An Excellent Article published in this month's The Actuary magazine.
Batting on a statisticky wicket</font>Jurie Nel puts forward a classification scheme for the consistency of cricket batsmen.
When a cricketer goes out to bat, his career statistics are shown on the television screen. The most important figure quoted is his average score, but nothing is indicated about his consistency. This information, however, should be of considerable interest to the viewer. In this article I shall explain why.
Arite. As a start, Jurie Nel ?? South African?? I dont see anyone else insane enough to include both Gibbs and Smith as the world's premier batsmen. And again, Strauss, who recently murdered the Proteas in their den. But anyway, assuming the entire article was well-intended..........
The graph for test cricket - the big man's game - is interesting. Picks some leaders out of the pack, with a nice blend of consistency and a good avg. But.........
1. Andrew Strauss - Noob, hasn't played enuff matches to be compared with any one of the rest. Very talented, could prove to be the decisive factor - an English one for a change - come The Ashes. Waaaaaay too early to be analysing his stats.
2. Jacques Kallis - Weak bowling bully. I will take him over anyone else in my team if the opposition is WI, Zim or Bang. But hasn't made it count yet against the best team of his era. Until then, he remains just another good player.
3. Ricky Ponting - Did he score all those runs with a legal bat? Heh heh, assuming he did, he has a huge luxury over the rest of the field - never having to face McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Brett Lee, easily the best attack in the world. So, it is very hard for me to accept he is the best. What happens when your own swords meet your own shields, and when both are proclaimed to be the best ?!?!
4. Adam Gilchrist - Same case as Ponting, but I'd think he would've been just as devastating a player. This man is an absolute Freak !!!
5. Brian Lara - Doesn't have the luxury of facing the worst attack in the world, instead has to play WITH them. Has a terrific record against the best team of his era. A very good average and consistency that he seems to have rediscovered towards the fag end of the last century.
6. Sachin Tendulkar - Although he doesnot figure in the elite part of the graph, he is too good a player to be missing a mention. The same graph, a few years earlier, would've projected him to be the best player in the planet I'd think, and by a huge distance to boot. His consistency - that distinguished him from all the other imposters - has taken a nosedive in the past few years.
Personally, I'd have to choose Brian Lara as the best player in the world, but Adam Gilchrist runs him close. And if someone picks an Allan Knott over Adam Gilchrist for the keeper's spot in their all-time test team, they need a brain transplant. Pronto.
As an aside, not picking Rahul Dravid, while comparing the worls' premier batsmen is appalling !!!
If I add a mathematical statement : "10 random batsmen were picked and checked for consistency coefficients".
Now does the aticle make sense?
The aim of the article was to moot a consistency coefficient, not to pick top 10 batsmen!!
when you are running the world you have the luxury/liberty of ruining it too ;)! Geeks rule :D.
Btw I get your point when you get appalled when someone calls you a statistician or acountant, its like someone saying "oh! you mean youre in tech support" to a coder! Aaaargh! damn ignorance! ...........specially when youre running the world ;)