Cricket Web Survivor - Week 1. Vote for the one to be kicked out.

[Paid The Umpire]

My criteria was thus....

I took the test cricketers with over 200 test wickets and then ranked them by my own special system. That came up to that 10 players.

I don't care who wins I'd like to see who does though

 

[Paid The Umpire]

When you said Andy Roberts, I assumed you meant the West Indian quick.

I had never heard of him, shock horror!, and decide to see if he was worthy...

Bowl Ave: 25.61
RPO: 56.33
Strike Rate: 55.1

According to my research (not extensive) this means that Andy Roberts is not that good a bowler. Sorry but it has to be stated that all of the ten players chosen to be in this Survivor have a ranking in my system of under 100. Andy Roberts has a ranking of over 130.

Sorry but there many many better bowlers.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Originally posted by Paid The Umpire That Fool!
When you said Andy Roberts, I assumed you meant the West Indian quick.

I had never heard of him, shock horror!, and decide to see if he was worthy...

Bowl Ave: 25.61
RPO: 56.33
Strike Rate: 55.1

According to my research (not extensive) this means that Andy Roberts is not that good a bowler. Sorry but it has to be stated that all of the ten players chosen to be in this Survivor have a ranking in my system of under 100. Andy Roberts has a ranking of over 130.

Sorry but there many many better bowlers.

Sorry, i failed maths and added a section twice. Andy Roberts has a ranking of 103.97 which is still not in the top ten. Walsh (WI) has 103.42 and F. Tryeman 92.84, both of whom should be on the list. SORRY!

 

[masterblaster]

Im sorry, I voted for Waqar, I just dont like the guy! And hes not that good anymore. I would NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for Wasim Akram, Michael Holding or Joel Garner.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by masterblaster
Im sorry, I voted for Waqar, I just dont like the guy! And hes not that good anymore. I would NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for Wasim Akram, Michael Holding or Joel Garner.

I guess that you'll not vote if it ends up as those 3 then!

 

[Gotchya]

Im sorry, I voted for Waqar, I just dont like the guy! And hes not that good anymore. I would NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for Wasim Akram, Michael Holding or Joel Garner.

No need to be sorry. It was your choice and you should have the courage to stand by it. The number of votes Waqar has received is alarming :wow: I am surprised what is there not to like him ? to quote a few reasons........

[Edited on 10/10/2002 by Gotchya]

 

[masterblaster]

How come Kapil Dev was not Included?!?!

 

[age_master]

younnis is way better than donald - i canrt believe so many ppl voted for him

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Kapil Dev - 116.76

R. Hadlee (NZ) - 95.08
Wasim Akram (PAK) - 99.88
C. Ambrose (WI) - 94.80
G. McGrath (AUS) - 94.86
M. Marshall (WI) - 90.11
W. Younis (PAK) - 93.10
DK. Lillee (AUS) - 98.94
A. Donald (SA) - 92.94
J. Garner (WI) - 92.46
M. Holding (WI) - 97.87

 

[Gotchya]

younnis is way better than donald - i canrt believe so many ppl voted for him

head scratcher

 

[royGilchrist]

Economy rate doesnt mean in tests, atleast it should not have the same weight as average. This is the wrong way of analyzing bowlers.

Maybe average should have a weight of 5, s/r a weight of 5 and economy rate a weight of 1. Or s/r a little less than average.

Giving economy rate the same weight as the other two is askewing the rankings.

 

[marc71178]

In theory, they're all linked anyway aren't they?

 

[royGilchrist]

No they are not...

First of all, I have a question for Paid the Umpire....

What does RPO mean? I thought it was runs per over, but the values are in the 50s so obviously its somthing else. Please let me know what it is.

[Edited on 11/10/2002 by royGilchrist]

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
No they are not...

First of all, I have a question for Paid the Umpire....

What does RPO mean? I thought it was runs per over, but the values are in the 50s so obviously its somthing else. Please let me know what it is.

[Edited on 11/10/2002 by royGilchrist]

Economy does have a significance in the records of these bowlers. They were all strike bowlers for their teams. For such bowlers to have such a great economy rate is fantastic as they imposed their will on the batsmen by taking wickets, the best way of keeping runs down.

Arguing it the other way, they bowled with so much discipline, accuracy and variety that batsmen just found it really tough to get runs off them and eventually had to surrender their wickets.

Either way, the economy they exercised was definitely a part of their greatness and using it as one of the factors of comparison is relevant.

 

[royGilchrist]

Will someone be nice enough to answer what it means by RPO? And its not Runs Per Over as RPO cannot have values in 50s.

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Will someone be nice enough to answer what it means by RPO? And its not Runs Per Over as RPO cannot have values in 50s.

No clue, buddy. The only r.p.o I have heard in cricket is runs per over. Methinks he mistakenly typed in RPO and it is some other mystery statistic.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
No they are not...

Erm yes they are - Strike rate is wickets/ball, RPO is runs/ball and average is runs/wicket.

Looks to me like they are all linked!

 

[marc71178]

Looks to me like it's runs per hundred balls.

 

[royGilchrist]

Erm yes they are - Strike rate is wickets/ball, RPO is runs/ball and average is runs/wicket.

Nope, s/r is not wkts per ball but balls per wkt
similarly for the other two.

Looks to me like they are all linked!

I guess I'm not sure what u mean by they are all linked? There obvioulsy will be some link as they are the same player's stats, and related to cricket, but maybe you would care to elaborate on the word 'linked'...

 

[royGilchrist]

Yeah this makes more sense Marc, although still the value PTU used for Andy Roberts' RPO was 56, but when I calculated from his stats on cricinfo it came to 47, so maybe I'm still not sure.

Anywas, I'm going off now, will come back with a rebuttal about the danger of using RPO soon, using an example.