Form

[El_Zigi]

I hope the problem with form has been raised with the makers of the game. Sorry for creating a new thread on this as I'm sure there's plenty of posts about it somewhere but I just wanted to throw in my own two cents.

How can a bowlers form drop from 59% to 48% when in an ODI he produced figures of 9-0-31-2. Similarly how can another bowlers form drop from 63% to 49% after he produced figures of 10-0-30-1 in the same match. These look like pretty good performances to me. I realise form works different for players of differing ability but these figures are pretty good regardless of the bowlers ability dont you think, especially since they were produced v SA in SA on an excellent pitch for batsmen.

Having played ICC 08 plenty I'm aware of the terrible problem of drastic form drops for bowlers after 20/20 games. Was hoping that had been sorted out when I got ICC 2010 but I'm not sure it has now. I haven't played many 20/20 games but after the few I played I looked at form and I dont think I remember seeing any crazy drops, so I was hopeful. Can anyone who has played the game more than me clarify whether this is still a problem?

I wonder is this a problem to fix. Batting form always seems to have been fairly spot on. What is it with the bowling? Would fixing this create some kind of imbalance in the gameplay? It seems the AI is effected by this also but I could be wrong about that.

[El_Zigi]

SA v Pak 4th ODI

SA - 214/8 in 50 overs

Ajmal 10-4-20-1

Ajmal's form drops 15% after this poor effort, albeit on a pitch offering no help to the spinners.

Oh dear, it's gradually dawning on me that there's a serious problem here.

Has the old issue with 20/20 form been fixed to be replaced by a problem with OD form??

[Mully2010]

i think it depends on how good the bowler is in general.
i have two bowlers from the youth team playing for my surrey team and in a match i played recently one pick up 3/50 from 10 overs while othr got 2/52 from his ten on a pitch that was a nightmare to bowl on.

the that took three wickets form dip while the other one form went up

meaning the that took 3 wickets is expected to perform better than his figures suggested.
it could be his avg if a player avg 30 with the bat but make less his form usually dip
so i assume thats how it works

[El_Zigi]

Yes as I said in my 1st post my understanding is that players of differing ability will have different expectations, so form will work differently for players of higher/lower ability.

Sadly it's a longstanding problem with the game that I have discovered hasn't been fixed in this version, this issue with bowlers form dropping so drastically and seemingly undeservedly. I mean look at the figures my bowlers produced, in an ODI!! Their form should have gone up if anything. Look at Ajmals figures!! His form dropped 15%. That's a joke.

As a result of this bowling form issue I wasn't able to pick my preferred attack for my latest test series. These are the bowlers I wanted to pick for the 1st test with their form in ().

S Afridi (0)
M. Amir (0)
D. Kaneria (30)
M. Asif (8)

I played DK. How can I pick the others?

Anyway I'm sure others have already highlighted this issue and I hope the makers fix it for the next version once and for all.

10-4-20-1 in an ODI = 15% form drop. I mean WTF.

[ab5ides1]

Probably because form is based on the past twelve innings of batting/bowling and each time a new piece of bowling comes in eg 1-20 another goes off the form meter eg something like 4-29 which would result in a drop in form. Form isn't the be-all and end-all though. I've had someone hit a double ton when they've had 0% form.

[El_Zigi]

Probably because form is based on the past twelve innings of batting/bowling and each time a new piece of bowling comes in eg 1-20 another goes off the form meter eg something like 4-29 which would result in a drop in form. Form isn't the be-all and end-all though. I've had someone hit a double ton when they've had 0% form.

Is this actually what form is based on, or are you just assuming?? The last 12 performances. Is that not a bit dumb? So I can have a bowler in an ODI record something like 10-2-30-3 bit his form will drop because he recorded 10-3-22-5 12 matches ago. That performance that drops off the 'form meter' as you put it would have occured weeks, even months, previous. So is that not a bit dumb to have a performance from that many matches previous/that long ago effect present day form?

[ab5ides1]

It is a bit dumb yes, but I am almost 100% sure about it being how form is worked out. I don't think it could be done much better though.

[enigma]

Is this actually what form is based on, or are you just assuming??

I think it is pretty obvious if you pay close attention to the Form-page that that is what form is based on.

The last 12 performances. Is that not a bit dumb? So I can have a bowler in an ODI record something like 10-2-30-3 bit his form will drop because he recorded 10-3-22-5 12 matches ago. That performance that drops off the 'form meter' as you put it would have occured weeks, even months, previous. So is that not a bit dumb to have a performance from that many matches previous/that long ago effect present day form?

As for it being "dumb", I don't know may be it is but how can you say that it is dumb to consider last 12 innings for form-calculation & then go on to express your dissatisfaction about the 13th innings not being considered for the same?

And while it could be a matter of debate whether it should be 12 innings or 5 or 10 or whatever, what basis do YOU think should form be based on? Besides, isn't that how it works in real life, like a batsman/bowler's form/confidence being dependent on his performance in the last few innings?

It is a bit dumb yes, but I am almost 100% sure about it being how form is worked out. I don't think it could be done much better though.

By the way, do you know how it is actually calculated, as in the algorithm involved? Like if the form is 77% then what is 100% & how's that arrived at? And it seems that the 100% tends to change after every innings. It seems only runs are considered for batsmen, not balls faced or anything else while only wickets are considered for bowlers, not the overs bowled or runs conceeded. Any ideas?

[Sureshot]

Form is very subjective, it's completely opinion based. So it will always be difficult to get it right.

I think 12 innings is about right. That's roughly a Test series and a bit, or a couple of ODI series, or half a season, etc.

Take Alistair Cook as an example, if you were to make the system 20 innings, then going in to the summer tests his form would be about 40-50% based on the poor English summer he had. But would you say he's playing okay at the moment or playing really well? His confidence and form are sky high.

It's a system that is tremendously hard to get right, I think you could find examples which show the system doesn't work.

I don't really believe in statements such as "He's been in good form over the last 2 years." That's not form, that's just skill. Time for a cliche.

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Though it has been noted that the form system with T20s isn't working.

[El_Zigi]

I appreciate that form could be a difficult thing to get right. With regards to 20/20 matches would it be possible to stop these games affecting form altogether. There's an argument to be made for this I think. Alternatively would it be possible to have three seperate form % for each discipline. For example, a batsman is batting poorly in FC cricket so his form is low for FC but his OD batting has been pretty good so his form is high for this discipline.

Basically at present as far as I can tell form is not calculated correctly/fairly, at least for bowlers anyway. 10-0-50-1 in an ODI can be as good as 10-2-42-2 depending on the conditions and the match situation but this doesn't seem to be taken into account. I do think the last 12 innings thing is silly. As they say you're only as good as your last game so maybe this is how form should be treated, just on a match by match basis. Each time a player performs well his form goes up a little, when there's a bad performance it goes down a little. Therefore it would take a number of consecutive good/bad performances for his form to change dramatically, thus ruling out the drastic changes in form we see after one performance.

[enigma]

First thing first, form is NOT the core determinant of the batsmen/bowlers' skill, their skill-ratings are. So a drop of several 10s of form is NOT that important, form is just one of the modifiers that modifies the core skill-ratings. Further, form depends heavily on how good a particular player is & how good his skill-rating is, for example, scoring a 50+ score would add little form to Ponting but it would add lots of form to McGrath & obviously Ponting with 0% form is way more likely to score big runs than McGrath (or even most average batsmen) with 100% form so don't worry so much about a drop of a few 10s of form.

With regards to 20/20 matches

The plummetting of form due to ODs & T20s has been noted by the developers so hopefully that'll be fixed in ICC2011.

10-0-50-1 in an ODI can be as good as 10-2-42-2 depending on the conditions and the match situation but this doesn't seem to be taken into account.

I'd suggested this system so that opposition's score (which more or less leads to automatic consideration of playing conditions as well), value of each wicket taken (depending on quality of the batsman) as well as economy-rates of bowlers should be considered for ascertaining form. Let's see how if something like that is included in ICC2011.

[6ry4nj]

Alternatively would it be possible to have three seperate form % for each discipline. For example, a batsman is batting poorly in FC cricket so his form is low for FC but his OD batting has been pretty good so his form is high for this discipline.

That's a great idea. Doherty is a rubbish first-class bowler, but he's quite good in limited overs. His limited overs form should not go down because some loonies selected him for the Test team!

[El_Zigi]

First thing first, form is NOT the core determinant of the batsmen/bowlers' skill, their skill-ratings are. So a drop of several 10s of form is NOT that important, form is just one of the modifiers that modifies the core skill-ratings. Further, form depends heavily on how good a particular player is & how good his skill-rating is, for example, scoring a 50+ score would add little form to Ponting but it would add lots of form to McGrath & obviously Ponting with 0% form is way more likely to score big runs than McGrath (or even most average batsmen) with 100% form so don't worry so much about a drop of a few 10s of form.

I think we are all aware of the fact that form isn't everything, but it is important. I'm not going to say how important it is as I dont know. Obviously Ponting on 0% is still more likely to score runs than Bollinger on 100% form but this is no defense for the problem in the game. Anyway the issue is not with batting form which has always been fine, it is with bowling form. I'm pretty sure my star bowler is going to take less wickets on 0% form than if he was on 90%. And he is probably on 0% form because of a couple of stupid 20/20 games. Which brings me to my suggestion that there should be different states of form for each discipline. Thanks 6ry4nj for the 'great idea' comment. I think it is a good idea that makes perfect sense. My opening bowler shouldn't be going into a test match with his form having been adversely affected by performances in 20/20 matches. Test cricket and 20/20cricket are essentially different games. I know that the makers are aware of the issue so we'll see what they do to improve it.

[enigma]

I think we are all aware of the fact that form isn't everything, but it is important. I'm not going to say how important it is as I dont know. Obviously Ponting on 0% is still more likely to score runs than Bollinger on 100% form but this is no defense for the problem in the game. Anyway the issue is not with batting form which has always been fine, it is with bowling form. I'm pretty sure my star bowler is going to take less wickets on 0% form than if he was on 90%. And he is probably on 0% form because of a couple of stupid 20/20 games. Which brings me to my suggestion that there should be different states of form for each discipline. Thanks 6ry4nj for the 'great idea' comment. I think it is a good idea that makes perfect sense. My opening bowler shouldn't be going into a test match with his form having been adversely affected by performances in 20/20 matches. Test cricket and 20/20cricket are essentially different games. I know that the makers are aware of the issue so we'll see what they do to improve it.

I wasn't trying to "defend a problem in the game", even though I like the game, I'd be the last person to do so just for the sake of doing it; I was just pointing out that form really isn't that important & its great that you knew it already but in my belief, focusing on form instead of erroneous skill-ratings is like worrying about the tail instead of the elephant itself.