honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
yay to me and a bigger yay to the real Statsguru....... SJS.... 
-
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.
Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
haha, good work my fellow employees and president SJS!
I'm still shotgunning the McGrath - Gilchrist stats! Be up by tomorrow night...
I'm still shotgunning the McGrath - Gilchrist stats! Be up by tomorrow night...
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I must admit you have proved to be worthy of a place in the organisation but if we hire too many people we may run out of clientsvic_orthdox said:
However, considering the immense potential shown by you in your first assignment you are taken on board in line with our policy of encouraging emerging talent
Welcome.
Please attend to work immediately
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
No, I completely understand your point, and while I'm certainly very honoured, I think I can come up with a compromise that's a great solution for all parties involved.
Vic_orthdox, freelance article writer??
Vic_orthdox, freelance article writer??
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Jack's Late Night Theses, numero due.
Upul Chandana is a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan
Muttiah Muralitharan has been referred to by many as the greatest ever bowler in world cricket. Except by Australian umpires. And to the horror of the many Murali supporters around the world, I have to side with these Australian umpries. Because there is one bowler who is definently better than the great "Murali".
Umagiliya Durage Upul Chandana.
Now, as I alluded to earlier, I was tempted to use statistics out of the pioneer cricketing game "International Cricket Captain", in which you often find that Upul Chandana is often the second most expensive player in the game, behind only Greg Blewett, who incidentally is the greatest batsman since Bradman. But I'll leave that for another time. However, I realised that there are real facts that prove that Murali is far inferior to the greatest leg spinner that the world has ever seen, (being Chandana; because Shane Warne has taken roughly 8/9ths of his wickets with balls that aren't spinning, i.e. slider, top spinner, flipper, and therefore as such can't be considered a proper leg spinner. And anyways, by being as far superior than Murali as what Upul is, you are clearly better than Warne.)
Now before you start saying that "If Warne's been taking diuretics to get thin, then Chandana, who at last check weighed in at 19.4kgs, must avoid these weight loss pills like Robert Downey Jr. avoids credit cards and toilets", well, innocent till proven guilty
.
However, I digress. Muttiah Muralitharan, his critics say, is a minnow basher. And this commentator agrees. Averaging less than 24 against every side except for India and Australia, widely considered the two best batting sides during Murali's career. HA! Both these teams he averages over 30 against. So I decided to measure these two powerhouses versus the best in the business. Unfortunately, for some strange reason (must have been politics), Chandana has never played against India. Therefore, from here on in, all statistical comparisons will be made in their comparative statistics versus Australia.
Now, to the horror of this reporter, Chandana's average versus the best was outstripped by Muttiah's. After recovering from the shock, I managed to note that the difference was only .51 runs per wicket. Since no team has ever won or lost a game by half a run, I decided that these figures needed further investigation.
Muralitharan's other achilles heel, in the eyes of his detractors, is that the local groundsmen produce wickets that favour his type of bowling. Now, keep in mind that for the purpose of this exercise, Muralitharan's type of bowling is completely different to Chandana's. Murali's is the type that takes 532 Test wickets, Chandana's is the type that takes 37. Muralitharan at home versus Australia has taken numerous wickets at quite a reasonable rate (26.12 to be exact), but because of the doubt over the legitimacy of these pitches, means that we are faced with a choice. We can either:
1. Discard these figures
2. Add an extra 33 onto his bowling average vs Aus in Sri Lanka, because I'm in a mean mood.
I've decided to discard these figures, because in the three seconds it took to move onto this paragraph, my mood became slightly better. But what the hell, we'll add the 33 and then discard the figures for being inaccurate.
Now that I've explained why comparing figures versus Australian in Australia is the only accurate way of comparing the two bowlers, for the time being and while it suits my argument, I will show the wise members of CW why the thin wiry one is a much better bowler than the short stumpy one with the really scary eyes.
Average vs Aus in Aus.
M. Muralitharan: 116.0
U. Chandana: 22.5
Wait, did that say "22.5"?
This of course in a continent notoriously harsh on spinners. Except at the SCG. Oh, I get it, Chandana's figures must be distorted by his figures at the SCG...wait a second!! He achieved these figures without setting a foot in Sydney!
Instead, playing on a seamer and one of the world's flattest pitches in Cairns and Darwin respectively.
Now for those willing to bring up Chandana's home record versus Australia, those who have watched the 1999 series will be able to testify (as I didn't watch, I find looking at Chandana makes me feel vulnerable about my body image) that Chandana bowled rather well, and this despite being affected by the political troubles surrounding him at the time.
If I remember correctly, in the prior series he got in line for seconds at lunch before the visiting Arjuna Ranatunga, and took the last helping. If this hadn't have happened, and we all are aware of Arjuna's ability to throw his weight around in cricketing circles in Sri Lanka, then Chandana would have been able to settle into a rhythm without fear of being shot by a hired soldier, and therefore it can be concluded he would have bowled better than what he did anyway, taking more wickets and furthering his record versus Aus at the expense of Murali, who was able to capitalise on Chandana's worries.
In straight comparison of the pair's record versus Australia, it should be noted that Murali's strike rate is 17 balls more per wicket than that of Chandana, who's strike rate of 44 is as good as any bowler going around against Australia, I'm sure.
Now to be fair to Muralitharan, he has taken 532 test wickets. I mean, surely we can take something out of that. Well, when confronted with the fact that he's taken 431 of these against relative minnows, we can say that his figures are clearly distorted. He has taken only 19% of his wickets against batting line ups of any worth. In comparison, Chandana has taken 40% of his wickets against the top team in the world throughout his career.
What is particularly scary is the potential prowess of Chandana if he is let loose against Australia again. Having taken two five wicket hauls and one match haul of 10, if he were to play another, lets say for statistics sake, another 20 tests versus Australia at home or away, as being such a specialist versus this nation it is foreseeable that they will bring him out of retirement every time the baggy greens are up on the schedule, he will have 6 ten wicket haul versus Australia by this time, showing his potential for ripping through batting line ups. In comparison, Murali would only have 3. That's right, a measly 3.
What saddens me is that it is only the people of Empire Interactive that have truly seen the talent of Upul Chandana, where they maintain that his average consistently beat Murali's by a good 7 runs. As it should. If the young toothpick had have had more chances, he surely would be recognised as the man who casts a shadow over Muralitharan, instead of Ross Emerson.
The defence catches breath...and then rests, Your Honour.
Upul Chandana is a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan
Muttiah Muralitharan has been referred to by many as the greatest ever bowler in world cricket. Except by Australian umpires. And to the horror of the many Murali supporters around the world, I have to side with these Australian umpries. Because there is one bowler who is definently better than the great "Murali".
Umagiliya Durage Upul Chandana.
Now, as I alluded to earlier, I was tempted to use statistics out of the pioneer cricketing game "International Cricket Captain", in which you often find that Upul Chandana is often the second most expensive player in the game, behind only Greg Blewett, who incidentally is the greatest batsman since Bradman. But I'll leave that for another time. However, I realised that there are real facts that prove that Murali is far inferior to the greatest leg spinner that the world has ever seen, (being Chandana; because Shane Warne has taken roughly 8/9ths of his wickets with balls that aren't spinning, i.e. slider, top spinner, flipper, and therefore as such can't be considered a proper leg spinner. And anyways, by being as far superior than Murali as what Upul is, you are clearly better than Warne.)
Now before you start saying that "If Warne's been taking diuretics to get thin, then Chandana, who at last check weighed in at 19.4kgs, must avoid these weight loss pills like Robert Downey Jr. avoids credit cards and toilets", well, innocent till proven guilty
.However, I digress. Muttiah Muralitharan, his critics say, is a minnow basher. And this commentator agrees. Averaging less than 24 against every side except for India and Australia, widely considered the two best batting sides during Murali's career. HA! Both these teams he averages over 30 against. So I decided to measure these two powerhouses versus the best in the business. Unfortunately, for some strange reason (must have been politics), Chandana has never played against India. Therefore, from here on in, all statistical comparisons will be made in their comparative statistics versus Australia.
Now, to the horror of this reporter, Chandana's average versus the best was outstripped by Muttiah's. After recovering from the shock, I managed to note that the difference was only .51 runs per wicket. Since no team has ever won or lost a game by half a run, I decided that these figures needed further investigation.
Muralitharan's other achilles heel, in the eyes of his detractors, is that the local groundsmen produce wickets that favour his type of bowling. Now, keep in mind that for the purpose of this exercise, Muralitharan's type of bowling is completely different to Chandana's. Murali's is the type that takes 532 Test wickets, Chandana's is the type that takes 37. Muralitharan at home versus Australia has taken numerous wickets at quite a reasonable rate (26.12 to be exact), but because of the doubt over the legitimacy of these pitches, means that we are faced with a choice. We can either:
1. Discard these figures
2. Add an extra 33 onto his bowling average vs Aus in Sri Lanka, because I'm in a mean mood.
I've decided to discard these figures, because in the three seconds it took to move onto this paragraph, my mood became slightly better. But what the hell, we'll add the 33 and then discard the figures for being inaccurate.
Now that I've explained why comparing figures versus Australian in Australia is the only accurate way of comparing the two bowlers, for the time being and while it suits my argument, I will show the wise members of CW why the thin wiry one is a much better bowler than the short stumpy one with the really scary eyes.
Average vs Aus in Aus.
M. Muralitharan: 116.0
U. Chandana: 22.5
Wait, did that say "22.5"?
This of course in a continent notoriously harsh on spinners. Except at the SCG. Oh, I get it, Chandana's figures must be distorted by his figures at the SCG...wait a second!! He achieved these figures without setting a foot in Sydney!
Instead, playing on a seamer and one of the world's flattest pitches in Cairns and Darwin respectively. Now for those willing to bring up Chandana's home record versus Australia, those who have watched the 1999 series will be able to testify (as I didn't watch, I find looking at Chandana makes me feel vulnerable about my body image) that Chandana bowled rather well, and this despite being affected by the political troubles surrounding him at the time.
If I remember correctly, in the prior series he got in line for seconds at lunch before the visiting Arjuna Ranatunga, and took the last helping. If this hadn't have happened, and we all are aware of Arjuna's ability to throw his weight around in cricketing circles in Sri Lanka, then Chandana would have been able to settle into a rhythm without fear of being shot by a hired soldier, and therefore it can be concluded he would have bowled better than what he did anyway, taking more wickets and furthering his record versus Aus at the expense of Murali, who was able to capitalise on Chandana's worries.
In straight comparison of the pair's record versus Australia, it should be noted that Murali's strike rate is 17 balls more per wicket than that of Chandana, who's strike rate of 44 is as good as any bowler going around against Australia, I'm sure.
Now to be fair to Muralitharan, he has taken 532 test wickets. I mean, surely we can take something out of that. Well, when confronted with the fact that he's taken 431 of these against relative minnows, we can say that his figures are clearly distorted. He has taken only 19% of his wickets against batting line ups of any worth. In comparison, Chandana has taken 40% of his wickets against the top team in the world throughout his career.
What is particularly scary is the potential prowess of Chandana if he is let loose against Australia again. Having taken two five wicket hauls and one match haul of 10, if he were to play another, lets say for statistics sake, another 20 tests versus Australia at home or away, as being such a specialist versus this nation it is foreseeable that they will bring him out of retirement every time the baggy greens are up on the schedule, he will have 6 ten wicket haul versus Australia by this time, showing his potential for ripping through batting line ups. In comparison, Murali would only have 3. That's right, a measly 3.
What saddens me is that it is only the people of Empire Interactive that have truly seen the talent of Upul Chandana, where they maintain that his average consistently beat Murali's by a good 7 runs. As it should. If the young toothpick had have had more chances, he surely would be recognised as the man who casts a shadow over Muralitharan, instead of Ross Emerson.
The defence catches breath...and then rests, Your Honour.
Last edited:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, personally I'm honoured that in reading these you actually think they take a lot of time to write!Deja moo said:
Then again, this is coming from someone who's been going to write about McGrath and Gilchrist for 4 days, so maybe I should be quiet.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Aha !! So there you areSon Of Coco said:Well, personally I'm honoured that in reading these you actually think they take a lot of time to write!
Extended weekend eh ?
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
SJS said:Aha !! So there you are
Extended weekend eh ?
Sorry boss!I needed an extra couple of days off after holding the fort during the weekend rush!
I have managed to bring a finished piece with me though - hope it's up to scratch!
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why Glenn McGrath should be making one of England’s bowlers his target in this Ashes series![/B]
A lot has been made of Adam Gilchrist’s lethal performances with the bat over the last 7 years or so, but what about the forgotten man of Australian cricket – Glenn McGrath? A part-time bowler whose claims to batting greatness have generally been thwarted by his continual placement at the very bottom of Australia’s order, he’s generally regarded as a bit of a batting bunny. His plight certainly hasn’t been helped by articles such as this appearing in various news outlets around the cricketing globe:
McGrath Vindicated
"Glenn McGrath today took advantage of the newly relaxed laws regarding the player's Code of Conduct to speak out about rumours surrounding his position at no.11 in the National team.
It had been reported in the media that Glenn may be struggling to hold on to his spot at 11 and may in fact be moved down to 10.
McGrath responded by saying "The number 11 spot in any batting line-up is a specialist position, and I feel it's ludicrous to suggest that a rookie can simply waltz into the team and go straight in at the tail. I've fought hard over the last 10 years to make it my own"
Glenn's coach, Barry Average, also weighed into the debate saying "Glenn and I have worked hard together to hone his batting to a finely crafted edge, and rumours such as these undermine all the hard work we've put in together over the years."
Barry also shared some of the duo's training secrets with us, revealing that the secret to Glenn's success is his patented "Barn Door and Shovel" routine. "Last week Glenn actually swung the shovel and hit the barn door, it was a breakthrough, and I think the only way is up from here", Barry said.
Glenn hopes his recent form will have quashed any rumours he is going to lose his coveted number 11 spot.
He finished by thanking Michael Kasprowicz for preventing him from doing his own cause any harm in the First Test against Sri Lanka.
"I felt like I was actually hitting them ok there in the second innings, and was seeing them almost as big as cricket balls, luckily Kasper could see what happening from the other end and sacrificed himself with a wild pull shot before I could do any real damage to my cause."
Tune in to the second half of the revealing interview with Glenn next week when he shares some of his batting tips with aspiring young no.11's, and also tells us why he thinks he might have been able to sneak the aluminium bat into test cricket undetected."
(Note: Article taken from The Bladder website by the writer of this statistical piece in what may, or may not, be a gratuitous plug for both the site and his contribution)
I think Glenn brought up quite a pertinent point in that article though – and that is the idea that, by batting at 11, he really is in a specialist position all on his own. Whilst the glory boys like Ponting, Martyn, Hayden, and indeed Gilchrist prance around with any number of partners in hand knowing that all they have to do to score runs is stay at the crease…McGrath is up against right from the start, knowing that if a wicket falls (whether it’s his or not) he’s out of there!
This might sound a little like a bunch of excuses penned to cover up for McGrath’s apparent weakness with the willow, but I’m prepared to wheel out a set of stats right here and now that will have you convinced that McGrath is the better batsman out of himself and Gilchrist!
* I’m looking at stats from Gilchrist’s First Test onwards here as I feel it’s important to make a direct comparison of the two across Tests they’ve both played in. Some of you will no doubt argue that McGrath had some 6 years to become accustomed to batting in Test match situations by the time Gilchrist came on the scene….but I’d put it to you that by the end of Gilchrist’s First Test they were pretty much even as far as aggregate goes.
* I’ve done an analysis of games Australia has lost since 99/00 comparing Gilchrist and McGrath’s records and have come up with some amazing findings! In this period Gilchrist has scored 440 runs @ 29.33 in losing games with two ducks and 0 not outs. McGrath has scored 87 runs @ 21.75 in the same games, again with two ducks and 7 not outs. Gilchrist has the higher average, but it does highlight something I’ve noticed for a while now – when McGrath fails with the bat, the team inevitably loses!
* Further to this, McGrath has an amazing 7 not outs in this period, to Gilchrist’s 0. I thought it necessary to add an element of scaling here given the extraordinary amount of times McGrath was left stranded…so I took into account the fact that an ordinary batsman would be expected to convert at least two of these ‘starts’ into big scores (i.e. 100’s) so if we add 200 to McGrath’s total he has 287 runs at an astounding average of 71.75!! This not only makes him better than Gilchrist, he’s been the best batsman in the team in losing efforts since 99/00! So not only does the team fail when McGrath doesn’t fire, when the team loses because they don’t fire it robs McGrath of the chance to fire! He’s basically a smoldering ember held in check by the damp cloth that is his under performing team-mates!
* In fact, if you apply the ‘not out’ system of run accreditation (copyrighted by this stats firm as of today), McGrath has an amazing 42 not outs during his career! That’s an extra 1200 runs which brings his average up to 14.8…if you then times that by the number of positions Gilchrist is ahead of him in the batting list (4) to come up with a fair result you see that McGrath’s test batting average is a resounding 59.2, a long way ahead of Gilchrist’s average of 55.64…and involving a hell of a lot more tests! Consistency, that’s what it’s all about folks!
* Considering McGrath is a number 11 it’s pretty much a given that he’s never officially been ‘out’ in his whole life, so when he does actually fall prey to a legitimate dismissal his average will be (weighted and factored) 1756+ - amazing stuff from probably the best batsman we’ve ever seen.
* As far as aggression goes, Gilchrist’s strike rate is a rather high 83.26 in tests – one of the highest ever. But if we again factor in McGrath’s position in the order, and take into consideration the fact that he rarely ever lasts more than 11.1 balls, we see that his 1756 runs came in 1332 balls (120 innings), giving him a strike rate of 131.83….again much higher than Gilchrist.
I have to confess that when Andy mentioned aggression I wasn’t sure whether he was referring to the physical act or the approach to batting. Deeming the first way too easy to prove in McGrath’s favour I opted for the latter…and was surprised to see both fall to McGrath.
I know this has been a lengthy stats thesis. Given the perception some people have of his ability with the willow though I felt it necessary to support my findings with numerous facts to back them up.
I hope you can all now sit back and appreciate McGrath as possibly the greatest attacking batsman the game has ever seen, and quite a useful part-time bowler as well.
Thank you…..and goodnight.
A lot has been made of Adam Gilchrist’s lethal performances with the bat over the last 7 years or so, but what about the forgotten man of Australian cricket – Glenn McGrath? A part-time bowler whose claims to batting greatness have generally been thwarted by his continual placement at the very bottom of Australia’s order, he’s generally regarded as a bit of a batting bunny. His plight certainly hasn’t been helped by articles such as this appearing in various news outlets around the cricketing globe:
McGrath Vindicated
"Glenn McGrath today took advantage of the newly relaxed laws regarding the player's Code of Conduct to speak out about rumours surrounding his position at no.11 in the National team.
It had been reported in the media that Glenn may be struggling to hold on to his spot at 11 and may in fact be moved down to 10.
McGrath responded by saying "The number 11 spot in any batting line-up is a specialist position, and I feel it's ludicrous to suggest that a rookie can simply waltz into the team and go straight in at the tail. I've fought hard over the last 10 years to make it my own"
Glenn's coach, Barry Average, also weighed into the debate saying "Glenn and I have worked hard together to hone his batting to a finely crafted edge, and rumours such as these undermine all the hard work we've put in together over the years."
Barry also shared some of the duo's training secrets with us, revealing that the secret to Glenn's success is his patented "Barn Door and Shovel" routine. "Last week Glenn actually swung the shovel and hit the barn door, it was a breakthrough, and I think the only way is up from here", Barry said.
Glenn hopes his recent form will have quashed any rumours he is going to lose his coveted number 11 spot.
He finished by thanking Michael Kasprowicz for preventing him from doing his own cause any harm in the First Test against Sri Lanka.
"I felt like I was actually hitting them ok there in the second innings, and was seeing them almost as big as cricket balls, luckily Kasper could see what happening from the other end and sacrificed himself with a wild pull shot before I could do any real damage to my cause."
Tune in to the second half of the revealing interview with Glenn next week when he shares some of his batting tips with aspiring young no.11's, and also tells us why he thinks he might have been able to sneak the aluminium bat into test cricket undetected."
(Note: Article taken from The Bladder website by the writer of this statistical piece in what may, or may not, be a gratuitous plug for both the site and his contribution)
I think Glenn brought up quite a pertinent point in that article though – and that is the idea that, by batting at 11, he really is in a specialist position all on his own. Whilst the glory boys like Ponting, Martyn, Hayden, and indeed Gilchrist prance around with any number of partners in hand knowing that all they have to do to score runs is stay at the crease…McGrath is up against right from the start, knowing that if a wicket falls (whether it’s his or not) he’s out of there!
This might sound a little like a bunch of excuses penned to cover up for McGrath’s apparent weakness with the willow, but I’m prepared to wheel out a set of stats right here and now that will have you convinced that McGrath is the better batsman out of himself and Gilchrist!
* I’m looking at stats from Gilchrist’s First Test onwards here as I feel it’s important to make a direct comparison of the two across Tests they’ve both played in. Some of you will no doubt argue that McGrath had some 6 years to become accustomed to batting in Test match situations by the time Gilchrist came on the scene….but I’d put it to you that by the end of Gilchrist’s First Test they were pretty much even as far as aggregate goes.
* I’ve done an analysis of games Australia has lost since 99/00 comparing Gilchrist and McGrath’s records and have come up with some amazing findings! In this period Gilchrist has scored 440 runs @ 29.33 in losing games with two ducks and 0 not outs. McGrath has scored 87 runs @ 21.75 in the same games, again with two ducks and 7 not outs. Gilchrist has the higher average, but it does highlight something I’ve noticed for a while now – when McGrath fails with the bat, the team inevitably loses!
* Further to this, McGrath has an amazing 7 not outs in this period, to Gilchrist’s 0. I thought it necessary to add an element of scaling here given the extraordinary amount of times McGrath was left stranded…so I took into account the fact that an ordinary batsman would be expected to convert at least two of these ‘starts’ into big scores (i.e. 100’s) so if we add 200 to McGrath’s total he has 287 runs at an astounding average of 71.75!! This not only makes him better than Gilchrist, he’s been the best batsman in the team in losing efforts since 99/00! So not only does the team fail when McGrath doesn’t fire, when the team loses because they don’t fire it robs McGrath of the chance to fire! He’s basically a smoldering ember held in check by the damp cloth that is his under performing team-mates!
* In fact, if you apply the ‘not out’ system of run accreditation (copyrighted by this stats firm as of today), McGrath has an amazing 42 not outs during his career! That’s an extra 1200 runs which brings his average up to 14.8…if you then times that by the number of positions Gilchrist is ahead of him in the batting list (4) to come up with a fair result you see that McGrath’s test batting average is a resounding 59.2, a long way ahead of Gilchrist’s average of 55.64…and involving a hell of a lot more tests! Consistency, that’s what it’s all about folks!
* Considering McGrath is a number 11 it’s pretty much a given that he’s never officially been ‘out’ in his whole life, so when he does actually fall prey to a legitimate dismissal his average will be (weighted and factored) 1756+ - amazing stuff from probably the best batsman we’ve ever seen.
* As far as aggression goes, Gilchrist’s strike rate is a rather high 83.26 in tests – one of the highest ever. But if we again factor in McGrath’s position in the order, and take into consideration the fact that he rarely ever lasts more than 11.1 balls, we see that his 1756 runs came in 1332 balls (120 innings), giving him a strike rate of 131.83….again much higher than Gilchrist.
I have to confess that when Andy mentioned aggression I wasn’t sure whether he was referring to the physical act or the approach to batting. Deeming the first way too easy to prove in McGrath’s favour I opted for the latter…and was surprised to see both fall to McGrath.
I know this has been a lengthy stats thesis. Given the perception some people have of his ability with the willow though I felt it necessary to support my findings with numerous facts to back them up.
I hope you can all now sit back and appreciate McGrath as possibly the greatest attacking batsman the game has ever seen, and quite a useful part-time bowler as well.
Thank you…..and goodnight.
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Brilliant stuff as usual from our CSA.
I would just like to add a word for those who keep talking of Gilchrist's aggressive game. Please remember that Gilchrist's weigthed average position in the batting order for Australia in tests has been 6.68 as against 10.9333 for McGrath.
Clearly with only one-fifteenth of a batsman to follow him, MacGrath has been put under great pressure not to play the slogs that Gilchrist and his ilk can afford the luxury of.
I would just like to add a word for those who keep talking of Gilchrist's aggressive game. Please remember that Gilchrist's weigthed average position in the batting order for Australia in tests has been 6.68 as against 10.9333 for McGrath.
Clearly with only one-fifteenth of a batsman to follow him, MacGrath has been put under great pressure not to play the slogs that Gilchrist and his ilk can afford the luxury of.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
hahahaSJS said:
Thank you SJS! In my haste to get this out to the public I overlooked this very important point!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
lol.....Awesome work guys. Your company's shares should be going through the roofs by now...
Anyways, I have got another one... Can you prove that Ambrose > Lara as a batsman?
Anyways, I have got another one... Can you prove that Ambrose > Lara as a batsman?
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
hmmm, the easy way out here is to say "See formulas used for McGrath-Gilchrist comparisons and apply them to your question"SJS said:Back to work SoC
But we never take the easy way out...
Goodnight, the offices are closed - see you tomorrow
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
also, id like to point out that batting down the order is indeed hard, because all the times you're not out was when you were getting ready for that big, whirlwind century, and instead, you have to play defensively and let mr big-shot-middle-order-batsman get all the runs
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Somehow, the tone of that post makes me think that you bat somewhere lower down the order yourself....andyc said: