Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[greg]

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.
.

Actually he was only given out incorrectly twice. I don't know where you got the bat/pad dismissal from. (It was Langer who had a lot of bat/pads against him and all were definitely out) Then again he was also out and given not out on two occasions nicking the ball to the keeper (although a lack of appeal on one, and half appeal on the other were rather significant contributing factors ).

 

[marc71178]

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

The whole discussion is about the last 6 series, where England have played 1 minnow in Bangladesh, the best side in the world in Australia, a side that had only lost at home since readmittance to one team, then NZ and WI.

 

[tooextracool]

And how is that a fact and not just your opinion ? Despite being almost 10 years older than Freddie, half injured for most part of ashes, playing in a away series Mcgrath averages better than Flintoff, has better strike rate, has better economy rate in the series and he isn't miles ahead of Flintoff as a bowler ? A guy who averages 32 as bowler compared to Mcgrath's 21, his avg. in Eng is 35 compared to Mcgrath's 19, has only 2 fifers in 52 test compared to Mcgrath's 28 in 112 tests, averages in 30+ against almost every country except WI & AUS compared to Mcgrath's 20ish avg against every country..and you say Mcgrath isn't streets ahead ?? .

no its not,because the gap between mcgraths bowling and flintoffs bowling is nowhere near the the gap between flintoffs batting and mcgraths batting.
and you'd have to be delusional if you thought that mcgrath was the better bowler in this series than flintoff.

Flintoff is nohwere near Dravid as a batsman and in simple words Dravid is MILES ahead of Flintof. The guy averages 33 compared to Dravid's 58. :lol averages 12 against India, 20 against SL, 11 iagainst Zim, 27 in SA, 23 in SL, 5 in India away avg.s 28 compared to Dravid's 64 .Case closed.

again you fail to get the point. fact is that flintoff is a good batsman, dravid is a great.
dravid cant bowl while flintoff is a very good bowler. take your pick at who the better overall player is.

 

[tooextracool]

I read it and its the same BS all over again. No one said he was going to be as good as he looked @ Lords but he would definately have been better by some margin.
In 1997 - Mcgrath took 103/9 @Lords, Series avg 36 wickets @19.47
In 2001 - Mcgrath took 114/8 @Lords, Series avg 32 wickets @16.93
In 2005 - Mcgrath took 82/9 @ Lords, Series avg. 19 wickets @ 23.15 (despite not being fully fit for the last 2 test matches he played)

And it is a fair indication of how well he could have done if he was fully fit.

and i've denied that he wouldnt have been better if he were fully fit where exactly?
there isnt much doubt that australia would have been a far better bowling outfit if mcgrath were fit than what they ended up being. the point i was trying to make was that to look at his performance and then say,hey he would have tied england in knots for the rest of the series, and therefore england would have had no chance of victory in any of the games- as someone was trying to indicate.
as far as his performance in past series is concerned, im not sure what in the blue hell thats supposed to prove to counter my argument. and only a fool would say that his series average of 23.15 goes to show how well he bowled in that series, because he did only have 1 good game.

 

[tooextracool]

True. But what is very likely is that McGrath would've been considerably more damaging in the other 2 tests he played if he was fit and considerably more damaging than Kaspa in the 2 tests he didnt.
Didnt you argue that India's drawn series in OZ isnt a big deal because McGrath and Warney didnt play ? Nevermind the fact that Warney gets pumelled by India almost every single time. Now you flip around and argue that McGrath's presence at full fitness might not have changed the results ? what utter tosh!

really? so point out then, where exactly i've said that mcgrath at full fitness would have made no difference to the result of the series? commone now.
as ive said a million times before, mcgrath fully fit would have been a handful for england to face, and if you take the time to read you might actually find how ive said trescos achievements arent that great when you look at the pace attack he came up against, but the point of it all is that theres no way anyone can say that england would have had no chance if mcgrath were fully fit.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah. A guy taking 19 wickets in 3 matches and averaging 23.15 while bowling on one leg for 2 of those matches isnt streets ahead of a guy taking 24 wickets in 5 matches and averaging 27.29 at full fitness.

2 things:
1) my point is that the gap between flintoff and mcgraths bowling isnt anywhere near as much as the gap between their batting.
2) since you havent watched the series, you might not realise how mcgraths 5fer at old trafford was one of the worst spells of bowling in his entire career. and there have been plenty of times when flintoff's stats havent gone anywhere near proving how well he bowled in the game.

 

[tooextracool]

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

oh good joke, keep it up.
a minnow that beat india and SL at home, and also drew against pakistan recently.

 

[tooextracool]

Obviously injury to Mcgrath after 1st test didn't benefit England, did it ?

and the injuries to simon jones didnt benefit australia?

 

[Ikki]

Before the Ashes series people were forecasting another sweep, also believing Mcgrath would have been fit. Only now in hindsight where you saw england play well can you even rebutt that prediction. So in all fairness, when it comes to predicting an outcome with a fit Mcragth in the equation, it would have been very probable for an Australian victory. Mcgrath is one of the greats of the game, where did you think it proper to demean him to compare him to Flintoff? Also just because a cricketer is not an All-Rounder does not rank him lower than someone who is. Bradman - Best player of all time. You wouldn't compare Bradman to Botham would you?

 

[greg]

Before the Ashes series people were forecasting another sweep, also believing Mcgrath would have been fit. Only now in hindsight where you saw england play well can you even rebutt that prediction. So in all fairness, when it comes to predicting an outcome with a fit Mcragth in the equation, it would have been very probable for an Australian victory. Mcgrath is one of the greats of the game, where did you think it proper to demean him to compare him to Flintoff? Also just because a cricketer is not an All-Rounder does not rank him lower than someone who is. Bradman - Best player of all time. You wouldn't compare Bradman to Botham would you?

Nobody compared his career record with Flintoff. What they did was question assertions that McGrath was somehow a better bowler in the series, as evidenced by his bowling average.

You also missed the point about all-rounders vs specialists. If the gap between the all-rounder and the specialist in the specialist's speciality is not that great then the all-rounder's ability in the other discipline may give him the edge. NOT when the specialist (batsman in Bradman's case) averages 67 runs greater than the all-rounder!

 

[tooextracool]

Before the Ashes series people were forecasting another sweep, also believing Mcgrath would have been fit. Only now in hindsight where you saw england play well can you even rebutt that prediction. So in all fairness, when it comes to predicting an outcome with a fit Mcragth in the equation, it would have been very probable for an Australian victory.

before the ashes series, no one knew that gillespie and kaspa would be rubbish, no one knew that flintoff would be able to reverse swing the ball both ways, no one knew that jones could swing the ball conventionally(before the series against b'desh), no one knew how good pietersen was, and no one knew that flintoff would be able to dominate gilchrist in the manner that he did.

Mcgrath is one of the greats of the game, where did you think it proper to demean him to compare him to Flintoff? Also just because a cricketer is not an All-Rounder does not rank him lower than someone who is. Bradman - Best player of all time. You wouldn't compare Bradman to Botham would you?

bradman is so far ahead of every other batsman its simply insane. hes averaging 40 runs more than anyone else who played over 30 innings in the history of the game. the differenece between bradman and any other batsman is far far more than the gap between mcgraths and flintoffs bowling.

 

[C_C]

oh good joke, keep it up.
a minnow that beat india and SL at home, and also drew against pakistan recently.

I suppose by that standard, Bangladesh is no longer a minnow in ODIs - they have beaten OZ and IND in ODI matches. Ent ?

 

[tooextracool]

I suppose by that standard, Bangladesh is no longer a minnow in ODIs - they have beaten OZ and IND in ODI matches. Ent ?

because tests and ODIs are the same thing isnt it?
the better team on the day wins an ODI, to win a test match you generally have to keep your level of play up for 3-4 days.
and i was referring to test match series, not individual test matches, so when was the last time bangladesh won an ODI series against a top 8 side?

 

[C_C]

because tests and ODIs are the same thing isnt it?
the better team on the day wins an ODI, to win a test match you generally have to keep your level of play up for 3-4 days.
and i was referring to test match series, not individual test matches, so when was the last time bangladesh won an ODI series against a top 8 side?

Umm yea. Which is why WI has won oh so much, hasnt it ?
Zimbabwe beat Pakistan in a series in the 90s. That didnt make Zimbabwe a decent opposition- that still had them as a minnow.
WI team is Brian Lara + chanderpaul + 2 ordinary batsman + 7 highschool kids. Pretty similar to Andy Flower + Heath Streak + 1 ordinary batsman( Goodwin) + 8 highschool kids.
Whether you like it or not, West Indies is a minnow and has been a minnow for the last 3-4 years. A fluke victory against IND and a 2 test series, where one was pretty much Lara batting outta his skin and the other rain affected doesnt change the fact that they get clobbered by all and sundry (even IND and SL hammered them at home) and fights tooth-n-nail to defeat BD and ZIM.

 

[marc71178]

No, whether you like it or not, WI are not a minnow, and are far from being a minnow.

In fact if you claim they are then one can claim Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India all are as well, since all have lose series to this supposed minnow.

 

[C_C]

No, whether you like it or not, WI are not a minnow, and are far from being a minnow.

In fact if you claim they are then one can claim Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India all are as well, since all have lose series to this supposed minnow.

IND, SL and PAK all hold a winning record over the WI. And Pakistan hasnt lost a series to WI for a long long time.
IND won comprehensively last time and lost 2-1 narrowly in a rain-affected test series.
SL have won 2 of the last 3 series and yet again, lost a rain-affected series where Lara single-handedly won a test for them

I know yer rabid jingoism is hard for you to keep in check but a team that has a 11-30 record over the last 4 years and a 9-24 record over the last 3 is most definately a minnow. Same level of minnow-hood as India in the 50s, NZ till Hadlee came along and immediately after him, SL in the 80s etc.

 

[Sanz]

no its not,because the gap between mcgraths bowling and flintoffs bowling is nowhere near the the gap between flintoffs batting and mcgraths batting.
and you'd have to be delusional if you thought that mcgrath was the better bowler in this series than flintoff.

Overall also Mcgrath is a better player, because he is so good as a bowler. The fact that his bowling is so good that most of the time he isn't required to use his bat. I would pick a great bowler over a good bowler and decent batsman.

again you fail to get the point. fact is that flintoff is a good batsman, dravid is a great.dravid cant bowl while flintoff is a very good bowler. take your pick at who the better overall player is.

Oh...with that logic Flintoff must be better than Bradman as well. Anyways, IMO, Dravid is the better player. I would have Dravid each time before Flintoff. His batting is so damn good. Flintoff is not a good batsman, not yet, he is decent.

 

[Sanz]

and the injuries to simon jones didnt benefit australia?

And when did I deny that ? Infact his injury prooved how toothless rest of the English attack was when Hayden and Langer both made the century.

 

[greg]

IND, SL and PAK all hold a winning record over the WI. And Pakistan hasnt lost a series to WI for a long long time.
IND won comprehensively last time and lost 2-1 narrowly in a rain-affected test series.
SL have won 2 of the last 3 series and yet again, lost a rain-affected series where Lara single-handedly won a test for them

I know yer rabid jingoism is hard for you to keep in check but a team that has a 11-30 record over the last 4 years and a 9-24 record over the last 3 is most definately a minnow. Same level of minnow-hood as India in the 50s, NZ till Hadlee came along and immediately after him, SL in the 80s etc.

One thing I don't understand about your application of statistics is how you can assert with such confidence that England are little better than most of the other test nations. It seems to me that despite all the arguments about the value of the eyes versus the value of the statistics we should all be coming to the same conclusions. The accuracy of modelling future scenarios and current standings should be entirely dependent on the quantity and quality of the data input into the model. The greater the wealth of data and the larger the sample space from which the data is collected, the more confidence one should be able to express in one's predictions. The problem for England is that they have a small sample space (around 2 years) so the margin of error for any model should be high. But any model should really be predicting England to be a long way ahead of the other test nations (including, arguably, Australia). There is really very little data (other than rather abstract things like "England historically struggle on the subcontinent") to contradict this view. They've beaten every team thus far put in front of them.

Most people on here subscribe to the view that England are clearly at least the #2 team in the world and are arguably the best team in the world. They appreciate that this however (especially the latter) remains largely a gut instinct and further challenges will have to be met before that can be proven. Essentially any mathematical model based on the available evidence on England should be showing the same thing, shouldn't it? England are the #2 team, close to the #1 team, but with the proviso that this status is subject to a very large margin of error, and more data is needed.

 

[C_C]

The problem for England is that they have a small sample space (around 2 years) so the margin of error for any model should be high. But any model should really be predicting England to be a long way ahead of the other test nations (including, arguably, Australia).

A higher margin of error comes not only from a small sample space but also from skewered data -such as performance against WI,ZIM, BD etc.

look at it this way- what seperated Agassi and Michael Chang is their performance against the bonafide players- they both dispatched 100-ranked players with relative ease. By the same analogy, performance against WI-ZIM-BD over the last 3-4 years means very little. England doesnt have enough data for its sample space AND its data is dominated ( more than IND, RSA, SL,AUS) by playing the bottom 3 teams. As such, the way it stands now - even with a huge margin of error, the gap is relatively small between England ( #2) and the #3 nation compared to England and #1 ( Australia). And since a huge margin of error makes it a highly flawed study, i contended at the very first that ENG needs to play at this level for a while longer before it can be considered to be putting a big gap between itself and other nations.