• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why....

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
More significantly, he averaged 93.70 after 10 Tests (11 innings), and 14.70 in his next 7 (10 innings).

IOW, look below the surface and stats tell you a bit more than otherwise they might.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Neil Pickup said:
So long as they're black-headed gulls and not that common herring rubbish then we have a deal.
Click to expand...
Ok, I can live with that. Are the black-headed seagulls heavier than the herring seagulls though? If so, we may have to apply some sort of heavy-weighted average.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Either way - you seem totally misguided on my stance on this TBH. You seem to think I'm arguing for the non-inclusion of Bangladesh on a statistical-values viewpoint; I'm not, I couldn't care less about that.

I'm not arguing that "Test stats are better with Bangladesh removed"; I'm arguing that "Bangladesh are not Test-class; hence, their games should not be Tests; hence, real Test stats don't include them". Not remove them; just don't count them ITFP.

My issue is with the classification of games. Not statistical value.
 
Johnners

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
pasag said:
Why do stats against minnows get removed to prove a point, like those runs shouldn't count because the oppo is poor but when a player fails against said poor opposition little is made of it.

I've seen this question raised before and it's a valid question. Fine if you want to say a ton against Bangladesh or Holland shouldn't count that much because of their quality, but then the players that don't perform shouldn't it be counted as double failure? Seems like we only see one side of the story here.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Should just include all minnow stats afaic. Despite the fact they are obviously less talented teams, some of them (Bangladesh in tests for instance) are quite capable of playing good quality cricket (losing to the best team in the world by only 2 wickets is no mean feat, they got closer in that match to beating Australia than England did in the entire Ashes series).

Lets say you removed Adam Gilchrists performances against Bangladesh when you are trying to make a point about his batting, you remove what imo is one of his best ever test innings, not only because he was under pressure, but because the Bangladesh bowling in general that match was quite good.

If you go about removing all games involving such teams when trying to make a point, you should probably do the same for all players through time when they've put in a good performances against teams they're considerably better than.

No matter what anyone tries to argue, they are legitimate runs/wickets, and for that reason alone, they should be included imo.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
Either way - you seem totally misguided on my stance on this TBH. You seem to think I'm arguing for the non-inclusion of Bangladesh on a statistical-values viewpoint; I'm not, I couldn't care less about that.

I'm not arguing that "Test stats are better with Bangladesh removed"; I'm arguing that "Bangladesh are not Test-class; hence, their games should not be Tests; hence, real Test stats don't include them". Not remove them; just don't count them ITFP.

My issue is with the classification of games. Not statistical value.
Click to expand...
Ok, so if I have this right, you're not arguing about stats...you're arguing about stats. And we shouldn't remove the stats from the players records when we look at their stats, we should just take them out. :happy:

I'm talking about the effect of not counting Bangladesh and Zim etc in the stats and what you might have to do if you were going to take them out. I started by agreeing with someone who suggested keeping them in and using a weighted average or something similar.

Isn't suggesting they shouldn't be there because they boost a player's stats arguing the point using statistical values as a reference? Why not just leave them in there and have a look at what a player did and who they did it against? What if a player who's scored lots of runs against supposedly better teams has a horror run against the minnows...his average will go up when you take out their games. Is that a fair indication of what he achieved, and indeed what the minnows did against him?
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Clapo said:
Should just include all minnow stats afaic. Despite the fact they are obviously less talented teams, some of them (Bangladesh in tests for instance) are quite capable of playing good quality cricket (losing to the best team in the world by only 2 wickets is no mean feat, they got closer in that match to beating Australia than England did in the entire Ashes series).

Lets say you removed Adam Gilchrists performances against Bangladesh when you are trying to make a point about his batting, you remove what imo is one of his best ever test innings, not only because he was under pressure, but because the Bangladesh bowling in general that match was quite good.

If you go about removing all games involving such teams when trying to make a point, you should probably do the same for all players through time when they've put in a good performances against teams they're considerably better than.

No matter what anyone tries to argue, they are legitimate runs/wickets, and for that reason alone, they should be included imo.
Click to expand...
Runs and wickets for Exeter Third XI and Exeter Sunday XI are legitimate runs and wickets too - should they be included?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top