Rating bowling. - Cricket Forum | Cricket Discussion Forum

That wouldn't make a vast difference with probably only a couple of players being affected. Minimum number of innings played and overs bowled would make a difference though.

Well BOBBI, I think you signature sums up everything quite fine.

In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage.

what a prattish post.

just read all the stick I got for this on the previous page, "prattish" thats really mature.

[

ok fair enuff, we were both immature.

[

Hmmm, so Australia scored higher than Bangladesh did they? Well that certainly proves your system offers insights that, say, watching, observing and listening to intelligent pundits doesn't. I take it all back

OK, possibly, this can offer something, but even if it does (which is certainly debatable), like any statistic it only serves to illustrate points made through observation of the game. I think what's winding people up is your obsessive desire to reduce the wonderfully complex game we all love into numbers in neat little rows and columns. In my experience, with all due respect, stats tend to be the last refuge of the bluffer

Turnham Green CC
Fast bowler & middle/lower-order bat

Originally posted by BOBBI

It is good to see you eating humble pie Chin Music. What ever gave you the idea that actually watching the game and understanding it could help you?

7ODS, my XI posted previously proves statistics can prove anything if you write them the right way. Science can also prove that an elephant can fit through the eye of a needle. Science also proved Kennedy was killed with a single bullet. Observation and watching the game is the only true way to rate players. If this was not the case then why is there so much debate on players like WG Grace and Victor Trumper. Reason being, we only have stats to verify how good they were.

DEAD RIGHT!!! Spot on their my friend. This is what i have been saying, on and on and on. Using statistics to substanitate the ability of a player is ludicrou.

Observation is the key, and so is comparing with the best too - a common method used in business, where one business will compare their performance (and productivity , other KPIs, etc..) to the international best practice.

If a batsman averages 80 in tests (like Hussey) it does not necessarily make him the 2nd best batsman in the world (everyone knows Bradman is the best).

Similarly if one compares Warne with Murali you will see that Murali has played on a lot more spin friendly surfaces and against minnows, unlike Warne, and has not had to contend with McGrath, and Murali therefore has a better record. It does not mean Murali is automatically the best of the two, he damn well could be, but this would be through great observation, rating players, and watching the game closely.

Again BOBBI, you are spot on.

Cricket administration bodies have been tryng to change and dictate our great game for decades yet we love it for what it is. Is there someone who can get a table showing Warne/Kumble/Murali's records against other countries. You are spot on Mini Warney, Murali takes bucket loads of easy wickets.

Judge the player not by their stats, but by their opposition.

Well, they believed me about Hippy spin!

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/277296.html

That is rated in a different way but is a similar theory.

Kerm