Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[greg]

Okay. He was on one leg for one match and had one arm for the other.
A model of fast bowling fitness !

Well if he has it for the rest of his career then that is the maximum level of fitness he can aspire to!

 

[greg]

Where are you at currently btw so we can keep track of your current awareness of how well people played in reality in the Ashes series? Mid-way through the Old Trafford test?

 

[C_C]

Well if he has it for the rest of his career then that is the maximum level of fitness he can aspire to!

Perhaps.
That remains to be seen isnt it ? As it remains now, McGrath played far below his level of physical fitness - i mean whats next ? arguing that having a McGrath doesnt matter ?

 

[C_C]

Where are you at currently btw so we can keep track of your current awareness of how well people played in reality in the Ashes series? Mid-way through the Old Trafford test?

I havnt started watching the Old Trafford test yet. Besides, like i said before, how you play is evident from your statistics- they are the bottomline and a bowler who has bowled codswallop but got 20 wickets @ 20 is gonna be considered higher in my book than a bowler who bowled outrageously well but missed the edge every single time.
For it is the numbers that are the fundamental impacting factors towards the result.

 

[greg]

I havnt started watching the Old Trafford test yet. Besides, like i said before, how you play is evident from your statistics- they are the bottomline and a bowler who has bowled codswallop but got 20 wickets @ 20 is gonna be considered higher in my book than a bowler who bowled outrageously well but missed the edge every single time.
For it is the numbers that are the fundamental impacting factors towards the result.

Except that four of McGrath's five wickets in the second innings at Old Trafford, for example, (over a fifth of his wickets in the series with a consequent heavy influence on his overall figures!) had no impact whatsoever on the series and owed little to his bowling ability other than the extent that he is capable of taking wickets in the middle of a pre-declaration slog.

Statistics can lie massively over such a small sample period (hell they can be skewed massively over a whole career), in exactly the way that Lara's 400 at Antigua superficially covers up the fact that England had him absolutely in their back pocket during that series.

 

[C_C]

Except that four of McGrath's five wickets in the second innings at Old Trafford, for example, (over a fifth of his wickets in the series with a consequent heavy influence on his overall figures!) had no impact whatsoever on the series and owed little to his bowling ability other than the extent that he is capable of taking wickets in the middle of a pre-declaration slog.

Impact on the series is determined by how well your team plays. You could pull a Lara and score a magnificient 153* but if Walsh decieded to do one of his 'duck a yorker' routine, it wouldnt have impacted the series. Therefore, you cannot tie in an individual performance as a direct marker towards the match result, except for figuring out whether he has done his part or not ( taking wickets/Scoring runs = doing his part).

Statistics can lie massively over such a small sample period (hell they can be skewed massively over a whole career), in exactly the way that Lara's 400 at Antigua superficially covers up the fact that England had him absolutely in their back pocket during that series.

No it is evident that England had the better of Lara in that caribbean series. Incase you didnt realise, statistics is not just the average - it is consistency as well.
And Kor blimey! you arguing that it is too small a sample period ? after arguing for so long that its 'this instant and latest and current' that only matters ?
Wonder of wonders!

 

[greg]

Impact on the series is determined by how well your team plays. You could pull a Lara and score a magnificient 153* but if Walsh decieded to do one of his 'duck a yorker' routine, it wouldnt have impacted the series. Therefore, you cannot tie in an individual performance as a direct marker towards the match result, except for figuring out whether he has done his part or not ( taking wickets/Scoring runs = doing his part).

That's neither here nor there. It probably barely even had an impact on the match situation. England were slogging their way to a declaration. Surely you can see that wickets taken in such a situation say little about how well or not a bowler has bowled, and therefore if they boost a bowler's statistics (which YOU, not I, are using to judge the relative merits of various bowlers in a series) they are likely to result in misleading statistics.

No it is evident that England had the better of Lara in that caribbean series. Incase you didnt realise, statistics is not just the average - it is consistency as well.
And Kor blimey! you arguing that it is too small a sample period ? after arguing for so long that its 'this instant and latest and current' that only matters ?
Wonder of wonders!

Unsurprisingly you miss the point as usual. You, not I, are the one who is trying to form conclusions about player's performances from their statistics. I do not restrict myself to the statistics (as I have written somewhere before statistics, used correctly, are best used to inform and occasionally challenge opinions, but not to form them in the first place) so I do not have to worry about the size of the sample period. If the statistics are such that they potentially contradict my opinion then I must seek an explanation for that. The fact that the statistics might be skewed, especially likely in a small sample period, is one explanation for that.

 

[C_C]

hat's neither here nor there. It probably barely even had an impact on the match situation. England were slogging their way to a declaration. Surely you can see that wickets taken in such a situation say little about how well or not a bowler has bowled, and therefore if they boost a bowler's statistics (which YOU, not I, are using to judge the relative merits of various bowlers in a series) they are likely to result in misleading statistics.

And those lil facets balance out - even during the span of this short series. If England lost wickets due to slogging in that match, McGrath earned each and every wicket in the first test where England were furiously backpedalling, thereby increasing the value of those wickets and thus making the scales even.

(as I have written somewhere before statistics, used correctly, are best used to inform and occasionally challenge opinions, but not to form them in the first place)

Your assessment is something i disagree with.
Statistics are the fundamental bottomline.
The fundamental bottomline to win in test cricket is to take 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded. Doesnt matter how good or how bad you bowl- if you fulfill that criteria, you win. Therefore, you doing your part statistically can be said to be a good effort. It doesnt matter if you or i think that a bowler has bowled well or a batsman has batted well. If their statistics for that series is 20 wickets @ 55.50, they have bowled pathetically. Simple as that. Therefore, statistics is something that you use primrarily to form an opinion, not your notions and likes or dislikes- which we ALL are influenced by.
Statistics might be skewed but numbers lie a lot less than the complexity of human emotions - therefore, if my opinion is contradicted outright by statistics, i dont look around to justify my opinion with pusillanimous vacillations but rather, i change my opinion.
You will find that this approach is a LOT more justifiable, consistent and correct than simply following your intuitive understanding of the game, since one doesnt take into account their biases and viewpoints. ( to the vast majority of english fans for eg - or any fans for that matter- a comparable bowling performance by a homeboy will seem quantifiably better than the bowling perforance by the opposition- that is only natural as your loyalties lie to your team and anything that bolsters the position of your team will get extra marks in your subconcious).
Which is why you would find, most simulations - even in sports - rely on the mathematical veracity of that simulation, not an intuitive feel of it.

 

[greg]

And those lil facets balance out - even during the span of this short series. If England lost wickets due to slogging in that match, McGrath earned each and every wicket in the first test where England were furiously backpedalling, thereby increasing the value of those wickets and thus making the scales even.



Your assessment is something i disagree with.
Statistics are the fundamental bottomline.
The fundamental bottomline to win in test cricket is to take 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded. Doesnt matter how good or how bad you bowl- if you fulfill that criteria, you win. Therefore, you doing your part statistically can be said to be a good effort. It doesnt matter if you or i think that a bowler has bowled well or a batsman has batted well. If their statistics for that series is 20 wickets @ 55.50, they have bowled pathetically. Simple as that. Therefore, statistics is something that you use primrarily to form an opinion, not your notions and likes or dislikes- which we ALL are influenced by.
Statistics might be skewed but numbers lie a lot less than the complexity of human emotions - therefore, if my opinion is contradicted outright by statistics, i dont look around to justify my opinion with pusillanimous vacillations but rather, i change my opinion.
You will find that this approach is a LOT more justifiable, consistent and correct than simply following your intuitive understanding of the game, since one doesnt take into account their biases and viewpoints. ( to the vast majority of english fans for eg - or any fans for that matter- a comparable bowling performance by a homeboy will seem quantifiably better than the bowling perforance by the opposition- that is only natural as your loyalties lie to your team and anything that bolsters the position of your team will get extra marks in your subconcious).
Which is why you would find, most simulations - even in sports - rely on the mathematical veracity of that simulation, not an intuitive feel of it.

You also fundamentally ignore the team factor in cricket. Ashley Giles' bowling statistics in the current series were, i think we can all agree, pathetic. However his statistics don't go close to revealing the impact of his bowling on team performance, to the extent that his bowling probably contributed greatly to a reduction in the averages of other bowlers (due to allowing them to rest, keep an end tight, breaking the odd crucial partnership) and so on. You can have the same arguments over the value of tailenders scoring runs crystallising in the debate over the value of a good wicketkeeper vs his ability to score runs (it is obviously not just a simple calculation of extra runs scored vs extra runs conceded in byes and dropped catches). You would have to produce an incredibly complicated statistical model to quantify such factors.

 

[C_C]

You also fundamentally ignore the team factor in cricket. Ashley Giles' bowling statistics in the current series were, i think we can all agree, pathetic. However his statistics don't go close to revealing the impact of his bowling on team performance, to the extent that his bowling probably contributed greatly to a reduction in the averages of other bowlers (due to allowing them to rest, keep an end tight, breaking the odd crucial partnership) and so on. You can have the same arguments over the value of tailenders scoring runs crystallising in the debate over the value of a good wicketkeeper vs his ability to score runs (it is obviously not just a simple calculation of extra runs scored vs extra runs conceded in byes and dropped catches). You would have to produce an incredibly complicated statistical model to quantify such factors.

Indeed. Your point about wicketkeepers is well founded - which is why i do not just statistically quantify wicketkeepers and which is why i have argued that someone like Knott is very close to his value to the team compared to Gillchrist.
Team factor in cricket ? Team is composed of the members it makes up for. The only team factor that really enters the equation is fielding - this is not baseball, this is cricket - a team of individual performances largely - evidenced by the fact that it is often an small collection of extremely accomplished individuals who carry the team to success.
The point you mentioned about Giles is invalid - most of the time he got clobbered or was utterly ineffective. Pressure is built by bowlers who continuously make you play and miss but then again, that too balances out as it works both ways between two bowlers.

But the biggest fundamental point you are missing is that an intuitive feel of cricket is nowhere as authentic as a mathematical feel of it - mathematics is free from the prejudices of the human mind, intuition isnt. By putting intuition ahead of facts, you are essentially putting yourself in the biassed category rather than the unbiassed one.

 

[greg]

Indeed. Your point about wicketkeepers is well founded - which is why i do not just statistically quantify wicketkeepers and which is why i have argued that someone like Knott is very close to his value to the team compared to Gillchrist.
Team factor in cricket ? Team is composed of the members it makes up for. The only team factor that really enters the equation is fielding - this is not baseball, this is cricket - a team of individual performances largely - evidenced by the fact that it is often an small collection of extremely accomplished individuals who carry the team to success.
The point you mentioned about Giles is invalid - most of the time he got clobbered or was utterly ineffective. Pressure is built by bowlers who continuously make you play and miss but then again, that too balances out as it works both ways between two bowlers.

But the biggest fundamental point you are missing is that an intuitive feel of cricket is nowhere as authentic as a mathematical feel of it - mathematics is free from the prejudices of the human mind, intuition isnt. By putting intuition ahead of facts, you are essentially putting yourself in the biassed category rather than the unbiassed one.

Lol. You haven't even watched the series and yet you know how his (Giles') bowling was treated. And you have completely misunderstood the point about wicketkeepers. A batsman/keeper is arguably worth a lot MORE than a simple comparison of averages. Otherwise Geraint Jones wouldn't be anywhere near the England team.

 

[C_C]

Lol. You haven't even watched the series and yet you know how his (Giles') bowling was treated. And you have completely misunderstood the point about wicketkeepers. A batsman/keeper is arguably worth a lot MORE than a simple comparison of averages. Otherwise Geraint Jones wouldn't be anywhere near the England team.

Yes, i am sure i need to really watch the game to realise 10-0-90-1 isnt an utter pumelling.
Like i said, you'd be a lot more consistent if you formed an opinion grounded in facts and neutrality ( ie statistics) instead of forming an opinion based on your psyche while data mining ( which is, looking specifically for data that corroborates your opinion while discarding all other that doesnt fit into it).

A batsman/keeper may be worth more than just a keeper but it isnt easily quantified- which is why i dont use simple statistics to discuss the merits of a keeper.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You also fundamentally ignore the team factor in cricket. Ashley Giles' bowling statistics in the current series were, i think we can all agree, pathetic. However his statistics don't go close to revealing the impact of his bowling on team performance, to the extent that his bowling probably contributed greatly to a reduction in the averages of other bowlers (due to allowing them to rest, keep an end tight, breaking the odd crucial partnership) and so on.

His average was pathetic, his performance was only a little better solely because his wickets were mostly top order players. If he'd have had an economy rate of 2 or so an over then his contribution to the team would have been far bigger than his average, but instead he gave away runs at a fast rate (3.61 an over) and so didn't build any run-scoring pressure either. Giles also had 2 occasions (his contribution was pretty poor in the 4th Test too but I've not included it here) where he should have been the main threat with the ball and ended up nearly costing the second Test and helping Australia to draw the third. As for giving the other bowlers a rest, anyone could do that, they may as well have brought Bell on and told him to bowl reasonably negatively as he did in the 4th Test - he couldn't average worse than 50+ and I doubt he'd go at over 3.61 an over either.

 

[marc71178]

Far from being very poor but they are probably the most inconsistent among 'established' test playing nations.

Yes, but there's big difference between that and "minnows"

Yes, the current side might be very weak because of all the contract issues, but that side bears no resemblance to the so called minnows that England played against.

 

[marc71178]

Thank you for correcting that typo- but you knew i was talking to Delgado's comment about the last six series.

Exactly the same as you knew what I meant about the West Indies, but decided to be a pedant...

 

[marc71178]

England have been performing well for 2 years or so. In those two years, they have played a lot of minnows.

Since when has 1 been a lot?

 

[marc71178]

It has a LOT of relevance if one wishes to establish a pattern and predict results based on mathematical thinking instead of nationalistic skullduggery.

Yes, and if Cricket followed these so called patterns this thread wouldn't have happened because the Ashes would've finished 4-1 to Australia.

Thus any talk of series from 4 years ago is irrelevant.

 

[C_C]

Since when has 1 been a lot?

3 series - bangladesh and west indies. whether you like it or not, west indies is a minnow for the past 3-4 years and has done jack-all.

 

[C_C]

Yes, and if Cricket followed these so called patterns this thread wouldn't have happened because the Ashes would've finished 4-1 to Australia.

Thus any talk of series from 4 years ago is irrelevant.

Which is why i suppose everyone was predicting the OZ to retain the ashes, isnt it ?
When you grow up and try working in the real world, you'd realise that statistical modelling is far superior to your intuitive biases.

 

[marc71178]

I havnt started watching the Old Trafford test yet.

So you've only (illegally I may add) seen 2 Tests, but know enough to write off England's performances...

Nice one Richard.