Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[C_C]

Results that have happened have absolutely nothing to do with probability.

HA!
You should really pick up a text book on physics and read a bit more carefully. There is not a single experiment done in the realm of science that doesnt have a probability marker ( called uncertainty error) associated with it.
You are drawing a conclusion ( how good they are) based on a sample set of results - ANY sample set will have an uncertainty error associated with it and a smaller one will have a larger uncertainty than a larger one.

 

[Swervy]

HA!
You should really pick up a text book on physics and read a bit more carefully. There is not a single experiment done in the realm of science that doesnt have a probability marker ( called uncertainty error) associated with it.
You are drawing a conclusion ( how good they are) based on a sample set of results - ANY sample set will have an uncertainty error associated with it and a smaller one will have a larger uncertainty than a larger one.

erm....most errors are due to how a experiment result is measured though..and some aspects of physics rely on probabilty such as Maxwells law for gas molecules velocity.

But success in cricket is measured by definate packets of data..ie runs and wickets. There is no error involved. You either got the runs and wickets you needed or you didnt....you either won the game or you didnt. the variables in the game are weather conditions, pitch conditions etc, but to predict how a team would do in conditions which its opponents played in is just fanciful guesswork.

You are saying that basically it has never been possible to establish whether a team has been good or not in cricket because the sample size of games a team plays isnt large enough because the reality of the situation is that no team ever actually plays much more than a handful of tests with the same players, in the same physical condition at the same level of development....so I think you are going against what you have been saying all along. You simply cannot judge a team in 2005 based on how it played with half the team different and the other half in different stages of there career.

Using science and probability is a waste of time CC...when deciding who is best, or who may have a chance in future series etc, the overriding factor to use is COMMON SENSE...something a lot of scientists in my exerience seem to have an incredible lack of.

 

[Swervy]

there seems to be a lot of 'minnow' talk on here....

isnt a minnow a team who cannot compete with its set of competitors due to a complete lack of talent/resourses, relative to those other teams.

Based on that definition, which is what I have always considered a minnow to be, the only two teams in test cricket that could be considered a minnow are B'desh and Zimbabwe.

All others have sufficient talent to win games against any other team in the world at test level

 

[greg]

there seems to be a lot of 'minnow' talk on here....

isnt a minnow a team who cannot compete with its set of competitors due to a complete lack of talent/resourses, relative to those other teams.

Based on that definition, which is what I have always considered a minnow to be, the only two teams in test cricket that could be considered a minnow are B'desh and Zimbabwe.

All others have sufficient talent to win games against any other team in the world at test level

C_C has his own definitions, which are apparently the ONLY correct ones, because they are the ones used in his method of mathematical modelling of test match cricket, and anyone who disagrees with him is a teenager. See his definition of "mediocre" and "good" (with reference to "Goodwin is a mediocre batsman because he is not in the top 20 batsmen of his era") in a post above.

 

[C_C]

But success in cricket is measured by definate packets of data..ie runs and wickets. There is no error involved. You either got the runs and wickets you needed or you didnt....you either won the game or you didnt. the variables in the game are weather conditions, pitch conditions etc, but to predict how a team would do in conditions which its opponents played in is just fanciful guesswork.

There is always an error involved in any sort of measurement or rating.That is, any sort of measurement. When you are drawing conclusions based on results, comparing teams who've been doing their business over two different timescales, you are using a LOT of uncertainty.
Any rating scale you use involves attaching some value to different performance criterias - those in itself carries errors, plus a short timespan provides a small sample of data-set. That provides a big standard deviation- indeed, england's standard deviation is significantly greater than other teams over the past 2 years because so many of their wins are against minnows

 

[C_C]

C_C has his own definitions, which are apparently the ONLY correct ones, because they are the ones used in his method of mathematical modelling of test match cricket, and anyone who disagrees with him is a teenager. See his definition of "mediocre" and "good" (with reference to "Goodwin is a mediocre batsman because he is not in the top 20 batsmen of his era") in a post above.

What is mediocre ?
What is good ?
These are subjective markers based on the performance of others. When you get research scholaships, it is based on your percentile marks ( that are bell-curved), not aggregate. Because a score of 90 outta 100 means jack diddly squat without knowing how others did - if the class average is 60, you did extremely well. If the class average is 95, you did poorly.
If you have 10 batsmen averaging 70, anotehr 10 averaging 60, then one who is averaging 55 is mediocre.

 

[C_C]

there seems to be a lot of 'minnow' talk on here....

isnt a minnow a team who cannot compete with its set of competitors due to a complete lack of talent/resourses, relative to those other teams.

Based on that definition, which is what I have always considered a minnow to be, the only two teams in test cricket that could be considered a minnow are B'desh and Zimbabwe.

All others have sufficient talent to win games against any other team in the world at test level

Err. A minnow is one who struggles to win against most oppositions.
Cricket always had a minnow since its early days. South Africa of the early 1900s were a minnow, WI of the 20s/30s were a minnow, India and PAK were a minnow before late 50s and NZ was a minnow before late 70s or so. SL was a minnow till mid 90s as well. WI fits into that category pretty well for the last 5 years or so. Doesnt matter if you got 10 more highschool teams like bangladesh and zimbabwe- those teams i've mentioned still remain minnows, simply because they rarely won and lost a helluva lot more often than they won with a wide % of games drawn - in WI's case, they dont draw much either.

 

[Swervy]

There is always an error involved in any sort of measurement or rating.That is, any sort of measurement. When you are drawing conclusions based on results, comparing teams who've been doing their business over two different timescales, you are using a LOT of uncertainty.
Any rating scale you use involves attaching some value to different performance criterias - those in itself carries errors, plus a short timespan provides a small sample of data-set. That provides a big standard deviation- indeed, england's standard deviation is significantly greater than other teams over the past 2 years because so many of their wins are against minnows

so in your eyes, to lose vs a 'minnow' actually makes you better???!!!! Bit strange that.


The last 2 full series ie. 3 or more matches, England have played were vs Australia (2-1 to England)..and away to SA (2-1 to England)...

Before that they beat non-minnow NZ 3-0 and non-minnow (based on what is the generally accepted definition of a minnow) WI home and away 7-0

So they have played a range of teams and beaten them....

I just get the feeling that you only consider a team to be ok if they beat 3 pretty average sub contintental teams....to be honest if NZ are to be considered minnows, I feel that India or Sri Lanka deserve to be rated just the same, considering the last few times India have played, and been outplayed by NZ

 

[Swervy]

There is always an error involved in any sort of measurement or rating.That is, any sort of measurement. When you are drawing conclusions based on results, comparing teams who've been doing their business over two different timescales, you are using a LOT of uncertainty.
Any rating scale you use involves attaching some value to different performance criterias - those in itself carries errors, plus a short timespan provides a small sample of data-set. That provides a big standard deviation- indeed, england's standard deviation is significantly greater than other teams over the past 2 years because so many of their wins are against minnows

so you are saying there is an error involved in measuring the number of runs and number of wickets gained during a match.

Balls!!!!!!!!!

 

[C_C]

so you are saying there is an error involved in measuring the number of runs and number of wickets gained during a match.

Balls!!!!!!!!!

No. There is an uncertainty involved in the weight you put on victories depending on criteria ( home or away, aussies or zimboks, etc).

 

[greg]

I wish these bloody series vs Pakistan and India would hurry up. I'm getting bored of this

 

[Swervy]

No. There is an uncertainty involved in the weight you put on victories depending on criteria ( home or away, aussies or zimboks, etc).

so therefore it is completely impossible to ever figure out who is the best team in the world, because the errors involved are too great.

AS I SAID...COMMON SENSE IS NEEDED

 

[greg]

No. There is an uncertainty involved in the weight you put on victories depending on criteria ( home or away, aussies or zimboks, etc).

However the fact that they didn't just win, but won 3-0 and 7-0 must count for something!

 

[C_C]

so therefore it is completely impossible to ever figure out who is the best team in the world, because the errors involved are too great.

AS I SAID...COMMON SENSE IS NEEDED

It is a subjective call sometimes - you can for eg, make it a subjective call between WI,ENG and AUS in the 60s. But with OZ right now, it is pretty comprehensive over a 4-5 year dataset and same with WI-ZIM-BD at the other end of the spectrum.
That is why i said there is NOT a big gap between England and India

 

[C_C]

However the fact that they didn't just win, but won 3-0 and 7-0 must count for something!

Ofcourse it does - which is why i rate england as the second best team, goddamnit !
But a 7-0 against WI does not count for more than a 2-2 draw with the aussies for eg.

 

[Swervy]

It is a subjective call sometimes - you can for eg, make it a subjective call between WI,ENG and AUS in the 60s. But with OZ right now, it is pretty comprehensive over a 4-5 year dataset and same with WI-ZIM-BD at the other end of the spectrum.
That is why i said there is NOT a big gap between England and India

yes you are right..it is subjective..and thats why you cannot knock peoples opinions when they say there is a BIG gap between England and India.

But you have to also see that what happened 4-5 years ago has very little relevance to what happens currently.

 

[Swervy]

Ofcourse it does - which is why i rate england as the second best team, goddamnit !
But a 7-0 against WI does not count for more than a 2-2 draw with the aussies for eg.

who drew 2-2 with Australia????

7-0 vs the West Indies in conjunction with 2-1 vs Australia, 2-1 away vs SA and 3-0 vs NZ when compared to the results India have gained in the last 18-24 months suggests a much bigger gap than you seem to see

 

[C_C]

yes you are right..it is subjective..and thats why you cannot knock peoples opinions when they say there is a BIG gap between England and India.

But you have to also see that what happened 4-5 years ago has very little relevance to what happens currently.

I think it is justified in saying that there is not a big gap between england and India or england and pakistan for that matter. For it is subjective and a quantification carries big uncertainties - larger so for england because of a smaller sample set ( 2 years) and playing a lotta matches against the minnows. A large gap is Aussies vs the rest or IND/PAK/NZ/SL/RSA/ENG with WI/BD/ZIM.

 

[C_C]

who drew 2-2 with Australia????

7-0 vs the West Indies in conjunction with 2-1 vs Australia, 2-1 away vs SA and 3-0 vs NZ when compared to the results India have gained in the last 18-24 months suggests a much bigger gap than you seem to see

I am giving an example. If you wanna get specific, i would say that a 2-1 loss to AUS is just a lil worse result than a 7-0 thumping of WI.

 

[Swervy]

I think it is justified in saying that there is not a big gap between england and India or england and pakistan for that matter. For it is subjective and a quantification carries big uncertainties - larger so for england because of a smaller sample set ( 2 years) and playing a lotta matches against the minnows. A large gap is Aussies vs the rest or IND/PAK/NZ/SL/RSA/ENG with WI/BD/ZIM.

I think you are really overstating how well India have done in the last couple of years, and understating the acheivements of the England team...

I just cant see what the Indian team have done on a consistant basis which allows you to say the gap between England and India is minimal...and dont spout on about series results from years ago...it doesnt matter about those, too far in the past to matter