Why....

[PhoenixFire]

Well even the best players get out to seriously good balls, and who says that the lesser sides cannot bowl these types of balls. You could end up getting a cracking inswinging yorker first up from some Zimbabwean bowler and get cleaned up and end up smashing Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke in the middle overs of an Australian innings, and the stats would say you are a better player than you are.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

BTW, anyone who truly believes this - ie, takes it literally (which mercifully very few do) - doesn't really have a proper understanding of the game of cricket.

In your opinion, does Collingwood deserve his test average of 43.82?

 

[steds]

Simple. People with what I might call an educated mind have realised that Bangladesh are not Test-class

Nothing is ever as cut and dried as that. Just because Bangladesh are the weakest Test side does not mean that none of their bowlers can ever bowl a ball that should threaten a Test batsman and that all of their batsmen play like Chris Martin after 12 guinnesses every single innings. Performances of all players vary. You play against the ball bowled, not against the bowler's average.

 

[Richard]

Well even the best players get out to seriously good balls, and who says that the lesser sides cannot bowl these types of balls. You could end up getting a cracking inswinging yorker first up from some Zimbabwean bowler and get cleaned up and end up smashing Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke in the middle overs of an Australian innings, and the stats would say you are a better player than you are.

Indeed, and the same thing could happen if you played WA or NSW instead of Pakistan too.

Somewhere, the line has to be drawn - I'm happy that I can make my own decision on what constitutes a Test-class side and not simply swallow whatever rubbish I$C$C tell me.

 

[Richard]

In your opinion, does Collingwood deserve his test average of 43.82?

First-chance scores are a completely different question to who is and isn't Test-class.

 

[Richard]

Nothing is ever as cut and dried as that. Just because Bangladesh are the weakest Test side does not mean that none of their bowlers can ever bowl a ball that should threaten a Test batsman and that all of their batsmen play like Chris Martin after 12 guinnesses every single innings.

When did I say it did?

I've never once said not a single Bangladeshi can play. Too many of them can't, though, and for that reason they're not Test-class and never have been.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

First-chance scores are a completely different question to who is and isn't Test-class.

Yes or no?

 

[Richard]

Yes or no?

I don't see why I should answer a question that has no relevance to the matter at hand, as you're plainly only asking it to try and impact upon the question at hand.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

I don't see why I should answer a question that has no relevance to the matter at hand, as you're plainly only asking it to try and impact upon the question at hand.

I'm doing it to prove a point about the value of statistics.

I refer to your post here: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1342476&postcount=29. You suggest that Paul Collingwood is indeed not as good as his current test average. In 50 years time, people might review Paul Collingwood's carrer and assume that he is in fact better than he was. This suggests that statistics do in fact mislead people, or "lie".

 

[Sanz]

I'm doing it to prove a point about the value of statistics.

I refer to your post here: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1342476&postcount=29. You suggest that Paul Collingwood is indeed not as good as his current test average. In 50 years time, people might review Paul Collingwood's carrer and assume that he is in fact better than he was. This suggests that statistics do in fact mislead people, or "lie".

 

[Richard]

I'm doing it to prove a point about the value of statistics.

I refer to your post here: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1342476&postcount=29. You suggest that Paul Collingwood is indeed not as good as his current test average. In 50 years time, people might review Paul Collingwood's carrer and assume that he is in fact better than he was. This suggests that statistics do in fact mislead people, or "lie".

Hmm, apologies, seems I was thinking you were addressing a different post of mine to that you were.

Either way - a first-chance average is a stat is it not? And it gives a pretty decent summary of Paul Collingwood's Test career. Some stats lie; some give a good picture. I've never once said every single stat in cricket history is an invaluable piece of this or that.

 

[Sanz]

But the point is who is keeping track of the stat that do not lie (in this case the first chance avg. stat). In 50 years from now, no one(except probably yourself) will talk about the first chance avg. of Collingwood and all they will have is his actual test avg.

 

[Richard]

How on Earth do you know that?

 

[Sanz]

Know what ?

 

[Beleg]

This is a question I have been asking for the last three years, and no body has ever been able to come up with a satisfactory justification.

 

[silentstriker]

Well even the best players get out to seriously good balls, and who says that the lesser sides cannot bowl these types of balls. You could end up getting a cracking inswinging yorker first up from some Zimbabwean bowler and get cleaned up and end up smashing Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke in the middle overs of an Australian innings, and the stats would say you are a better player than you are.

Except that it's an average, and if people are getting out consistently to the Zimbabwean sides, then they are in fact Test standard. The reason that they aren't Test standard is because those balls come along a lot less frequently than they would from a Test side.

If you take a good solid sample size and take the average, you can easily decide which attacks are Test class and which are not. Yes, a single innings may or may not end due to a Test class side, but it won't happen consistently. And if it does, then they are Test class.

 

[Perm]

I almost always remove statistics against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for Test cricketers, whether they do well or poorly against them. The quality of the opposition can influence greatly on people's Test statistics, Jacques Kallis as one of the best examples that springs to mind. Wonderful batsman and all-rounder, no doubt, but once you take into consideration his efforts against those two very weak and undeserving Test nations, then his statistics aren't as impressive, while still being very good.

In saying that, if you are evaluating individual efforts like Gilchrist's match saving innings against Bangladesh, you can't automatically deem it not good enough, purely because it was against Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

You can't say it wasn't a superb innings - but you would also be able to find several of these if you looked long and hard enough when he was playing for WA - this hasn't happened but let's hypothetically say he were to have scored 134 against a NSW attack of McGrath, Clark and Bracken 3 years ago, that'd have been a damn superb performance too.

Regardless of this, neither game merits Test status, even if a one-off performance was Test-worthy.

 

[Richard]

Know what ?

Know that:

In 50 years from now, no one(except probably yourself) will talk about the first chance avg. of Collingwood and all they will have is his actual test avg.

 

[pasag]

Richard, I'm sorry but I didn't make this thread for you to have double as many posts as everyone else here. I'd like to hear others opinions and not have you kill the life out of it. Very frustrating and I don't know why I bother.