Three horse race to be the best team in the world?

[Prince EWS]

It's possible that it was pure luck, a series of independent and random coin-toss type events. Or it's possible that the 3 last ditch stands had a common cause, or that each event influenced the next. My view is that the "pure luck" theory seems implausible, and that the last ditch stands were a reflection of, and helped to reinforce, the team's resilience. No doubt even on that view there was a dollop of luck involved, of course - there always is.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[GIMH]

Saving a match by one wicket three times could definitely still be pure luck tbf. No real significance in that at all. Getting a heads three times when flipping a coin is no reason to assume the coin likes heads better.

Except you're comparing probability to events the team were in relative control over (obviously in each instance the oppo could have bowled better, perhaps).

You make your own luck a lot of the time. None of those stands, IIRC, involved umpiring errors, dropped catches etc. The batsmen survived what was thrown at them. There is nothing lucky about that.

In fact the only luck in any of those matches was that it rained at Cardiff...lucky for Australia that is, as Jimmy & Monty never had time to build a target.

 

[Uppercut]

It's possible that it was pure luck, a series of independent and random coin-toss type events. Or it's possible that the 3 last ditch stands had a common cause, or that each event influenced the next. My view is that the "pure luck" theory seems implausible, and that the last ditch stands were a reflection of, and helped to reinforce, the team's resilience. No doubt even on that view there was a dollop of luck involved, of course - there always is.

Oh, you're absolutely right. What GF said was, "the fact that it's happened so often suggests that it wasn't just luck involved", which isn't really true at all. Lots of things might suggest that something other than pure luck was involved, and GIMH has expressed some of those directly above me. But it happening on a grand total of three occasions isn't one of them.

 

[Furball]

Oh, you're absolutely right. What GF said was, "the fact that it's happened so often suggests that it wasn't just luck involved", which isn't really true at all. Lots of things might suggest that something other than pure luck was involved, and GIMH has expressed some of those directly above me. But it happening on a grand total of three occasions isn't one of them.

I said "so often in such a short space of time" which changes the context somewhat.

 

[Uppercut]

Except you're comparing probability to events the team were in relative control over (obviously in each instance the oppo could have bowled better, perhaps).

You make your own luck a lot of the time. None of those stands, IIRC, involved umpiring errors, dropped catches etc. The batsmen survived what was thrown at them. There is nothing lucky about that.

In fact the only luck in any of those matches was that it rained at Cardiff...lucky for Australia that is, as Jimmy & Monty never had time to build a target.

There's more to luck than that though, I don't buy into the Richardism that luck consists purely of dropped catches and umpiring errors and play+missing a ton or getting a grubber just don't count. If anything dropped catches would be an example of the opposition choking whereas whether a Graham Onions stab at a Morne Morkel delivery nicks the ball or nicks thin air isn't under anyone's deliberate control.

I'm with zaremba, ftr- you need the mental grit to give yourself a chance but you need a pretty healthy dollop luck to go with it. And I think Colly getting through that spell from Steyn on one of the fifth mornings is the best example of that.

 

[zaremba]

Oh, you're absolutely right. What GF said was, "the fact that it's happened so often suggests that it wasn't just luck involved", which isn't really true at all. Lots of things might suggest that something other than pure luck was involved, and GIMH has expressed some of those directly above me. But it happening on a grand total of three occasions isn't one of them.

I agree with GF though - I think that the fact that it happened 3 times in quick succession is something that tends to show it wasn't just pure luck. I'm probably committing some dreadful sin against logic / statistics (it wouldn't be the first time) but that's how it seems to me.

 

[Uppercut]

I said "so often in such a short space of time" which changes the context somewhat.

Still not at all true, though.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with GF though - I think that the fact that it happened 3 times in quick succession is something that tends to show it wasn't just pure luck. I'm probably committing some dreadful sin against logic / statistics (it wouldn't be the first time) but that's how it seems to me.

Yeah, it's quite negligible bit of evidence though. It happening three times in a row isn't something that wouldn't happen pretty regularly anyway if only luck was involved.

Might be more inclined to agree if a team getting into such situations wasn't so rare in itself.

 

[GIMH]

There's more to luck than that though, I don't buy into the Richardism that luck consists purely of dropped catches and umpiring errors and play+missing a ton or getting a grubber just don't count. If anything dropped catches would be an example of the opposition choking whereas whether a Graham Onions stab at a Morne Morkel delivery nicks the ball or nicks thin air isn't under anyone's deliberate control.

I'm with zaremba, ftr- you need the mental grit to give yourself a chance but you need a pretty healthy dollop luck to go with it. And I think Colly getting through that spell from Steyn on one of the fifth mornings is the best example of that.

See, maybe I'm being a pedant, but regardless of Onions' intent, the way he has played has resulted in him surviving the delivery and I don't see that as luck. But I don't see it as bad luck when a football team hits the post, and some do. Dunno.

Luck for me are things that you don't have any control of whatsoever. I don't always see dropped catches as luck either tbf.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, I'd say it's both, really. Onions could play a delivery in a way that minimises the chance of getting a nick rather than missing if he doesn't connect, but he's still taking a chance and hence needs some luck to get through it. There's luck involved in everything, really. People's natural inclination is to reject the role of luck involved in their successes and overrate its role in their failures, there's been some mildly amusing studies on the subject.

 

[tooextracool]

This whole argument about luck makes no sense. Bottom line is that SA was incapable of bowling England out and England was incapable of bowling India out. There is no freak incident or anything of that nature, SA didnt deserve to take 20 wickets and neither did England. Put India on that same pitch against the same bowling attack and they would have chased down 387 9/10 times.

The point that has been missed here is that England threw away a fair number of wickets in their 2nd innings in Chennai in their quest to win the game and score quick runs, with the unexpected consequence that Sehwag would score at 8 runs an over. Both pitches in that series were way too flat to get a result, hence to draw a conclusion based on the result of that series is pointless.

 

[ImpatientLime]

They won a test in India on the back on Flintoff, who is no longer part of the set up - before that it was all the way back in 1984.

Shaun Udal tbh.

 

[Howe_zat]

Shaun Udal tbh.

Not to mention Colly and Cook.

 

[tooextracool]

and one James Anderson

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, Freddie had an amazing series but to say he won that game is ludicrous

 

[zaremba]

While I certainly am a big fan of the current English side and I don't think they will be as poor or as hopeless as is being made out by a couple of others here in a tour of India, I do think as a general point what HitWicket says has some merit... Against a strong side in conditions that favor them, you are more likely to pull off a one-off win through individual brilliance more than any solid team effort...

I just don't see why.

Two bowlers in Team A get 3-30 each.
In Team B, one bowler gets 6-30 and another 0-30.

I cannot begin to see a difference.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Wonder why Udal, Cook, Collingwood, and Anderson were not given the Man of the Match award, or the Man of the Series?

People seem to be going to ridiculous extents - Udal picked up a few tail end batsmen going for a slog when the match was over.

Flintoff's half century in the 3rd innings, and his crucial wicket of Dravid immediately after lunch when Dravid and Tendulkar were together defined the result of the match. To compare his performance with Udal or Collingwood is a joke.

Look, this is nothing unique about India. To defeat any strong team, you need to have some guys capable of delivering stand out performances. Someone like a Steyn cutting through the line up with reverse swing, Flintoff managing to bat through when Kumble and Harbhajan are at their best on a genuine turner.

Just look at the examples of the kind of performances India put in to defeat Australia in 2001. Of course, India is not at the level of that Australian team, but with home advantage they are a very formidable side. Teams may push them to the brink, but such is their confidence, ability, and most important familiarity with the conditions that someone or the other invariably rises to the occasion.

Something really out of the ordinary needs to happen for India to lose at home - whether depleted batting line ups like against SA '08 and '10, some braindead experimentation like playing 5 bowlers and bowling first at Mumbai in '06, some once in a blue moon greentop appearing from nowhere like SA '08. And some brilliant performances from the opposition.

I don't think the English team is capable of delivering that kind of a superlative performance in Indian conditions. Fair play to you, if you do.

 

[shankar]

Fair point, although the second test was one where a result was always unlikely because of the time of year IIRC - play stopped early every day didn't it?

I think there was some problem with fog. But I wouldn't say a result was impossible. The English bowlers couldn't get the ball to reverse as Zaheer had done. Having said that I remember Swann bowling very well without much luck in this match.

 

[shankar]

The point that has been missed here is that England threw away a fair number of wickets in their 2nd innings in Chennai in their quest to win the game and score quick runs, with the unexpected consequence that Sehwag would score at 8 runs an over. Both pitches in that series were way too flat to get a result, hence to draw a conclusion based on the result of that series is pointless.

England batted terribly on the 4th day. They had a lead of 250 with 7 wickets at the end of third day's play. That should have given them plenty of time to at least bat India out of the match. They were far too negative on the fourth day and ended up scoring at less than 3 rpo! They only had themselves to blame for the result in the end.

 

[honestbharani]

I just don't see why.

Two bowlers in Team A get 3-30 each.
In Team B, one bowler gets 6-30 and another 0-30.

I cannot begin to see a difference.

Nah.. what I mean is that the chance of a great player getting 6-60 against a great team on a one off occassion, leadng to a win, sounds more probable than 2 good players getting 3-30 each and leading them to a win.. Put it this way, it is easier for ONE player to have an outstanding game than 2 in the same game... If you can really understand that, lol..