J. Kallis in his true light.

[John]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Steve Harmison came from a no-hope (well, at least "also-ran") bowler to number one in the ratings after dismantling a very poor West Indian team in the Caribbean. Somewhere along the line there has to be a better rating system to include the standard of the opposition.

Yes we probably have to be wary of rating systems. And not one rating system should be quoted as the Gospel truth. But we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. For example the point about Harmison is how long was he at number? how long was he in the top five? Than we can work out if it was just some glich. The fact is if you looked at Harmison graph over five years and McGrath graph you will get a better idea of their performance rather than taking a snapshot look at a small part their careers.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by John

...we probably have to be wary of rating systems... ...we (could) work out if it was just some glich. The fact is if you looked at Harmison graph over five years and McGrath graph you will get a better idea of their performance rather than taking a snapshot look at a small part their careers.

Don't get me wrong John, I think the ratings are excellent... and I love being able to compare someone against somebody else with a line graph...

But the fact is a score by an Australian batsman at the Oval (but more importantly) without Simon Jones, should score far less than a score on another belter against an England team including the Glamorgan pace man.

And I have a feeling (I may be wrong) that the old Pricewaterhouse ratings don't completely factor everything in.

Let's face it, scoring runs against a mis-firing Harmison, an unfit Flintoff, an opening Test Giles, an out-of-form Anderson and Hoggard on a day not conducive to swing bowling, is a great deal easier than scoring runs against a firing Harmison, a fit Flintoff and Simon Jones, a swinging Hoggard and a media-enraged Ashley Giles.

These things need to be taken into account.

Otherwise anomalies like Mathew Hayden or Steve Harmison being number one, will continue to surface.

[John]

Originally Posted by Oliver

But the fact is a score by an Australian batsman at the Oval (but more importantly) without Simon Jones, should score far less than a score on another belter against an England team including the Glamorgan pace man.

Agreed. Of course the ratings are not an exact science and shouldn't be treated as such. But if you look at whose been rated most in the top five rankings over the last five years the most who wouldn't have too many arguments. Okay one may dispute whether Kallis should be number but he has got to be close considering his performance over the last couple of years.
As for Harmison we will have to take a long term view and assess his record over a period of time. If he fails to reach the top five for a while in the future we will say that reflects in his performance and the number 1 position can be seen in context. Nothing but a bit of a accident.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I'm not sure if the ratings account for playing against a current Sri-Lanka side on a turning wicket without Muralitharan, as opposed to a side with him... I rather suspect not.

Oli,

They do. The batsmen get rated against the bowlers on show, and the performance of the other players in the Test...


http://www.sidlothian.com/cricket/cricket.htm

Originally Posted by PWC

The method of calculating the Ratings has been considerably fine-tuned since they were first launched in 1987, but the basic system has remained the same.

The two most important factors taken into account by the Test Ratings are the strength of the opposition and the level of run-scoring in the match. The value of runs scored and wickets taken are adjusted to take account of these factors.

1. Opposition strength

The Ratings adjust the value of a batsman's score depending on the strength of the opposition's bowling over the whole innings (as measured by their Ratings). If McGrath and Lee bowled most of the overs, the batsmen would get a credit of perhaps 10% on their runs, so an innings of 50 might be upgraded to be worth 55. However, if Australia's occasional bowlers bowled most of the overs, the batsmen might lose 20% or more of their runs, valuing an innings of 50 as being worth only 40 runs in normal conditions. (The exact changes depend on the Ratings of the bowlers at the time.)

Meanwhile, a bowler who dismisses a top batsman in form, such as Sachin Tendulkar, might get up to three times as much credit as he gets for dismissing a tailender like Pommie Mbangwa.

2. Level of run-scoring (wrongly known as the "pitch factor")
If both teams make 600 runs, run-scoring was clearly easy in the match (perhaps because of a flat pitch, but no measurement is made of the pitch itself). The Ratings discount runs made in high-scoring conditions, and give credit to runs made in very low scoring matches. Likewise, a bowler who takes 0 for 100 will be penalised less in a high-scoring game than a low-scoring one.
Runs scored in high-scoring matches count for less.



3. Result of the match

The Ratings favour players who perform well when it counts. There is a bonus for players who perform well in victories for their team. A player who makes a high score or takes a lot of wickets in a victory gets a bonus, but he gets no bonus if he makes a low score or doesn't take a wicket. Steve Waugh has benefited from this bonus more than any other batsman (Australian or otherwise) in recent years.

4. Not outs

Not outs can be a distorting factor in conventional averages. In the Test Ratings, a player gets a bonus for a not out, but this diminishes as his score increases. A batsman only gets a little more credit for making 300 not out than for making 300 and out.

[Ninjaman]

Thanks flanlflinger,

you saved me from doing a lot of typing

By the way, as you and I were talking about Sobers, I just came back from Barbados over a week ago and bought the great man himself a drink!!

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Oli,

They do. The batsmen get rated against the bowlers on show, and the performance of the other players in the Test...

FF & Ninja, I stand corrected with my non-existent amphibian tail firmly between my legs and my long fly-catching tongue firmly in my cheek.

Nevertheless, thanks for putting me right.

How the hell did Harmison end up number one? The West Indians were very poor in the Caribbean last time out.
Big anomaly.

[flanflinger]

The presence of the then highly rated Lara, Sarawan anmd Chanderpaul probably made a diffrence...

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The presence of the then highly rated Lara, Sarawan anmd Chanderpaul probably made a diffrence...

Yes if you get a highly rated player out it ups your rating as does taking wickets cheaply on a traditionally high scoring pitch.

[Rachael]

My first concern with the rating system is the win bonus: it inflates the ratings of players in a successful team... which seems pretty mean. Thorpe and Fraser never had the luxury of playing in successful teams... not least because they had the (mis)fortune to live in very interesting times when the quality of opposition was high (for Thorpe think of the attacks of WI, Aus, Pak, Ind, SA).

My other concern is the way it is skewed towards the prima-donnas.

If you bat like Gilchrist does.. and just try and ride your luck even when the needs of the team are for something else... you'll always be flattered by the ratings when compared to a player like Atherton (never had a license to go looking for runs, burdened throughout his career with the job of protecting his fragile middle order team-mates from new ball pairings like Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar and McGrath and Gillespie.

This one's even more serious: if you bowl as Waqar did.. rather erratically, but in short spells with attacking fields and a license to go for it... the ratings flatter you... where if you are left bowling long spells with the old ball with the field back and the batsmen are on top... you'll perhaps be doing more for your team but with no-where near the reward. Wasim might well have suffered on that front... and certainly Fraser... and more recently Freddie "go block up an end" Flintoff and Ashley "go block up the other end" Giles... will have suffered.

It's difficult to see just how the ratings can credit donkey-work... but take one look at the huge workload shouldered by Walsh, Warne, Murali, McGrath and Kumble: that's been a massive factor in the value of those players... and it's overlooked.

[John]

Most of the points Rachael makes are interesting ones about the possible limitations of the present rating system. Except Asheley Giles a rubbish bowler. I have seen him with attacking fields hasn't got a clue.Against SA in the 2nd Test on the fourth day attacking fields didn't make an impression. Best bowling his negative line which rules out lbw.
Yes the present rating systems may give misleading impressions but until someone proposes a better replacement we will have to go by the present one.
Does anyone know how the present system was drawn up? Who was involved? Expert statistians I assume.