NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Am willing to make an avatar bet that by the start of India's next test series Kohli will be captain in all three formats
-
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*** England in India
- Thread starter Jarquis
- Start date
Spark
Global Moderator
hmm, to an extent - but big game players score heavily at the start of a series. not the end.
johnners to confirm.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
persisting with dhoni would be a disaster imo. 0-4, 0-4, 1-3/1-2
he needs to be relieved off the burden. it may bring the best out of his all-round keeping and batting abiltiy.
the fact that there's mostly now young dudes in the team, im sure kohli will gel well with them.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Yeah, I think you either stick with Dhoni or give it to a young shaver like Kohli or (my choice) Ashwin.
I'd be bumping Ashwin up to #6 too; I'd say from what we've seen so far he has a better MO than pretty much everyone who's been tried there of late.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
this is do or die situation.
the 1st test isn't but it can sometimes set the tone of the series.
sehwag scored a ton in almost the 1st session of the 1st test but it didn't really have a flow-on impact or anything.
let's just say that all matches are equally important in a series unless dead rubber ofcourse. hard to argue against anything.
this kohli innings is worth 1.5 times as much as sehwag's hundred in the 1st test imo.
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
all three. thats extreme. im sure someone will take this bet.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
80% is very high but I would say 30-40% is actually an accurate summation
Happens in all sports though tbf
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Has someone done a statistical test where they've shown that a player being "in good form" is actually a phenomenon?
I.e. the null hypothesis being "This grouping of good scores is no more attributable to good form than random chance"?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think Neil Pickup was working on that for a while and his data didn't seem to support the existence of form as we like to think of it.
Cabinet96
Hall of Fame Member
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/42481-class-permanent-form-illusion.html
Those graphs are really fascinating.
Those graphs are really fascinating.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
PEWS fizzing at the bung hole again
Howe_zat
Audio File
Yeah that won't happen
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Yeah, eff off stattos.
Anyone who's played any kind of sport at any level knows one has good days and bad days. When one or more of either are strung together it gets called runs of good/bad form.
In cricket, with it's unforgiving nature, it's perfectly possible to make a low score when in good nick and, equally, sometimes players can grind out a score when in no kind of form.
KP scored 80-odd (might even be 80 exactly) versus Pakistan in 2010 and didn't use the middle of his bat once.
Anyone who's played any kind of sport at any level knows one has good days and bad days. When one or more of either are strung together it gets called runs of good/bad form.
In cricket, with it's unforgiving nature, it's perfectly possible to make a low score when in good nick and, equally, sometimes players can grind out a score when in no kind of form.
KP scored 80-odd (might even be 80 exactly) versus Pakistan in 2010 and didn't use the middle of his bat once.
smash84
The Tiger King
I remember that innings. Possibly the worst 50+ score I have ever seen made by a batsman. Could have been out 50 times by the time he reached 80.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Even if so, though, it would tend to suggest that form was a over-rated factor in run-scoring if it wasn't being reflected on scorecards. Good batsmen who look out of touch still seem far more likely, if that analysis is to be believe anyway, to score runs than mediocre batsmen in great touch. And on that level it's fascinating if nothing else.
I've seen way too much cricket to cop being told that there isn't a cyclical form offset to one's ability, but perhaps we give it too much importance when predicting how a batsman will actually perform on a given day?
Spark
Global Moderator
Yeah, probably, on the basis that it only takes one decent ball or one mistimed shot to get a batsman out. That's the paradox of batting: takes a ****load of work to make a decent innings and a tenth of a second's misjudgment (if that) to end it all.
I think "form" over, say, 2-3 Tests is a bit misleading unless someone does a Shaun Marsh (or, for that matter, an Alastair Cook). But over, say, 10 Tests? You'd get a pretty good idea. Year-by-year averages are usually fairly representative.
I think "form" over, say, 2-3 Tests is a bit misleading unless someone does a Shaun Marsh (or, for that matter, an Alastair Cook). But over, say, 10 Tests? You'd get a pretty good idea. Year-by-year averages are usually fairly representative.