What problem ?
The Banglas are rated at the very bottom in the Test team ratings. Only the Zimmers are lower. If Pujara and Smith both scored what Smith did (178 for once out), of course Smith would receive more ratings points.
Super Smith's stats.
^^ You're missing the point.
And you changed the problem to an easy one (when you took out one of the variables, i.e. runs scored, by making it roughly equal for both).
The example problem was how to rate, say, Smith's hypothetical 65* in Sydney against Pujara's hypothetical 245 in Bangladesh.
It's when you have a multitude of variables all different and not all acting in the same direction that you have a big problem.
And, trust me, our batsmen would find it much harder againster Bangladesh's three spinners in Bangladesh than against England's toy-soldier attack in Oz. Well, actually, no need for trust and predictions here. We just need to recall what happened on the most recent tour. Recall it?
And you changed the problem to an easy one (when you took out one of the variables, i.e. runs scored, by making it roughly equal for both).
The example problem was how to rate, say, Smith's hypothetical 65* in Sydney against Pujara's hypothetical 245 in Bangladesh.
It's when you have a multitude of variables all different and not all acting in the same direction that you have a big problem.
And, trust me, our batsmen would find it much harder againster Bangladesh's three spinners in Bangladesh than against England's toy-soldier attack in Oz. Well, actually, no need for trust and predictions here. We just need to recall what happened on the most recent tour. Recall it?
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... olific-run
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1088 ... /undefined
So, another brilliant calendar year's batting from Smith comes to a close with, of course, another red ink 100. He made 1,305 this year at an average of 76.76.
Along the way, he became the second captain to score three hundreds in an Ashes series from only 6 innings. You know who the first was. He also became only the second man to make over 5,000 runs in a 4-year period. His 5,004 leaves him behind only Ricky Ponting (5,077 from 2003 to 2006). In the course of his last hundred he passed both of Matthew Hayden's efforts in the high 4,900s. Smith's average over the last 4 years is a ridiculous 75.81. He has been incredibly consistent with that, too - he has averaged over 70 in each of those 4 calendar years.
He also became only the second player in history (Ponting is the other) to have made 6 centuries in a calendar year twice.
Looking forward, he starts 2018 with 3,858 runs from the previous 3 calendar years, so he is a chance to catch Ponting's highest 4-year tally next year, especially if he doesn't have to spend most of the year playing tests on the sub-continent.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting
Well done on another fine season.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1088 ... /undefined
So, another brilliant calendar year's batting from Smith comes to a close with, of course, another red ink 100. He made 1,305 this year at an average of 76.76.
Along the way, he became the second captain to score three hundreds in an Ashes series from only 6 innings. You know who the first was. He also became only the second man to make over 5,000 runs in a 4-year period. His 5,004 leaves him behind only Ricky Ponting (5,077 from 2003 to 2006). In the course of his last hundred he passed both of Matthew Hayden's efforts in the high 4,900s. Smith's average over the last 4 years is a ridiculous 75.81. He has been incredibly consistent with that, too - he has averaged over 70 in each of those 4 calendar years.
He also became only the second player in history (Ponting is the other) to have made 6 centuries in a calendar year twice.
Looking forward, he starts 2018 with 3,858 runs from the previous 3 calendar years, so he is a chance to catch Ponting's highest 4-year tally next year, especially if he doesn't have to spend most of the year playing tests on the sub-continent.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting
Well done on another fine season.
Note, in the ratings guys' defence, that the historical comparisons are at least restricted to peaks. They are thus just an attempt to compare best transient form, rather than an attempt to rate overall careers. (Thus, for example, M. Clarke is ahead of S. Tendulkar.)
I say "in the ratings guys' defence", because the less they claim the better for their credibility. In reality, though, they are already biting off more than they can chew by attempting to cover the variable known as time. The task is already hard enough if they fix it to a constant value, i.e. the present, ranking only currently active players.
I say "in the ratings guys' defence", because the less they claim the better for their credibility. In reality, though, they are already biting off more than they can chew by attempting to cover the variable known as time. The task is already hard enough if they fix it to a constant value, i.e. the present, ranking only currently active players.
-
Donny
- Posts: 80170
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
- Has liked: 57 times
- Been liked: 25 times
K, you're creating problems that aren't there.
There's NO inference that a certain batsman or bowler is 'better' than others, because (frinstance when a player has a purple patch, recording better figures than his overall) he achieved a higher rating than others.
The ICC ratings are simply based on a formula, taking into account as many variants as possible.
There's NO inference that a certain batsman or bowler is 'better' than others, because (frinstance when a player has a purple patch, recording better figures than his overall) he achieved a higher rating than others.
The ICC ratings are simply based on a formula, taking into account as many variants as possible.
Donny.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
I stated above that it's just a marker of form, not a judgement on their careers (and they make this clear when they describe their historical comparisons), so there's no disagreement between any of us about that point, as far as I can see.
But even as a marker of form among current players, it's subjective and highly debatable. That's all I'm saying. And that's what they do not make clear and seem not to understand themselves.
Their ratings do take out blind parochialism (e.g. "Maynard is much better right now than Dustin Martin"). That does not make them objective. And even if the ratings were non-parochial and non-subjective, they would not necessarily give an accurate impression about physical reality. That's all. I don't think they have to. The problem is that their creators and people looking at them display a complete lack of awareness of this. If everyone is aware that it's an arbitrary and subjective measure of form, then it's fine to use. If they are not aware, then they can be misled. That is not the same as saying that the ratings are completely meaningless. It's just a matter of keeping in mind their inherent and very significant limitations.
But even as a marker of form among current players, it's subjective and highly debatable. That's all I'm saying. And that's what they do not make clear and seem not to understand themselves.
Their ratings do take out blind parochialism (e.g. "Maynard is much better right now than Dustin Martin"). That does not make them objective. And even if the ratings were non-parochial and non-subjective, they would not necessarily give an accurate impression about physical reality. That's all. I don't think they have to. The problem is that their creators and people looking at them display a complete lack of awareness of this. If everyone is aware that it's an arbitrary and subjective measure of form, then it's fine to use. If they are not aware, then they can be misled. That is not the same as saying that the ratings are completely meaningless. It's just a matter of keeping in mind their inherent and very significant limitations.
-
Donny
- Posts: 80170
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
- Has liked: 57 times
- Been liked: 25 times
Are you new to the digital world, K ?
Easy enough to find: http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/c ... 67192.html
Look under ODI stats.
Easy enough to find: http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/c ... 67192.html
Look under ODI stats.
Donny.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
It's a game. Enjoy it.