No Requests Hedgers ICC 10 Rosters

[kunal25184]

@ Kunal - Why do you use so many full stops at the end of each of your sentences?
One will do, or if you're trying to use them for effect use three, not ten.

Thank you very much such a compliment:doh

But it has became my habit of putting dots continuously towards the end of the statements.
I think from now on in this forum, i will try to control myself, starting now.:happy

 

[Chewie]

Well, I just brought up statistical relevance & real-life because your original post says "I'm going to be making better rosters so that it is more realistic" & now you're saying "I don't base my ratings on statistics" so I'm not sure which one to go by but anyways, as I've said, as long as you enjoy making your ratings & enjoy the game then that's all that counts.
s.

Maybe you should make an England version of the patch where everyone is based on real life statistics?

I feel that for international players who have played a large number of matches that their rating should be based on statistics, with a slight allowance for age. But if they haven't played many, i.e. <40, then there should be some allowance for potential/perceived ability. And some players are considered to be future talents at international level, even though their domestic record isn't that great and so I feel they should get a decent rating too.

 

[CG123]

Sometimes it's better not to look at stats at all, as they can be VERY mis-leading.
For the NZPL I very rarely look at stats at all, as there are only the top 60 or so INT players in the world and I know who all of them are, and I know who all of the DOM players are.

 

[enigma]

Maybe you should make an England version of the patch where everyone is based on real life statistics?

I feel that for international players who have played a large number of matches that their rating should be based on statistics, with a slight allowance for age. But if they haven't played many, i.e. <40, then there should be some allowance for potential/perceived ability. And some players are considered to be future talents at international level, even though their domestic record isn't that great and so I feel they should get a decent rating too.

Sometimes it's better not to look at stats at all, as they can be VERY mis-leading.
For the NZPL I very rarely look at stats at all, as there are only the top 60 or so INT players in the world and I know who all of them are, and I know who all of the DOM players are.

Talking of POTENTIAL, a couple of decades ago, when the Waugh brothers first came on the scene, almost everyone unanimously thought that Mark was the stuff of greatness while Steve was just an average-good player, fast forward to present, Steve goes down in history-books as one of the modern greats while Mark goes down as "very good" player but hardly as stuff of history-books or someone future Aussie cricketing generations or the world cricket will be singing peans of. Hick & Ramprakash whom I've also referred to in my other posts, their POTENTIAL as imagined by everyone in England back then was directly related to their superlative county performaces while their "value" at the International cricket today as viewed by everyone is directly related to their performances at the International level & the same holds true for almost every player to a large extent that you'll include in your NZPL so saying that statistics are VERY misleading & needn't be considered hardly makes sense when editing ICC to make it more REALISTIC, especially, when one realises that ICC is, in simple terms, a Cricket-statistics producing software. Of course, as I've mentioned before, I don't expect everyone else to edit based on statistics just because I do but all I'm trying to point out is that "editing for realism" would definitely involve giving high weightage to statistics.

Of course, I'm NOT saying that statistics are a COMPREHENSIVE measure of any player's true pontential/ability but they're definitely the LARGEST measure of it as explained & hence, my pecking order is - those who've performed at the International level for MANY years > those who're new at International level with lots of potential & above-average statistics at FC level > those who're new at International level with lots of potential & average statistics at FC level & so on. Of course, I agree there can be individuals with average FC records who turn out to be great at International level but those are exceptions & not the rule & the probabilities tell us to go with the rule rather than the exceptions & USUALLY, someone who's capable of doing very well at International level will likely have a good FC record & the opposite will be true of too small a number of players & hence, they'll be nothing more than exceptions.

I, of course, don't disregard potential completely but give largest weightage to statistics due to reasons already explained & only a limited weightage to potential as having potential doesn't mean it'll definitely be realized (in real life), in fact, if you look at history of cricket, you'll find that there've been many more who didn't realize their true potential than those who did so I see no point in overrating someone for what he hasn't YET achieved (in real life) alongside those who have achieved it & sustained it for many years. I think, till we find out the "potential rating" (& the developers seem to insinuate that there is one ), I'm just going to raise each player by some rating-points every season (in the game) based on their potential in real-life coupled with their performance in ICC rather than overrating newbies from the 2010 season itself just based on their potential as that can hardly be considered to be realistic. Cheers.

 

[CG123]

From what I've found the original database is pretty much based on stats already, infact there's pretty much a direct relationship between stats and player ratings.
This is the reason why I think it needs editing, as Phil Hughes isn't actually as good as his average suggests, while Vettori is much better than his average suggests.

Yes I see what you're saying, but remember the original database is based more or less on stats, so if you want it more based on stats than personal opinion I'd just edit the South African guns and you'll be sweet.

 

[enigma]

From what I've found the original database is pretty much based on stats already, infact there's pretty much a direct relationship between stats and player ratings.
This is the reason why I think it needs editing, as Phil Hughes isn't actually as good as his average suggests, while Vettori is much better than his average suggests.

Yes I see what you're saying, but remember the original database is based more or less on stats, so if you want it more based on stats than personal opinion I'd just edit the South African guns and you'll be sweet.

Well, I mentioned didn't I that I don't believe in rating SOLELY on stats, I just said that they should be the largest yardstick used while "editing for realism" since as I've said, ICC is basically a cricket-statistic producing software so it becomes imperative to take real-life statistics into account while editing ratings so that they're in line to produce real-life-like statistics within the game & thereby enhance the realism of the game.

Besides, it seems that the original database is based on some weird, complicated mechanism of rating players, it mostly considers FC statistics it seems & that's why some SA kid named Brett Pelser with 20 FC games has the highest rating in the game (along with many of his compatriots as you've noted), almost 200 points more than Ponting & almost 300 more than Kallis & Tendulkar & McKay with 22 FC games has the best bowling rating, & I HOPE that you don't think that I'm proposing something similar to that when I talk about rating largely on statistics ; while rating players, I obviously make a distinction between International level & FC (EXCLUDING International games), please refer to the 2nd paragraph of my last post to see how I make this distinction. Cheers.

EDIT: About Vettori, the first thing that needs to be understood is that when we're trying to rate players to create realism in ICC, it's not going to be like Wisden's rating about who's better than whom & at times, even lesser players might incidentally end up being rated slightly higher than players better than them just so that the game is in line to reflect statistical realism; I've been a fan of Vettori for many a years & yes, his statistics may look ordinary to some at first glance (although I believe they're pretty ok for a non-sub-continental spinner) but if I rate him too well & he averages 20-25 in ICC then that'd hardly reflect real life & thereby it'd completely defeat the purpose of editing the ratings in the first place i.e. to create realism.

 

[CG123]

The thing is he's one of the most economical bowlers in the world, and ATM there's no way to differentiate between a rating for averages and E/Rs.

E.g. in one of my county games I brought Vettori as my overseas player, yes his average was realistic in the low-mid 30's, but he was going at over 5s in 40 over, and over 10s in 20 over.
In ODI cricket over the last four years, he always averaged below 29 and below 4.3 runs an over.

It's also very hard when you're trying to rate one player across all three forms of the game with one rating.

 

[Chewie]

Well personally I believe that there is a modifier that determines economy rate and performance in different formats of the game.

The thing with Vettori is that he is probably the second/third best spinner in the world at the moment. Top would be Murali, but then after him is people like Swann, Vettori, Shakib and Hauritz. They all have averages in the low 30s. Does that mean they should all have reasonable bad ratings?

Vettori's rating is so bad because he's had really bad support bowlers. It's feasible that if he has some decent bowlers by his side (that might happen in ICC with regens), he'll improve his statistics. His average in tests when playing with Bond was 24 or something.

 

[enigma]

The thing is he's one of the most economical bowlers in the world, and ATM there's no way to differentiate between a rating for averages and E/Rs.

E.g. in one of my county games I brought Vettori as my overseas player, yes his average was realistic in the low-mid 30's, but he was going at over 5s in 40 over, and over 10s in 20 over.
In ODI cricket over the last four years, he always averaged below 29 and below 4.3 runs an over.

Well, the fact that he's been rated as high as he has been in the original database tells us that the bowling rating that we've found so far just controls the wickets/average of the bowler & not the economy rate so if you rate him too well hoping that his RPO will decrease then that's not going to happen & IF there's an RPO rating then we'll just have to wait till someone finds it; moreover, there's one major factor that affects how the statistics will pan out i.e. US/GAMERS, so for example, if I bat Ponting on full aggression with his regular rating then I don't think he'll even average 20 so it's possible that players may not perform according to expectations even if the ratings are accurate so how WE use players can influence their statistics somewhat as well, just to put it in context, I played 3 SLA in T20s & all of their season-RPOs were around 6 or below & all of their bowling ratings are over 1000+

It's also very hard when you're trying to rate one player across all three forms of the game with one rating.

I agree it's annoying to rate players across formats (& I'd say across levels of Cricket as well like some are God at FC but average or pathetic at International level, etc) so it becomes difficult to rate people like Sehwag, Jayawardene who're average in ODIs but God in Tests or someone like Dhoni (or someone like Michael Bevan in the past) who's good in Tests but God in ODIs. I hope that there're format-specific ratings as well as level-specific ratings & hopefully, we'll be able to find them out to make the game more exciting & realistic.

Well personally I believe that there is a modifier that determines economy rate and performance in different formats of the game.

I agree about RPOs as I've noticed that even with IDENTICAL fields & bowling strategy, people like Flintoff & Chapple always seem to go at less than 3 RPO, sometimes less than 2 RPO while Sajid Mahmood always goes for over 3 RPO, sometimes higher so it seems that there's likely a RPO-specific rating as well, it won't be easy to find it out but I read in the other thread that you were trying to find it, have you as yet met with even a semblance of a break-through?

The thing with Vettori is that he is probably the second/third best spinner in the world at the moment. Top would be Murali, but then after him is people like Swann, Vettori, Shakib and Hauritz. They all have averages in the low 30s. Does that mean they should all have reasonable bad ratings?

Well, I don't know what you might consider as a bad rating but I'd say, in order for it to be realistic, they all need to be rated in such a manner that there's enough of a justifiable amount of difference between their rating & ratings of Murali & Steyn, if we consider those two as benchmarks of sorts so that the statistical realism within the game is kept in tact.

Vettori's rating is so bad because he's had really bad support bowlers. It's feasible that if he has some decent bowlers by his side (that might happen in ICC with regens), he'll improve his statistics. His average in tests when playing with Bond was 24 or something.

Firstly, talking of REAL LIFE, bowlers like Bond are very hard to find for most countries, especially NZ I suppose, due to the smaller pool of players, so in REAL LIFE, probabilities say that they're unlikely to find another Bond, forget about THREE/FOUR (talking of regen super-bowlers), at least till Vettori finishes his career, so in real life, in all likelihood he'll finish with an average of 33-34 or thereabouts so the question of how good the regens around him might be becomes inconsequential as it won't be the case in real life & hence rating him well just because he might get good regen-support is still unrealistic as it probably wouldn't mirror real life, PLUS, just to consider that scenario, if he does get good regen-support then his averages will automatically be much lower even with a relatively high, realistic rating as he'll likely end up with many more cheap tail-end wickets as well as not go for as many runs against the Top & Middle-order of oppositions as he might if there was no good regen-support so that should take care of itself, WITHOUT us/gamers having to give him unrealistic rating.

I know you're his fan & rating him low doesn't feel good, especially when one knows that he's MUCH BETTER than some who might end up being rated lower than him (especially among pacers since spinners will generally have to be rated worse than pacers) but if that's not done then all the realism is taken away & again, if one doesn't care much for realism & realistic statistics then it'd be alright to rate players on "value" as long as they're enojoying the game which is what counts but for ME personally, I like Vettori but if he averaged too much below his real-life average (or higher than his real-life average for that matter) then the game just wouldn't be as enjoyable but to each his own I guess but so far as rating realistically to produce real-life-like results is concerned, production of realistic statistics will have to be taken into account while editing for realism. Cheers.

 

[hedger_14]

Let's move onto Pakistan now.

Mohammad Aamer - Bowling down to 665
Nayyer Abbas - Bowling down to 770
Shahid Afridi - Batting up to 950
Riaz Afridi - Bowling down to 750
Shabbir Ahmed - Bowling down to 745
Sarfraz Ahmed - Batting down to 1120
Saeed Ajmal - Bowling up to 740
Rizwan Akbar - Bowling down to 760
Shoaib Akhtar - Bowling up to 735
Umar Akmal - Batting down to 1430
Kamran Akmal - Batting up to 1100
Fawad Alam - Batting down to 1390, Bowling up to 870
Abid Ali - Batting down to 1075
Yasir Arafat - Batting up to 850
Usman Arshad - Batting down to 1060
Mohammad Asif - Bowling down to 625
Salman Butt - Batting up to 1400
Azeem Ghumman - Batting down to 1180
Umar Gul - Bowling down to 700
Faisal Iqbal - Batting up to 1240
Danish Kaneria - Bowling down to 705

I will continue on this a bit later.

 

[dancingmongoose]

i think ponting should be put down a little and leave aamer as he was and jonathan trott should be a bit better

 

[hedger_14]

Why. Ponting is like the best batsman in the world, Aamer is 18 and will improve heaps so he will be 500 in bowling by the time he's like 26 and Trott's rated fine. If I put him up anymore, people will say to put him back down..

 

[enigma]

Ponting is like the best batsman in the world

Keep dreaming, mate Well, he certainly was for a period if you go by runs alone but NOW, I don't think many would agree, unless they're Aussies, of course :laugh; further, even when he was in that phenomenal touch for a few years, it was mostly Aussies that believed he was the best in the world, not too many others though. You Aussies even compared STEVE WAUGH with Lara & Tendulkar , height of insanity that was

 

[kunal25184]

Keep dreaming, mate Well, he certainly was for a period if you go by runs alone but NOW, I don't think many would agree, unless they're Aussies, of course :laugh; further, even when he was in that phenomenal touch for a few years, it was mostly Aussies that believed he was the best in the world, not too many others though. You Aussies even compared STEVE WAUGH with Lara & Tendulkar , height of insanity that was

Absolutely correct!
There isn't a single basis on which we can say that he is the best batsmen in the world, neither the ratings nor his performance in last couple of years suggests so.

 

[MSHEZ]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but how do I download this roster to get it into my game?

Also, how would I go about changing it myself?

Thanks