium and tested under the same conditions. Otherwise the results will be invalid. You are including other parameters like different bowling/fielding/co-batting attacks. So the results will be skewed. Its like comparing the weight of an object in water with another in vaccum and concluding that the later is heavier The reason i am trying to use physics/mathamaticsas an example is because people who make such comparisons try to pretend that they are using mathamatical equations to measure stats. well then the onus is on them to ensure the objectivity and correctness of the methods used. Like any radical analysis, it will be questioned by critics
zen Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 No, what I mean if two players score the same runs, with the same strike rate and same average and one's team is stronger than the other, one will be rated higher on the win rate index which doesnt seem fair As have been told 100 times performing in a win depends a lot on the bowlers too! And none of the Indian greats you mentioned in the subsequent post are bowlers. as we learn in basic physics, to compare two objetcs on one parameter all other parameters should remian consistant. if you want to measure the weight of two objects, they should be in the same medium and tested under the same conditions. Otherwise the results will be invalid. You are including other parameters like different bowling/fielding/co-batting attacks. So the results will be skewed. Its like comparing the weight of an object in water with another in vaccum and concluding that the later is heavier The reason i am trying to use physics/mathamaticsas an example is because people who make such comparisons try to pretend that they are using mathamatical equations to measure stats. well then the onus is on them to ensure the objectivity and correctness of the methods used. Like any radical analysis, it will be questioned by critics If you feel that all indexes that doesn't rate Tendulkar at the top are unfair then you are free to invent one yourself. I hope you do realize that in the index being discussed, you get points for doing well in a win. Not for just being a part of a win .... And you could also get more points for doing more than you are required to do so if Ind is a one man army like what's being said by some then Tendulkar collects more points in a win than may be someone like Richards does as Richards has others who take some burden of him. You do realize that if you are playing for a stronger team then you also competing with others in your team for the points. If the index gives an unfairly huge advantage to those playing for stronger teams like the WI then why don't we see more players from WI in the rankings? I only saw Garner from Viv's era on the list, along with Hooper, who played towards the end of Richards career when Richards was not the same force. Gayle is at 19, so would you think he would be right up there at the top with Tendulkar, if he played for a stronger team? And why is Kapil ranked at 9, even though his win percentage is not as high as some of the WI bowlers?
akshayxyz Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Ok - let me put it other way - In the matches Sachin played - had he had support of a bowling attack like Windies had in the matches Viv played. What do you think - whether the win% (for Sachin) will go up or down or stay the same? Once again - I am not claiming one is better than other, just that this impact analysis is very superficial - esp the Win% crap.
vvvslaxman Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Hansie cronje sure an "impact' player :cantstop:
Sachin=GOD Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Seems to be pretty fair rankings. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Manny_Pacquiao Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 funny how a ranking of greatest ODI players doesnt even have Michael Bevan - the best middle order ODI batsman ever - in the top 25.
zen Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Ok - let me put it other way - In the matches Sachin played - had he had support of a bowling attack like Windies had in the matches Viv played. What do you think - whether the win% (for Sachin) will go up or down or stay the same? Once again - I am not claiming one is better than other, just that this impact analysis is very superficial - esp the Win% crap. Since your Q is related to the index: Desmond Haynes avg 50 in won games w/ 16 hundreds. He played with the same bowlers Viv played with so why isn't on the list? Gorden Greenidge avg 54 w/ 9 hundreds in won games. Again he played the same bowlers as Viv did. He isn't on the list too. And Brian Lara avg 62 in won games! If he had bowlers like Viv had or a played for a team like strong Ind, then I guess, he would be considered even better than Sachin, no? As I said, why not come up with a system that finds that out :winky: I guess it is not about your score becoming automatically better, if your win percentage is more. What the delusional fans think is that Sachin has done almost the same as Viv, who was in a league of his own in his era, so if Sachin had the same bowlers, he would have the same numbers. Only if things were so easy as writhing a post on a forum :P
zen Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Seems to be pretty fair rankings. Since Imran is at 2 so you can't complain :P
zen Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 LINK In Games that Sachin has lost: he avg 33 @ a SR of 80. How would his score have gone up "dramatically", if he had won some of those games?
Raghav_12 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Seems to be pretty fair rankings. How does it feel to be most undeserving person to get into this list ?:winky:
Sachin=GOD Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 How does it feel to be most undeserving person to get into this list ?:winky: Haaaahaaaa :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Sir_Afridi Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 The list is not about highest number of runs or 100s so obviously Tendulkar is not rated in top 5. Any list where Tendulkar is not rated at top is flawed according to Indian fans. The formula for this list was designed by Indians as said in the article.
satyam1729 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 The list is not about highest number of runs or 100s so obviously Tendulkar is not rated in top 5. Any list where Tendulkar is not rated at top is flawed according to Indian fans. The formula for this list was designed by Indians as said in the article. Fully agreed harbhajan is way better bowler in ODI than Waqar younis B->B->
vvvslaxman Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Fully agreed harbhajan is way better bowler in ODI than Waqar younis B->B-> And dhoni is better impact player than Wasim Akram.:icflove:
Sir_Afridi Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 And dhoni is better impact player than Wasim Akram.:icflove: Obviously there will be some bias selection in the list since it was designed by Indians.
satyam1729 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Obviously there will be some bias selection in the list since it was designed by Indians. Harbhajan >>>> waqar
Manny_Pacquiao Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Obviously there will be some bias selection in the list since it was designed by Indians. :(( Seems to be pretty fair rankings.
yoda Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Obviously there will be some bias selection in the list since it was designed by Indians. Biased list by Indians to put a P@kistani player at #2. :hysterical:
ViruRulez Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 MS Dhoni >>>>> Wasim Akram >>>> Sachin Tendulkar .. Great ranking system :adore: EDIT: Not only humans but even beast is also in that list. Great Great list. :adore: :adore:
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