**Official** Tour Matches

[BoyBrumby]

Leg-side full toss from Saj duly dispatched. Bravo.

Nice thinking from Bell to put the leg slip in, but quite an average effort from Onions. Moral victory to the bowler, but they don't win tests.

50 from Katich. Looking solid.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ridiculous dubbings of things like that as chances is one reason for the self-fulfilling prophecy of being unable to take first-chance averages seriously.

Your narrow definition of what constitutes a chance is why no-one takes it seriously. It's just not a credible theory as it lacks internal validity.

 

[Richard]

Mahmood figures around about usual at Lunch: 8-41-0.

 

[Richard]

Your narrow definition of what constitutes a chance is why no-one takes it seriously. It's just not a credible theory as it lacks internal validity.

A chance needs a narrow definition. Something either should be caught or it should not. Over-complicating it with nonsense definitions such as "half-chance" causes lack of serious-taking, so it's not surprising if those who insist on such nonsense are unable to grasp the seriousness. There are plenty of people who do take it seriously though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why does Saj always bowl so many overs?

When he was being awful for England Lions on their winter tour he bowled the most overs. Now he's bowling loads of overs again.

 

[Top_Cat]

A chance needs a narrow definition. Something either should be caught or it should not. Over-complicating it with nonsense definitions such as "half-chance" causes lack of serious-taking, so it's not surprising if those who insist on such nonsense are unable to grasp the seriousness. There are plenty of people who do take it seriously though.

Sorry Rich, not buying it. There are inherent bias's in the theory that undermine its credibility statistically.

Tempted to do a serious treatment of it one day.

 

[andruid]

Seen the movie, don't remember the line.

I was just saying in Katich's 'shrine' Ashes thread that England should always have a fourth slip and gully when Kato is batting.

I do remember Wallace having a small monologue that concluded with him resolving not to commit suiside on account of its being against the law

 

[GIMH]

Anyone else completely worried by the fact that we've selected Monty over Sidebottom (or Onions) in the match v Warwickshire? Looks a first XI otherwise

 

[iamdavid]

Hussey looking very good in the morning session, Bresnan I thought looked pretty sharp and dangerous in his first couple of overs but quickly faded. Mahmood bowling terribly, possibly even worse than the bowler I remember him being when he last played test cricket. Rashid looks nothing to write home about, but sadly far more convincing than any spinner Australia have at their disposal at the moment...

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone else completely worried by the fact that we've selected Monty over Sidebottom (or Onions) in the match v Warwickshire?

Ponting isn't.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I couldn't be the only one apart from Richard who sees some merit in the idea of first chance average, could I?

 

[Albion]

Anyone else completely worried by the fact that we've selected Monty over Sidebottom (or Onions) in the match v Warwickshire? Looks a first XI otherwise

Which would be a joke.

Picking a guy who has 6 first class wickets @ 86 because rumour says Cardiff has been spinning square. A quick check of the wickets to have fallen at cardiff suggests otherwise.

 

[Richard]

Sorry Rich, not buying it. There are inherent bias's in the theory that undermine its credibility statistically.

Tempted to do a serious treatment of it one day.

You see bias - so do a handful of others. They think I merely use it to downplay players I "don't like", when in reality they merely perceive this "dislike" because I talk a lot about how they've had lots of good fortune.

There is in reality no bias. I am quite capable of realising what is a dropped catch and what is not.

 

[Richard]

I couldn't be the only one apart from Richard who sees some merit in the idea of first chance average, could I?

No you're not. Check any thread about the idea (of which there've been a handful) and you'll see plenty of posts saying "it makes some sense even if I don't agree completely with it" or similar.

 

[Richard]

Anyone else completely worried by the fact that we've selected Monty over Sidebottom (or Onions) in the match v Warwickshire? Looks a first XI otherwise

I presume they wanted to give Onions a crack at them and see how he'd go by picking him for the Lions TBH. If MSP is seriously selected over Onions at SWALEC it'll be one of those many astounding decisions that we've seen constantly down the years and possibly more than ever in the last couple of years.

 

[Top_Cat]

You see bias - so do a handful of others. They think I merely use it to downplay players I "don't like", when in reality they merely perceive this "dislike" because I talk a lot about how they've had lots of good fortune.

There is in reality no bias. I am quite capable of realising what is a dropped catch and what is not.

haha, I meant statistical/experimental bias!

 

[andruid]

I couldn't be the only one apart from Richard who sees some merit in the idea of first chance average, could I?

You've been indoctrinated !

 

[pskov]

I couldn't be the only one apart from Richard who sees some merit in the idea of first chance average, could I?

First-chance average does have some merit (though I think a overall chance average would be more useful i.e. runs in innings/chances in innings), but the problem is the definition of chance is very tricky and very much in the eye of the beholder. If you try and solve that problem by introducing half chances and the like then it dilutes the theory.

What you would need to for the theory to prove/disprove any validity would be to get a group of people to agree on a very clear definition of what counts as a chance to go through and watch, ball by ball, every test match played over the last two years or so. That is a hell of an undertaking for the amateurs on this forum to take on and essentially an unrealistic proposition.

 

[andruid]

First-chance average does have some merit (though I think a overall chance average would be more useful i.e. runs in innings/chances in innings), but the problem is the definition of chance is very tricky and very much in the eye of the beholder. If you try and solve that problem by introducing half chances and the like then it dilutes the theory.

What you would need to for the theory to prove/disprove any validity would be to get a group of people to agree on a very clear definition of what counts as a chance to go through and watch, ball by ball, every test match played over the last two years or so. That is a hell of an undertaking for the amateurs on this forum to take on and essentially an unrealistic proposition.

the batsman's got absolutely no say on whether or not the opposition fielders have butter or glue on their hands so I doubt its credibility on that issue

 

[inbox24]

The Lions should probably bring on some spinners, the bats are getting away here.