[My Article] The State of England Bowling

[pasag]

Any opinions on this guy copying and pasting something he's written on another forum? As a matter of interest, is this allowed? I post on other forums too, and I've always believed that anything you write on a particular forum becomes the intellectual property of the forum owner and the author, so any cross-pollenation (so to speak) requires the acceptance of the forum owner.

Also, I find it a bit annoying when you go to a two different forums and end up reading the same thing.

Anyway - just wondering.

There's no problem with it as Prince said.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yea they're a bit pointless really, I mean why can't people type stuff out properly ffs...

Nah, not hypocritical at all.

 

[Richard]

Also, I find it a bit annoying when you go to a two different forums and end up reading the same thing.

Are you compelled to read it twice?

 

[NZTailender]

Nah, not hypocritical at all.

You're kidding as well, right?

 

[Prince EWS]

You're kidding as well, right?

Obv.

 

[Swervy]

Lewis is renowned for such a thing, but like quite a few stereotypes it's not entirely true. Lewis can bowl accurately, very much so, but can also lose it. I've seen plenty of Gloucs games where he's gone around the park.

yeah, and pretty much every bowler in the history of the game has lost accuracy at some point in their time.

Would be interested to know exactly how many games you have watched where Lewis has gone around the park due to inaccurate bowling whilst playing for Gloucs. I take it you are only talking about one day games!!! Or are you a regular visitor at Gloucs for their First Class games?

 

[Richard]

No, I'm not, I'm talking about First-Class games. You don't need to visit the game to realise when a bowler's gone around the park, you just look at the economy-rate.

 

[Swervy]

No, I'm not, I'm talking about First-Class games. You don't need to visit the game to realise when a bowler's gone around the park, you just look at the economy-rate.

due to inaccurate bowling?

 

[Richard]

Usually, when someone's been expensive, they've bowled less accurately than if they've been economical. Lewis tends to extremeties - he can often bowl extremely tightly and have ecomony-rates in the low 2s, but can also go around the park - sometimes even in the same day - at 4s.

 

[Swervy]

Usually, when someone's been expensive, they've bowled less accurately than if they've been economical. Lewis tends to extremeties - he can often bowl extremely tightly and have ecomony-rates in the low 2s, but can also go around the park - sometimes even in the same day - at 4s.

so generalising again are we Richard?

So you don't actually know if Lewis is prone to inaccuracy in the First Class game. You are totally guessing that must be the case.

There have been plenty of times when bowlers bowl perfectly ok and gone for 4 an over over long spells during a game.

If a bowler bowls 24 overs in an innings, and goes for 96 runs , he has gone for 4 an over.
If in that innings he bowled 4 balls that took the edge and squirted through the slips for a boundary and 2 others that took the inside edge, had the batsman in all sorts of problems, just passed the stumps and through to a very fine fine leg for 4, those good balls cost him 24 runs....which means in fact, without them, he would have been going at 3 an over.
Maybe add to that a bit of sloppy fielding in the edge, which might have cost him another 12 etc....you see it doesnt take much for a bowlers figures to be completely skewed by things totally out of his control.

Hence you cannot make judgements on how a bowler has bowled purely on looking at his figures.

 

[Richard]

Such a thing can indeed happen... once... four or five times, even.

However, for it to happen season after season, and for very similar things to happen with other, similar, bowlers, is not plausible. Eventually, no matter how stupid, a captain will see some sense and stick a third-man in.

Good balls conceding runs is not an incredibly regular thing. It can and does happen, but only from time to time.

More often than not, a bowler who has been expensive will have bowled inaccurately. That's not a stereotype or a generalisation, it's simple one-plus-one-equals-two.

 

[Swervy]

Such a thing can indeed happen... once... four or five times, even.

However, for it to happen season after season, and for very similar things to happen with other, similar, bowlers, is not plausible. Eventually, no matter how stupid, a captain will see some sense and stick a third-man in.

Good balls conceding runs is not an incredibly regular thing. It can and does happen, but only from time to time.

More often than not, a bowler who has been expensive will have bowled inaccurately. That's not a stereotype or a generalisation, it's simple one-plus-one-equals-two.

Strange, because there have been hundreds of times (probably, its not something I keep count of) where I have thought to myself that someones figures do not do justice to how well they have bowled.

Could you please provide some figures on good balls/runs scored? I take it you have done extensive research on this, because you seem so certain about this, and I am questioning my own judgement on the game here, maybe my definition of what bad bowling is is wrong, maybe the batsman doesnt really have any real control on what is going on etc.

So please Richard, I would love to see the fruits of this research.

Or is it that you are just making generalisations yet again, and assuming because its an opinion you hold (ie expensive figures = bad bowling), that it must be correct?

I hope its the first option, I suspect its the latter.

 

[Richard]

As I say - it's not a generalisation. It's simple fact.

People say "his figures don't do him justice" ATT, too. Often, it's hogwash. There is something in it sometimes, but more often than not, in any case, it relates to wickets, not economy.

 

[Swervy]

As I say - it's not a generalisation. It's simple fact.

People say "his figures don't do him justice" ATT, too. Often, it's hogwash. There is something in it sometimes, but more often than not, in any case, it relates to wickets, not economy.

So its a fact, but you acknowledge there are times when it isnt 'hogwash'. So its not an absolute fact is it?

And whether other people mean wickets as opposed to economy rate, I don't care, I was talking about when I have thought it, and I am talking about economy. Please don't try and tell me what I am thinking? (you may be offended )

It happens enough in my experience that you cannot say that by looking at an individuals bowling figures on a match by match basis without watching them actually bowl, whether they have bowled well, or been unlucky, or bowled badly etc, unless they have been going at 7 an over or something like that over a long spell.

Over a longer period of time however, you can build up a picture by looking at the stats, but even then, quite hard to do, without knowing the full picture

 

[Richard]

So its a fact, but you acknowledge there are times when it isnt 'hogwash'. So its not an absolute fact is it?

There were two slightly separate issues at hand.

And whether other people mean wickets as opposed to economy rate, I don't care, I was talking about when I have thought it, and I am talking about economy. Please don't try and tell me what I am thinking?

Turning into Rodgie?

It happens enough in my experience that you cannot say that by looking at an individuals bowling figures on a match by match basis without watching them actually bowl, whether they have bowled well, or been unlucky, or bowled badly etc, unless they have been going at 7 an over or something like that over a long spell.

Over a longer period of time however, you can build up a picture by looking at the stats, but even then, quite hard to do, without knowing the full picture

As I've always said - if you look deep enough, there's only a fairly small amount that stats can't tell you.

 

[Swervy]

There were two slightly separate issues at hand.

are there?

Turning into Rodgie.

am I?

As I've always said - if you look deep enough, there's only a fairly small amount that stats can't tell you.

Just because you have always said it doesn't mean thats correct.

Stats on individual games alone mean little, without watching the game, you actually gain little knowledge about what really happened

 

[Richard]

are there?

Yes, the "bowled better than his figures suggest" and the ER-indication-of-accuracy thing.

am I?

It might be mildly interesting... don't take it as anything more than a joke.

Just because you have always said it doesn't mean thats correct.

Stats on individual games alone mean little, without watching the game, you actually gain little knowledge about what really happened

Not true. And I'm talking about more than one single game, I'm talking about patterns that build-up over the course of games, and relate to other similar patterns.

 

[Swervy]

Not true. And I'm talking about more than one single game, I'm talking about patterns that build-up over the course of games, and relate to other similar patterns.

but you said this :
I've seen plenty of Gloucs games where he's gone around the park.

From that I can only assume you were talking about individual games. Nowhere did you suggest that you were talking about a string of games

 

[nightprowler10]

Haha. This is why you should probably stick to posting articles on PC Hooper. At least we'll talk about your article instead of having pissing contests.

 

[Swervy]

Haha. This is why you should probably stick to posting articles on PC Hooper. At least we'll talk about your article instead of having pissing contests.

I think it is related to what the original post is on about.