Talk:Comparative performance scoring (cricket)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Renaming the concept
I've taken on board all the criticisms of this article (apart from the idiotic comment by that wally in Finland or wherever) and I do not wish to waste any more time on it. I've spoke to a couple of other people and we agreed that it's biggest problem is that it was never given a definite title, so we have agreed that it should be called comparative performances (scoring). I intend to use it on here to illustrate the "real terms" performances of batsmen in the 18th and 19th centuries who were much better than their actual statistics may suggest. --Jack 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Incomplete matches
If all the 40 wickets do not fall in a match, do you do anything with the match total ? Do you 'normalize' it to (match _total/actual_wickets_that_fell) * 40 or something like that ? Tintin 15:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- It would have to be 41/(actual_wickets + 1), I suppose; but even then it's not right because the top-order batsmen generally score more. Stephen Turner 06:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Tintin, a good point which was overlooked in the original article. In fact, we do not count wickets and we do not use the method in any match which has been reduced to minimal play by bad weather. Obviously we have to take a subjective view of "incomplete match" and I generally work on the basis of two completed first innings. We are helped in this by the admirable determination of the Georgians, who were playing under wager terms rather than cricket terms, and you will find next to no C18 matches that could be termed "incomplete". Indeed, there are cases where matches/wagers were played to a finish a whole year or more after they commenced!
As for wickets, if the match was completed it doesn't matter if all 40 wickets fell (or 45 in some odds matches) or if only 30 fell because one side won by an innings. The match total is the key factor and each batsman's runs per mille are calculated (so it doesn't matter if he was not out too).
The important thing to remember is that it only provides an illustration by trying to overcome the pitch condition syndrome. For all we know, Kevin Pietersen might have blasted Lumpy all over Broadhalfpenny Down; and John Small senior might have been a fish out of water on the crown green bowls surfaces of today. But I doubt it. ;-) --Jack 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Source?
I've never heard of this, and there seem to be no references on Google. I suspect it's been invented by the author.
Another problem I see is that you get credit for playing with weak team mates, which seems wrong.
Stephen Turner 12:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, I'm pretty confident that it's original research. I'm going to ask the author, and then list it at articles for deletion if it turns out to be original research. Stephen Turner 13:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Scoring. More comments there. Stephen Turner 07:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't "original " research but I might well have been the first person to actually adopt it after it was originally discussed in the journal. With anything like this, it is a method with no name and that is its big problem because people can't relate to it without a name. Anyway, I think we now have a name as per the revised article and I'm sure the revision is a more concise description than before. --Jack 20:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AFD debate link
This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
