Cluster 1: Sachin, Don, Cluster 2: 17 other ATGs, Cluster 3: Hammond

[Maundy Gregory]

What input did I give? I can't even make sense of the formulae :((

I don't know that anyone had any input. If you read the original blog, you'll note that the conditions are set out and everyone is invited to comment on how they might be altered. Several people in the comments section do suggest alternatives, but not a single suggestion has been acted upon. In every instance, Vijay says the majority want him to keep it as it is. It's really a fan site, based on what Vijay thinks is important

[Sachinism]

Another alter-ego? :hmmm:

[Vijay.Sharma]

Its just an idea. Any addition to it is welcome. For example quality of fielding improved dramatically all over the world after South African came back to international cricket To measure quality may be you can set indicatiors. When was ceratin attribute introduced and became prevelant

sounds like a good idea...need to think thru this. Any ideas how we can quantify it?

Format: Tests' date='odi and T20, day and night, floodlight, white ball, redball (when were they introduced)[/quote']Here, I'll disagree. I don't wanna include all three formats - it will disqualify all ATGs before Sobers. I'll stick to Test cricket. Maybe I'll do a diff one for ODIs

[Vijay.Sharma]

I don't know that anyone had any input. If you read the original blog, you'll note that the conditions are set out and everyone is invited to comment on how they might be altered. Several people in the comments section do suggest alternatives, but not a single suggestion has been acted upon. In every instance, Vijay says the majority want him to keep it as it is. It's really a fan site, based on what Vijay thinks is important

Of course the foundation of the project is based on my individual theorizing and development of the concept of virtuosity of Test batsmanship. And I am the first one to admit it is not perfect. It can never be perfect. And at no place have I claimed that this project is in agreement with all the folks who gave me inputs or helped me think thru certain problems. However, I have thanked people and acknowledged that my thoughts have been influenced by them. This dunn mean the project is as per their requirements...it only means my thought processes have been influenced. Now, I have also made available the entire project...all formulas, the reasons for the specific formulas, the way the concept was developed. What I would think would be constructive criticism, is when someone looks at those items and finds holes / better ways of doing things in the specifics (there are already some given. for ex - by sdavmor - I think u know who he is). Posts like yours attack my character with imagined cr@p and add no value to me or to my effort. You are welcome to trash it for all I care but try not to get personal.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Another alter-ego? :hmmm:

lol

[mishra]

Vijay... What i meant was Quality of Cricket... Just like all the indicators you incorporated to get that grapg. There can be one more indicator. Cricket quality.... Cricket quality be measured with time. For example there has not been much change to fielding quality in last 5 years. But there has been significant change to it since South African arrived. When Wasim introduced reverse swing to fast bowling there was definitely a significant improvement to fast bowling. And it took few years but soon bowlers all over the world started bowling reverse swing. So thats a major improvement to fast bowling. Hence a major improvement in cricket. Same is with doosara.... Umpiring decision improved with netral umpires, referrals tv umpire, UDRS and now DRS. Which definitely means improvement to cricket. Helmets were wore because bowlers all over the world started bowling fast and mastered bouncers. The game became lethal.... The role of pitch curator also became important ... That means crcket improved... Clear Video footages meant that teams and players started a detailed planning against batsmen and bowlers So cricketing quality has improved over the time. But there were key moments in cricketing history. We can capture all or some of these events and impose its on ATG.....

[rkt.india]

So much analysis to find out that DBG is the greatest! .... From the graph' date=' it appears as if Dravid is rated higher than Richards. In which world other than of stats can you have that :P[/quote'] stats don't lie...:winky:

[rkt.india]

Inzamam is greater than Chappell and Barrington is greater than Richards - wonderful analysis. :nice:

sometimes truth is bitter..hard to accept:--D:winky:

[Vijay.Sharma]

Vijay... What i meant was Quality of Cricket... Just like all the indicators you incorporated to get that grapg. There can be one more indicator. Cricket quality.... Cricket quality be measured with time. For example there has not been much change to fielding quality in last 5 years. But there has been significant change to it since South African arrived. When Wasim introduced reverse swing to fast bowling there was definitely a significant improvement to fast bowling. And it took few years but soon bowlers all over the world started bowling reverse swing. So thats a major improvement to fast bowling. Hence a major improvement in cricket. Same is with doosara.... Umpiring decision improved with netral umpires, referrals tv umpire, UDRS and now DRS. Which definitely means improvement to cricket. Helmets were wore because bowlers all over the world started bowling fast and mastered bouncers. The game became lethal.... The role of pitch curator also became important ... That means crcket improved... Clear Video footages meant that teams and players started a detailed planning against batsmen and bowlers So cricketing quality has improved over the time. But there were key moments in cricketing history. We can capture all or some of these events and impose its on ATG.....

Yes sir, I understood what you said. And I am thinking about how to include them. We can work together on this (if you have the time) to figure out how exactly to quantify the qualitative things like helmets, bouncer rules, lbw laws, video analysis, etc. As of now, I am tearing my hair to firstly understand their influence i.e. whether the influence is positive or negative (I mean subjectively I know as a fan, but in the objective part I am stuck). Next comes, their magnitude of influence - this is where we will need to start quantifying it. So, basically, I totally understand what you are saying and I agree that many of those items influence performance. And, with utmost honesty, I am saying that as at today I have no clue how to include them in the numerical stuff.

[Maundy Gregory]

Of course the foundation of the project is based on my individual theorizing and development of the concept of virtuosity of Test batsmanship. And I am the first one to admit it is not perfect. It can never be perfect. And at no place have I claimed that this project is in agreement with all the folks who gave me inputs or helped me think thru certain problems. However, I have thanked people and acknowledged that my thoughts have been influenced by them. This dunn mean the project is as per their requirements...it only means my thought processes have been influenced. Now, I have also made available the entire project...all formulas, the reasons for the specific formulas, the way the concept was developed. What I would think would be constructive criticism, is when someone looks at those items and finds holes / better ways of doing things in the specifics (there are already some given. for ex - by sdavmor - I think u know who he is). Posts like yours attack my character with imagined cr@p and add no value to me or to my effort. You are welcome to trash it for all I care but try not to get personal.

In what way did I attack your character? If you don't like anyone making anything other than a laudatory comment about your analysis, perhaps don't post it to a public forum. I've got lots of constructive comments to make about your selections, such as why include Bradman (52 Tests), yet exclude Sutcliffe (54)? Why exclude Samaweera (66), Yousuf (90) and Flower (63)? Why include Inzamam when he averages under 50? I don't agree with the details of the bowler index, or the condition difficulty index, nor do I find the 'fans common wisdom' argument very convincing. Bradman 'only' averaged 50+ from 52 Tests, rather than 50+ over 125 Tests, but this was over a period of 20 years, rather than 16. Players simply played less Tests in earlier times. I also can't find the rsc poll that voted to include Sehwag, Sangakkara, Border and Waugh in the ATG list. Perhaps you could supply a link?

[rkt.india]

In what way did I attack your character? If you don't like anyone making anything other than a laudatory comment about your analysis, perhaps don't post it to a public forum. I've got lots of constructive comments to make about your selections, such as why include Bradman (52 Tests), yet exclude Sutcliffe (54)? Why exclude Samaweera (66), Yousuf (90) and Flower (63)? Why include Inzamam when he averages under 50? I don't agree with the details of the bowler index, or the condition difficulty index, nor do I find the 'fans common wisdom' argument very convincing. Bradman 'only' averaged 50+ from 52 Tests, rather than 50+ over 125 Tests, but this was over a period of 20 years, rather than 16. Players simply played less Tests in earlier times. I also can't find the rsc poll that voted to include Sehwag, Sangakkara, Border and Waugh in the ATG list. Perhaps you could supply a link?

but less tests means less fitness issues. Cricket now is much more intense and competitive than to 1930 s and 40s with more matches including ODIs and T20s as well.

[maniac]

Very good effort.since your analysis is based on tests,if we add odi which has now been the more dominant format for 3 decades can we safely conclude now that srt is the greatest batsman ever. You can add the adaptability factor and quantify it by comparing the atg s performance in loi s as well

[akshayxyz]

What the hell is going on!! Sachinism Asks Vijay - what input I gave.... Maundy replies. on Vijay's behalf - "I do not know if anyone had any input...". post#29 - Vijay says to Mishragreat - " post like yours attack ..." post#30 - Maundy replies on Mishra's behalf - "in what way did I attack..." vijay=mishra=maundy.

[Prakat]

:haha: you forgot CasualVisitor.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Maundy / Higgsy, I think you already know the answers to these. But I'll try one last time to explain my perspective. Whether you are satisfied with my responses or not is something I am not too inclined to care about. As has been made very clear in the document, this project was done by me and I took inputs from people. Now this does not mean, I have taken all their inputs or agreed with all their inputs. It also does not mean they are "authors" in this project. This is an individual's project who did the project in his way, not yours. And I don't even claim that even one other individual agrees with my model. Having said that, following are the specific responses...

In what way did I attack your character? If you don't like anyone making anything other than a laudatory comment about your analysis, perhaps don't post it to a public forum.

Sorry, you didn't attack my character.

I've got lots of constructive comments to make about your selections, such as why include Bradman (52 Tests), yet exclude Sutcliffe (54)? Why exclude Samaweera (66), Yousuf (90) and Flower (63)? Why include Inzamam when he averages under 50?

The reasons were already specified in the first version. It's all there. You are assuming that my project intended to consider all batsman who fulfilled a cut-off or something like that. That was never the intention of my project as has been specified on the blog in the first version, and also the new version. The reasons are already given in the doc/blog, Higgsy. You may not agree with the reasons or the process I used but that's not my problem. Just coz I asked people for inputs does not mean I am obliged to consider each and every one of them.

I don't agree with the details of the bowler index' date=' or the condition difficulty index, nor do I find the 'fans common wisdom' argument very convincing. Bradman 'only' averaged 50+ from 52 Tests, rather than 50+ over 125 Tests, but this was over a period of 20 years, rather than 16. Players simply played less Tests in earlier times.[/quote']Fair enough! You retain the option to care a damn about the project. Now, if you think that the fans' common wisdom point about number of Tests / Innings is contrary to what I inferred, then please feel free to think so. Please also feel free to do your own poll and find out what people think.

[Vijay.Sharma]

What the hell is going on!! Sachinism Asks Vijay - what input I gave.... Maundy replies. on Vijay's behalf - "I do not know if anyone had any input...". post#29 - Vijay says to Mishragreat - " post like yours attack ..."

Actually it is, post#24 - Vijay says to Maundy - " post like yours attack ..."

post#30 - Maundy replies on Mishra's behalf - "in what way did I attack..."

Actually it is post#34 - Pravinkataria says to Akshayxyz "you forgot casual visitor"

vijay=mishra=maundy.

Erroneous translational equation. It should be as follows: Vijay=Sachinism=Mishragreat=Akshayxyz=Maundy=CasualVisitor <> Pravinkataria LOL!

[Maundy Gregory]

Vijay, you wrote: "Firstly, I'd like to thank ICF, Raghav_12, BossBhai, Akshayxyz, Sachinism, Sree_India, holysmoke, My two cents, and all others whose names I have missed (I know I have missed many names) for helping me with your inputs on this project. i have received inputs from members in other forums as well, and I believe the model is at a stage where it can be taken seriously as a partial way to compare batsmen across eras." but it doesn't seem like you took notice of any input from anyone unless it agreed with your own views. Also, you state that: "The four ATGs added were decided based on a poll conducted on certain cricket forums (RSC and ICF)." There was no poll on rsc. Was there one here (can you post a link), or were the four ATGs added simply based on your opinion? You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion, and welcome to back it up with any sort of stat you see fit. It obviously opens up discussion. However, if you've got some stats on who participated in a poll, it seems it would be good if you included them too

[Maundy Gregory]

I'm not replying on anyone's behalf, I'm simply giving my own opinion

[Vijay.Sharma]

Folks, There was an error in the total number of Tests counted for Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar - I had earlier counted them as 155 and 182 respectively. but the correct ones are 150 and 177 respectively (a manual error I made in excel happened when I was generating the count of Tests. Luckily it was restricted only to the number of Tests and not the runs scored, etc, etc). Accordingly RFF has been changed. Only the CTI parameter gets affected here and the VI. However, the effect is in the second decimal so for all practical purposes it is negligible. It does not change any of the inferences and results in the project. Attached is the updated pdf file which can also be accessed here - http://tinyurl.com/3hvyrt5 the new images - Virtuosity Index graph - Parameter Accumulation for Virtuosity Index Table Edit - problem with the uploading of attachment, so pls take it from the link given above. The only changes in the doc is the swapping of some graphical images...no change to any text.

[Sooda]

WTF man, I need a day just to read that. I :hatsoff: to you for sure. But you need to get married