Wow, you're good!!
I was actually saying it show that any which way you try to manipulate the stats, it will still be as equally wrong as the original stat itself.
as I said, let us see the adjusted averages before we come to conclusions.
How is it being equally wrong if you're compensating for averages across eras? You could say there's still something left to be corrected, and you might be right. But there's a definite improvement which cannot be denied.
The improvement won't be uniform, and it will lead to more complications and questions than answers, IMO.. That is all. The final call is up to you guys.. Whether you go by a vote or simply by your choice, is up to you.
Think you have got a pretty awesome side so far, tbh.. May not be the best in terms of crude stats but those are very very good players you have got there
OK take an example. Take a batsman who averaged 65 in 20 tests, and 70 in 200 first-class matches in the 1930s to a batsman who averaged 50 in 75 tests and 51 in 150 first-class matches in 2000s. Can you conclusively say that the 2nd player is better than the first one?
yeah my point, precisely...
Good team so far. But, why don't you promote both Worrell and Border one position up each? Are you expecting someone very special for your no. 3 position even now?
I didn't say 20 tests, I said 10 tests.
I didn't mean anything even remotely related to that. You know that. Come on, grow up.
