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

[GIMH]

Of course we had a great performance from Flintoff but it was backed up elsewhere. Simon Jones, Trescothick, Hoggard, Pietersen, Strauss, Vaughan, Harmison, all had impressive moments and spells during the series.

Just as an aside hb, doesn't just apply to you, if people a re 'missing your point' then perhaps it is indicative of how you've expressed it. I often see people complaining on CW about the masses interpreting what they are saying wrongly, the best way to stop this happening is surely to be more explicit about what you mean. Just a thought...

 

[honestbharani]

Haha, I couldn't give a **** about the internet.

Pietersen, Jones and Trescothick all had good to great performances in 2005 as well, we weren't a one man band in that series.

I think his influence stood out compared to the others and he was a lot more vital than those guys.. There is a reason he was man of the series.

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff - no five wicket hauls for the series, was there? One at best.

He got one at The Oval, and one century, but it was more just constant 50s and 3 or 4fers that did the trick. Not just in that series but for the whole of his peak.

 

[honestbharani]

Of course we had a great performance from Flintoff but it was backed up elsewhere. Simon Jones, Trescothick, Hoggard, Pietersen, Strauss, Vaughan, Harmison, all had impressive moments and spells during the series.

Just as an aside hb, doesn't just apply to you, if people a re 'missing your point' then perhaps it is indicative of how you've expressed it. I often see people complaining on CW about the masses interpreting what they are saying wrongly, the best way to stop this happening is surely to be more explicit about what you mean. Just a thought...

lol.. I can search and quote my first post on this topic but I feel pretty sure that was my point...


Put it this way, against a quality opposition in conditions favoring them, I would back a single player to have a "great" performance more often than 3 or 4 having "very good" performances in the same game.. And that is what I meant through all of this rubbish back and forth in the last 2 pages. I hope that was clear enough...

 

[Furball]

Flintoff - no five wicket hauls for the series, was there? One at best.

One at the Oval where he bowled 17 overs unchanged. Other than that, his MO was coming in and nipping out wickets at crucial times and seizing the momentum/pwning Gilchrist every time he came out to bat.

 

[zaremba]

hb, good posting from you as per usual. I understand your point that it's more likely for one man to have a stand-out match than two men. But in the scenario I gave, Team A had one stand-out performance of 6-30 and one nothing performance of 0-30, and Team B had two pretty good performances of 3-30. Both end up with exactly the same outcome: both teams took 6-60. I don't think that the Team A situation is any more likely than the Team B situation. Insofar as you could describe 3-30 as a "stand-out performance", you're talking about a different and much more common kind of "stand-out performance" than 6-30.

 

[Teja.]

Put it this way, against a quality opposition in conditions favoring them, I would back a single player to have a "great" performance more often than 3 or 4 having "very good" performances in the same game

AWTA

z

 

[Furball]

hb, good posting from you as per usual. I understand your point that it's more likely for one man to have a stand-out match than two men. But in the scenario I gave, Team A had one stand-out performance of 6-30 and one nothing performance of 0-30, and Team B had two pretty good performances of 3-30. Both end up with exactly the same outcome: both teams took 6-60. I don't think that the Team A situation is any more likely than the Team B situation. Insofar as you could describe 3-30 as a "stand-out performance", you're talking about a different and much more common kind of "stand-out performance" than 6-30.

I think a 6/30 is far more likely to have an impact and help dismiss a team for not very much - see Perth, for example.

 

[Hit Wicket]

England won in 2005 because McGrath tripped on a cricket ball. They could not beat Australia in any match McGrath played.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Flintoff - no five wicket hauls for the series, was there? One at best.

Sorry, just to classify, I'm not saying that Flintoff wasn't "super" over that series - he was, but it was because of the consistent cumulation of performances, rather than a Laxman/Dravid type epic.

 

[Furball]

England won in 2005 because McGrath tripped on a cricket ball. They could not beat Australia in any match McGrath played.

Australia could only beat England in 1 of the 3 matches McGrath did play. Does not compute.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just as an aside hb, doesn't just apply to you, if people a re 'missing your point' then perhaps it is indicative of how you've expressed it. I often see people complaining on CW about the masses interpreting what they are saying wrongly, the best way to stop this happening is surely to be more explicit about what you mean. Just a thought...

Don't really agree; there are a significant number of members on CricketWeb who don't read posts properly and instead just look for key phrases they can reply to with rhetoric; these people will miss the point regardless.

Of course, these same people also claim people have missed their point when they post something irrelevant and get called out on it.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Australia could only beat England in 1 of the 3 matches McGrath did play. Does not compute.

It was 1-0 to Australia when McGrath played. Does it compute now?

 

[zaremba]

I think a 6/30 is far more likely to have an impact and help dismiss a team for not very much - see Perth, for example.

I don't agree. I mean, obviously a bowler taking 6-30 will have an enormous impact. But 2 bowlers getting 3-30 = 1 bowler getting 6-30 and another getting 3-30. Happens all the time. See, for example, Melbourne, where the Crims were shot out for 98 with no bowler getting a 5-fer.

 

[zaremba]

England won in 2005 because McGrath tripped on a cricket ball. They could not beat Australia in any match McGrath played because it rained at both Old Trafford (Aus 9 wickets down) and at the Oval (Aus facing a 4th innings target of 300++).

Fixed.

 

[Furball]

It was 1-0 to Australia when McGrath played. Does it compute now?

The series finished 2-1 to England. Whether McGrath played or not is irrelevant. Away and troll elsewhere.

 

[honestbharani]

hb, good posting from you as per usual. I understand your point that it's more likely for one man to have a stand-out match than two men. But in the scenario I gave, Team A had one stand-out performance of 6-30 and one nothing performance of 0-30, and Team B had two pretty good performances of 3-30. Both end up with exactly the same outcome: both teams took 6-60. I don't think that the Team A situation is any more likely than the Team B situation. Insofar as you could describe 3-30 as a "stand-out performance", you're talking about a different and much more common kind of "stand-out performance" than 6-30.

yeah.. in the example given, the outcome is the same... But I would say that it is more likely that a guy would take 6/60 than 2 guys to take 3/30 each in the same game, against a great side in conditions favoring them.. But in terms of impact, if it actually happens, it is pretty much the same and we would really need to know what the other guys in the bowling side have been doing to be able to make any judgement on what it means to the game..



As an aside, this is one of the reasons I love cricket. Just so many possibilities and each is just as capable of being wrong as any other...

 

[honestbharani]

Don't really agree; there are a significant number of members on CricketWeb who don't read posts properly and instead just look for key phrases they can reply to with rhetoric; these people will miss the point regardless.

Of course, these same people also claim people have missed their point when they post something irrelevant and get called out on it.

do you count as people?

 

[Teja.]

IMHO, On a batting-friendly pitch, One bowler bowling exceedingly well and taking 6/30 to bowl the opposition out is likelier than two bowlers bowling well at the same time.

On a bowling friendly pitch, It is far more likelier that two-three bowlers end up being effective contribute with 3/30, 2-20 et al. to bowl out an opposition cheaply.

This is because, methinks, Most of the time it is improbable that more than one bowler really switches it on and bowls damn well on a flat pitch. Sometimes he capitalizes and gets the opposition for below >200, some other times he ends up with 5-90 with the opposition getting 400+. The contrary is true on a bowling friendly wicket where there is a higher chance of more than one bowler being highly effective.

But then all of the above might not stand the trials of rigorous proof of past experiences and is based on a highly generalized 'feel' of what I've seen. Most of y'all have seen much more cricket than me and can differ.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm agreed with Teja here.

Also, bonus points for use of "methinks".