• 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.

*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
GeraintIsMyHero said:
Thought I'd made it clear I cbf with a stats discussion tbh.

Apologies to everyone for clogging the thread. Am leaving it here, as when it keeps coming back to statsguru I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall

Ikki, it's nothing personal, I just don't like the way you analyse players
Click to expand...
Well, let's put this debate aside, but how else should I analyse the numbers? We are looking for his form in the last few years, which shows he has a bowling average which is almost 40 over 16 tests. How else do you spell out "bad"? Even someone who has little time for stats has got to, sanely, acknowledge that the record I just showed is pretty pretty bad.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I'll discuss it with you another time - I don't have no time for stats, by the way, I just also think that my eyes tell me as much as the numbers.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
& how is this not using stats to talk him down? FFS.

I'm certainly not claiming he's anything like the best bowler in the world, but to say he averages over thirty therefore he can't be any good is patent claptrap. Hilfenhaus averaged over 50 in SA and he clearly has something about him.
Click to expand...
Hilfenhaus has played a handful of Tests. Anderson almost 40. I didn't think that needed spelling out. If one were to average 30, have half his test series averaging 20 and the other half 40, I would understand your point. But when the bowler in question has average 30 for most his series, and never under it against the best sides (unless you count 1 test vs India) then you simply have to accept he is being hyped up somewhat. His away figures are disgusting. And yet a member here says he's better than Stuey Clark. That for me just doesn't make sense, and why I have replied more than I should have here.
 
Last edited:
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Ikki said:
Hilfenhaus has played a handful of Tests. Anderson almost 40. I didn't think that needed spelling out. If one were to average 30, have half his test series averaging 20 and the other half 40, I would understand your point. But when the bowler in question has average 30 for most his series, and never under it against the best sides (unless you count 1 test vs India) then you simply have to accept he is being hyped up somewhat.
Click to expand...
How does that work then? Oh, that's right, by just looking at the figures. Jesus Christ...
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
How does that work then? Oh, that's right, by just looking at the figures. Jesus Christ...
Click to expand...
You're right, we should just ignore what happened before, even if it's 39 tests worth. **** runs and wickets, Jimmeh can swing! :laugh:

Ok, when is this Test starting?
 
Agent TBY

Agent TBY

International Captain
Can you guys go back to threatening each others' families, please? This **** is painful to read.

Also, because this was a good post, I expect atleast 7 posts with laughing smilies after this.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ikki said:
Well, let's put this debate aside, but how else should I analyse the numbers? We are looking for his form in the last few years, which shows he has a bowling average which is almost 40 over 16 tests. How else do you spell out "bad"? Even someone who has little time for stats has got to, sanely, acknowledge that the record I just showed is pretty pretty bad.
Click to expand...
I'll give the whole stats thing a go.

Since New Zealand toured in May last year, accepted by everyone as the time when Anderson's bowling improved massively, he's taken 69 wickets in 18 tests @ 28.65.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Now, looking closer at the games he's played in that time, the aggregate bowling average is in fact 38.45. So on the pitches Jimmy's been playing on for the past year, the average player is taking his wickets at 38. These are some horrendous bowling conditions. Even in the 2000s, widely accepted as a period of unspeakably flat pitches, the aggregate average is 33. Suddenly, 28 looks bloody impressive.

Sorry for the mathematical burst, but hey, I'm a nerd. Contrary to a lot of people here, I think stats- unlike raw numbers- can tell you a lot if you use them properly.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Ikki said:
You're right, we should just ignore what happened before, even if it's 39 tests worth. **** runs and wickets, Jimmeh can swing! :laugh:

Ok, when is this Test starting?
Click to expand...
My point is one can use stats selectively to support any argument. Brett Lee has averaged over 30 in 15 out of 27 test series, but he's still managed to hang around long enough to take over 300 wickets. Must be "overhyped" by your argument.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Ikki said:
No, unlike our dear friend. I don't recall saying "anyone who disagrees is clueless and kidding himself", I said I disagree and I am not the only one.

A better question to ask Warne would be: would you swap Flintoff for Johnson now.
Click to expand...
based on how he has gone in this series, you mean? :p
 
JBH001

JBH001

International Regular
Uppercut said:
I'll give the whole stats thing a go.

Since New Zealand toured in May last year, accepted by everyone as the time when Anderson's bowling improved massively, he's taken 69 wickets in 18 tests @ 28.65.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Now, looking closer at the games he's played in that time, the aggregate bowling average is in fact 38.45. So on the pitches Jimmy's been playing on for the past year, the average player is taking his wickets at 38. These are some horrendous bowling conditions. Even in the 2000s, widely accepted as a period of unspeakably flat pitches, the aggregate average is 33. Suddenly, 28 looks bloody impressive.

Sorry for the mathematical burst, but hey, I'm a nerd. Contrary to a lot of people here, I think stats- unlike raw numbers- can tell you a lot if you use them properly.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Anyway, doesnt he he average less than 30 with something close to 80 wickets in 20 or so tests? That is, since the tour of NZ?

Anyway, not getting involved into this ******** discussion. Thankfully the cricket starts in just over an hour.

Edit: 77 wickets at 29 in 20 tests since his recall against NZ. Or so this article tells me: http://www.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/...ry/417248.html
Click to expand...
Nice setting in context though, uppercut.
 
Craig

Craig

World Traveller
FMD even Broad was getting runs. I cbf going pages after pages, but what do the Brits think about Bell's innings?
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
There's 24 minutes to go dav, but if you look at those minutes deeper you'll see that half of them end in an odd number. Then bearing in mind that we are in BST not GMT, you'll actually see there are actually 42 even minutes left, in real time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top