Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[marc71178]

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.

Except in the context of the series, 3.61 was slow.

 

[marc71178]

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.

No, it is currently weak because of contract issues.

That is far from being a minnow when a first choice team was available.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Yes, everyone was predicting that.

Based on past record (with different sides) - which this series has shown to be wrong. Also showing that all your theories about matches from 4 years ago being relevant are flawed.

As for growing up and working in the real world, I can guyarantee that I've done more of that in my time (and I don't resort to insults like "******")

So who is the one that has to grow up then?

I assume you also don't know about my life history since you're talking to me about statistical modelling (something which can be shown here to be irrelevant because of random things like teams changing)

 

[greg]

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.

Some might suggest, crazily, that a statistical model that predicts one result with the complete opposite happening lacks something for claiming total superiority. Maybe the model needs tweaking a bit.

 

[C_C]

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

Nice one Richard.

My name is not Richard- you would do well to not mislabel someone.
And yes, i have seen 2 tests ilegally. I am sure you are a paragon of legal virtue ( i am sure i wont find a single MP3 in your computer if i could ping it with an invasive program) .

Based on past record (with different sides) - which this series has shown to be wrong. Also showing that all your theories about matches from 4 years ago being relevant are flawed.

Dear boy, any futuristic predictions are flawed - simply because it is a fundamental conundrum- you cannot know the future unless you take every single universal variable into account. Hence the word prediction comes into play. You will find, in the real world- the world where one actually has huge stakes riding in futuristic modelling ( will the spacecraft stand the heat of re-entry/will there be oil here if we dig, etc) uses my method of established statistical trends and judgement on whether the sample space is big enough to draw a conclusion or not instead of your jingoism.

 

[C_C]

Some might suggest, crazily, that a statistical model that predicts one result with the complete opposite happening lacks something for claiming total superiority. Maybe the model needs tweaking a bit.

Like i said- no futuristic modelling can be perfect until we have a God in our midst. However, a statistical modelling is helluva lot more superior to your intuitive modelling based on track record- statistical modelling are far more right than wrong and your methodology is just russian roulette.

 

[marc71178]

My name is not Richard- you would do well to not mislabel someone.
And yes, i have seen 2 tests ilegally. I am sure you are a paragon of legal virtue ( i am sure i wont find a single MP3 in your computer if i could ping it with an invasive program) .

I can guarantee that you will not find one single illegally obtained MP3 file on my computer because I am 100% against piracy.

Dear boy, any futuristic predictions are flawed - simply because it is a fundamental conundrum- you cannot know the future unless you take every single universal variable into account. Hence the word prediction comes into play. You will find, in the real world- the world where one actually has huge stakes riding in futuristic modelling ( will the spacecraft stand the heat of re-entry/will there be oil here if we dig, etc) uses my method of established statistical trends and judgement on whether the sample space is big enough to draw a conclusion or not instead of your jingoism.

Keep on patronising all you want, won't change the FACT that games completed 4 years ago have no relevance on current ability levels.

 

[greg]

My name is not Richard- you would do well to not mislabel someone.
And yes, i have seen 2 tests ilegally. I am sure you are a paragon of legal virtue ( i am sure i wont find a single MP3 in your computer if i could ping it with an invasive program) .



Dear boy, any futuristic predictions are flawed - simply because it is a fundamental conundrum- you cannot know the future unless you take every single universal variable into account. Hence the word prediction comes into play. You will find, in the real world- the world where one actually has huge stakes riding in futuristic modelling ( will the spacecraft stand the heat of re-entry/will there be oil here if we dig, etc) uses my method of established statistical trends and judgement on whether the sample space is big enough to draw a conclusion or not instead of your jingoism.

It is not also true that as the number and complexity of the variables increase statistical modelling becomes harder and harder, and therefore less valid? If spaceship re-entry models were as accurate as those used to price up test matches then we wouldn't be sending men into space.

 

[marc71178]

Like i said- no futuristic modelling can be perfect until we have a God in our midst. However, a statistical modelling is helluva lot more superior to your intuitive modelling based on track record- statistical modelling are far more right than wrong and your methodology is just russian roulette.

Except when somethings happened, you can't really then apply any modelling to it, because you've conrete evidence as to what happened

 

[C_C]

It is not also true that as the number and complexity of the variables increase statistical modelling becomes harder and harder, and therefore less valid? If spaceship re-entry models were as accurate as those used to price up test matches then we wouldn't be sending men into space.

If you really believe that atmospheric re-entry has less variables and thus is easier to model than statistical modelling of cricket, you really have a lot to learn.

 

[C_C]

Except when somethings happened, you can't really then apply any modelling to it, because you've conrete evidence as to what happened

Indeed. which is why you dont see me denying that england beat Australia. However, you ARE using this most recent series as data feed for your inconsistent and utterly ridiculous modelling to predict the future and establish how good a team is based on a small sample space of results and thus your method is something that would get laughed out of a research firm. Like i said, you still have a lot to learn.

 

[marc71178]

Nobody is talking about the future though, they are talking about how teams are ranked AT THE MOMENT.

That requires nothing except watching the teams play and the results they've gained recently.

Games from 2001 and the like are completely irrelevant in that case.

 

[C_C]

Nobody is talking about the future though, they are talking about how teams are ranked AT THE MOMENT.

That requires nothing except watching the teams play and the results they've gained recently.

Games from 2001 and the like are completely irrelevant in that case.

AT THE MOMENT they are all inactive. Tomorrow is a new day.
Deal with that.
Any modelling for AT THE MOMENT will use a select sample space FROM THE PAST to determine the veracity of the modelling and the veracity of your modelling ( take it from someone who actually DOES modelling for a job and research paper) is utter tosh. If you dont believe me, like i said, pop into a research firm or ask a professor whether your idea has any merit or not.

 

[marc71178]

The "sample space" has to be relevant.

4 years ago is not because of changes in minor things like players in the teams and also their abilities.

As for the inactive thing, it is just getting boring now, I can't keep calling you Richard, because you've actually managed to surpass him now in delusion.

 

[C_C]

The "sample space" has to be relevant.

4 years ago is not because of changes in minor things like players in the teams and also their abilities.

.

Indeed, the sample space has to be relevant. England's sample space is 2 years or less, therefore, it is NOT RELEVANT. Which is why i said in the first place that england has to do more for a while longer before such obtuse conclusions can be drawn.

As for the inactive thing, it is just getting boring now, I can't keep calling you Richard, because you've actually managed to surpass him now in delusion

never presume to mistake your ignorance as my delusion. Please pick up an elementary text on calculus and educate yourself about what the word 'current' means.

 

[Zinzan]

. Australia also had the worst umpiring I've seen for a while, with almost more than double incorrect dismissals than.

As I've said many times before.................I accept that Aust did probably did get the short end of the stick with the umpiring decisions, but there certainly wasn't much in it overall. (they definately had more going for them in the 1st and last tests). The only reason a lot a you aussie fans really noticed it is that Aust have had such a ridiculously good run with umpires in the 12 months leading into the ashes.

How do you think I felt as a NZ supporter in Australia late last year where almost every decision went completely against NZ ??? How many time was Gilchrist plumb to Vettori and even the Aussie commentators acknowleged it. Whereas every time Warne or Mcgrath went up, finger went up. Or even worse Pakistan supporters after Woolmer made the observation of 23 to 4 50-50 decisions going against pakistan!!!!!

Trust me you haven't had it that bad, You've just being so spoilt up to this series that it seem such a stark turn around

 

[Sanz]

Well done superkingdave. You win first prize

And if you read your post, you just asked about the injury Mcgrath was suffering from and you will notice that nowhere in my post I endorsed CC's point that he was suffering from ankle injury in the last test.

Nit picking aside, the point remains valid that Mcgrath wasn't fully fit in the last two test matches he played.

 

[Sanz]

Since when has 1 been a lot?

Err, Amit If 2 years is the criteria then England have played 4 tests (2 series) against BD.

 

[Ikki]

Regarding the decisions: Just think about Martyn who prior to the series was having a great 12 months and was/is considered one of the best bastmen in the world. He was given out 3 times where it wasn't the case. Two were bad LBW decisions the other was a Bat/Pad mistake where the Umpire hadn't realised the bat hit the ball. Now that was just Damien Martyn and there went his Ashes and his consistancy.

Regarding Mcgrath: He is one of the best bowlers in history and with Shane Warne make the best bowling duo I think in history. To say he would not have changed the Ashes is very debatable.

 

[Sanz]

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

Nice one Richard.

Relevance Amit ??