You are making wrong assumptions and you are missing out on some important parameters like Strike Rate and averages which are as important. You have to weigh in these figures ALSO which are more important than anything.
Yes , the equations and statistics sound very reasonable. yes i accept that the bowler who taker the wickets of good batsmen MUST be given high credit than the batsmen who take tail enders and wickets of marginal batting importance. There is a difference between quantity and quality. Number of wickets and runs are just marks.. I accept totally with this author and appreciate her for her keen observation and detailed analysis. Good. I hope and feel these type of analytics reach far in to cricket fans around the country.
See, there is another factor that i consider about this. For example, in the same style as you suggested, is the wicket of a top order batsmen who just came out and has scored no runs the same as the batsmen who is batting in a 375? Take an instance, Deep Das Gupta just came in to the crease, sacrificed his wicket on an individual score of 0. Is the wicket of same "quualiy" that that of Matthew Hayden batting on a 375?
It seems that there are numerous factors to consider and the article just suggests only one of them. The article is good that it addresses the problem and also suggests a solution.
Interesting study. Applying the same yardstick, isn't a run scored against McGrath more 'valuable' than the one scored against Sehwag or Katich or even a run scored in Perth more valuable than the one scored in Vizag! How about runs scored in the second innings of a 'dead'Test vs the ones scored on the first day of the first test ?
