Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[Zinzan]

And from an Indian perspective, i worry far more when we play RSA than when we play Australia.
Therefore, it is oh-so-justified to conclude that South Africa is a better team than Australia.

No its just one of several factors

 

[C_C]

But India havent done anything apart from a 1-1 in draw in Australia in the last couple of years. They have basically done what they were expected to do vs some average teams, and actually did worse than expected against some others (ie pakistan at home)

Its strange how you ignore all my other comments and dont provide responses to them..is it too hard to explain your way out of it.

face it CC, you are trying every trick in the ********ters Handbook to talk your way into getting people to accept you are right...but with me at least it doesnt wash.

You avoid the issue that some players standard of play increases with time, some decreases with time, Ganguly is crap now, Tendulkar isnt the play he was 5 years ago, laxman has never really convinced on a consistant basis...do you really think this Indian team is playing at a level it was at its peak, which was about 3 years ago. If you do, you are kidding yourself.

India have done nothing close to the acheivements England have produced in the last two years, and you know it..for some reason you have some problem with the success England are having

I never said this India team is playing at its peak. I am talking about what they have accomplished to date compared to what England has accomplished to date
Sure, Tendulkar is not as good as he was 5 years back but he would waltz into the English team with his eyes closed, as would Dravid, Sehwag,Kumble and probably Laxman too, with Ganguly missing out narrowly.

I have not responded to your other comments because you revolve around the same story - England have JUST beaten Australia and over the past 2 years they've done well so they are much much better than India.
Which is utter horseshyte, because as any logical analyst will tell you, a 2 year period is too little to talk about a good team or a bad team and playing a lotta matches against the bottom 3 teams ( more than ANY other team in the same period) means you are diluting your veracity even further.
Simple as that.
In England's case, you have a sample set of say 15 points, 6 or 7 of which are against minnows while in India's case you have a sample set of say 30 points, with less % points agianst minnows.
Any logical analyst will tell you that 1. England's sample space is smaller than India's and thus, has a higher margin of errors
2. a higher % of matches against minnows equals less accuracy when testing against benchmark teams.

That is fundamental reasoning, really.
Yes, England are a better team than India but due to its much shorter excellence span and playing far more minnows in the same timeframe, it is slightly ahead of India, not much.

 

[C_C]

No its just one of several factors

Precisely.
And if you weigh a lot more than just a couple of factors ( ie, NZ vs IND or NZ vs ENG or IND vs AUS or the last completed series), you'd realise that the gap isnt that big.

 

[Swervy]

I never said this India team is playing at its peak. I am talking about what they have accomplished to date compared to what England has accomplished to date
Sure, Tendulkar is not as good as he was 5 years back but he would waltz into the English team with his eyes closed, as would Dravid, Sehwag,Kumble and probably Laxman too, with Ganguly missing out narrowly.

I have not responded to your other comments because you revolve around the same story - England have JUST beaten Australia and over the past 2 years they've done well so they are much much better than India.
Which is utter horseshyte, because as any logical analyst will tell you, a 2 year period is too little to talk about a good team or a bad team and playing a lotta matches against the bottom 3 teams ( more than ANY other team in the same period) means you are diluting your veracity even further.
Simple as that.
In England's case, you have a sample set of say 15 points, 6 or 7 of which are against minnows while in India's case you have a sample set of say 30 points, with less % points agianst minnows.
Any logical analyst will tell you that 1. England's sample space is smaller than India's and thus, has a higher margin of errors
2. a higher % of matches against minnows equals less accuracy when testing against benchmark teams.

That is fundamental reasoning, really.
Yes, England are a better team than India but due to its much shorter excellence span and playing far more minnows in the same timeframe, it is slightly ahead of India, not much.

So when was Indias period of excellence, and how long did that last...I would say it lasted a lot less than Englands.

You are basing Indias current rankings in your mind on results from ages ago. Why not just say India are the best team because they won some tests in the 80s.

It wont go through your thick skin which surrounds your apparently thick skull that when judging how a team is playing currently or in the recent past has absolutley nothing to do with how a team played years ago. There is no relevence in how England play now and how they played 3 years ago, there is no relevence in how India are playing now and how they played three years ago.

Now if you said that the Indian team of three years ago was better than this England team, then I might give you that one, but as as India are in general playing pretty poorly and have done for a while, that doesnt reflect a jot on how far ahead of the game England are over India right now

 

[C_C]

So when was Indias period of excellence, and how long did that last...I would say it lasted a lot less than Englands.

You are basing Indias current rankings in your mind on results from ages ago. Why not just say India are the best team because they won some tests in the 80s.

It wont go through your thick skin which surrounds your apparently thick skull that when judging how a team is playing currently or in the recent past has absolutley nothing to do with how a team played years ago. There is no relevence in how England play now and how they played 3 years ago, there is no relevence in how India are playing now and how they played three years ago.

Now if you said that the Indian team of three years ago was better than this England team, then I might give you that one, but as as India are in general playing pretty poorly and have done for a while, that doesnt reflect a jot on how far ahead of the game England are over India right now

There is every releavance to how a team is playing now with a team that has been together for the past 4-5 years, since it gives the sample space for the SAME TEAM for an extended period of time.
You can either define 'current' as instantaneous - which means everyone who isnt playing are all at zero, or you can take it to mean how good a team is, based on an established track record. And a team with an established track record, where it does well for 4 years stands in atleast very close to a team that has done very well for the past 2 years, with a lotta minnows thrown in.
That is, if you are talkin about how good a team is. How good one is playing 'currently' is subject to change based on the very next session or two in test cricket. When we talk about form, its very much like instantaneous velocity- it can change the very next second ( or session). When we are talkin about how good a team is, we are essentially talking much like average velocity. It is just that bloody simple!

I guess logic doesnt really work on this site.

 

[Swervy]

I never said this India team is playing at its peak. I am talking about what they have accomplished to date compared to what England has accomplished to date
Sure, Tendulkar is not as good as he was 5 years back but he would waltz into the English team with his eyes closed, as would Dravid, Sehwag,Kumble and probably Laxman too, with Ganguly missing out narrowly.

Who cares if half the Indian team would waltz into the England team. Given India's lack of ability to play as a team, and the usual thing that India are less than the sum of its parts, then I would suggest an England team with those players in would actually not do as well as the the current England team.

And it is that which makes the walls of the great cricket statistians logic empire comes crashing down.

We are talking about TEAMS not INDIVIDUALS. The current England team players work well together, the bowling line up exceeds the sums of its parts because they work as a team. Its why Giles who averaged 50 with the ball, was actually worth much more than that to Englands success, its why Flintoffs 27 average with the ball was worth more, its why harmisons average was worth more (he did more damage than just taking wickets)...when one player fails another steps up to the plate and suceeds..THATS WHAT TEAM WORK IS ABOUT AND TEAM WORK IS WHAT CRICKET IS ABOUT.

You are talking to a qualified physicist here with a strong undertsanding of stats and ata analysis or whatever....but I can recognise there is more to the game than just saying Team A won 3-1 vs TeamB and team c did this 4 years ago etc and so they are better.

When you watch the game CC, actually watch it properly...one day, the penny will drop

 

[Zinzan]

Precisely.
And if you weigh a lot more than just a couple of factors ( ie, NZ vs IND or NZ vs ENG or IND vs AUS or the last completed series), you'd realise that the gap isnt that big.

The $64,000 question is what have India won away from home (tests) in recent years?? Minnows excluded

 

[Swervy]

There is every releavance to how a team is playing now with a team that has been together for the past 4-5 years, since it gives the sample space for the SAME TEAM for an extended period of time.
You can either define 'current' as instantaneous - which means everyone who isnt playing are all at zero, or you can take it to mean how good a team is, based on an established track record. And a team with an established track record, where it does well for 4 years stands in atleast very close to a team that has done very well for the past 2 years, with a lotta minnows thrown in.
That is, if you are talkin about how good a team is. How good one is playing 'currently' is subject to change based on the very next session or two in test cricket. When we talk about form, its very much like instantaneous velocity- it can change the very next second ( or session). When we are talkin about how good a team is, we are essentially talking much like average velocity. It is just that bloody simple!

I guess logic doesnt really work on this site.

You are just chatting pseudo-intellectual claptrap to be honest.

NO team keeps the same character let alone its players over a period of 5 years. Tendulkar in essence isnt the same player as he once was, he plays a different role, plays a different style. Even a team that has half the team that remains from 5 years back cannot be compared to 5 years ago.

Example..1986/87 Australia compared to 1989 Australia. A lot of same players, a completely different team..and only a fool would have based judgements on how that team played with how they played 2 years earlier

 

[C_C]

You are just chatting pseudo-intellectual claptrap to be honest.

NO team keeps the same character let alone its players over a period of 5 years. Tendulkar in essence isnt the same player as he once was, he plays a different role, plays a different style. Even a team that has half the team that remains from 5 years back cannot be compared to 5 years ago.

Example..1986/87 Australia compared to 1989 Australia. A lot of same players, a completely different team..and only a fool would have based judgements on how that team played with how they played 2 years earlier

Not pseudo-intellectual claptrap- it is the fundamental principle of scientific and logical decision-making. Next time i would like you to ask a professor of mathematics how much relevance does a sample space and instantaneous vector have to impacting the trajectory.


And only a fool would say that OZ were a good team in 1989 without applying the knowledge of the succeeding years.

 

[C_C]

The $64,000 question is what have India won away from home (tests) in recent years?? Minnows excluded

The 64000 dollar question is, what has england done in 2 years that is oh so jaw dropping, apart from thrashing a few minnows and playing well against established teams ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The 64000 dollar question is, what has england done in 2 years that is oh so jaw dropping, apart from thrashing a few minnows and playing well against established teams ?

Well... they've been undefeated, beaten Australia outside of the subcontinent for the first time in a dozen years, and beaten South Africa in South Africa, which nobody else aside form Australia has done since they returned to test cricket. They're all pretty jaw-dropping, especially compared to a team that can't win a series away from home except against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

 

[C_C]

You are talking to a qualified physicist here with a strong undertsanding of stats and ata analysis or whatever....but I can recognise there is more to the game than just saying Team A won 3-1 vs TeamB and team c did this 4 years ago etc and so they are better.

If you indeed are a qualified physicist, you should very well know that inorder to guage how good a team is, you can have two schools of thought - how good are they RIGHT NOW and how good is THIS TEAM.
One is essentially an instantaenous vector, the other is influenced by accumulated data.
And i dont need to remind you that in terms of accumulated data, the diversity of the sample space has a helluva lotta input in determing the answer.
I dont need to remind you that a trend backed up by 20 sample spaces is not considered to be as accurate as a trend backed by 40 sample spaces.
I am rather surprised that a so-called physicist denys the importance of establishing a wide enough sample space that does not have nearly half its data from a 20th percentile region.

 

[Swervy]

Not pseudo-intellectual claptrap- it is the fundamental principle of scientific and logical decision-making. Next time i would like you to ask a professor of mathematics how much relevance does a sample space and instantaneous vector have to impacting the trajectory.


And only a fool would say that OZ were a good team in 1989 without applying the knowledge of the succeeding years.

we arent dealing with particles we are dealing with a team of players, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, both mentally and phyically, and how they gel together as a team to produce results on a cricket pitch in various weather conditions on differing pitches under varying amounts of pressure

You are talking utter tripe

 

[C_C]

Well... they've been undefeated, beaten Australia outside of the subcontinent for the first time in a dozen years, and beaten South Africa in South Africa, which nobody else aside form Australia has done since they returned to test cricket. They're all pretty jaw-dropping, especially compared to a team that can't win a series away from home except against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Not really jaw-dropping at all. First team to beat Australia outside the subcontinent in a dozen years is about as relevant as saying they are the first team to lose in Sri Lanka since the world cup.
Utterly irrelevant.
They have beaten an Australian team going through a bad patch form-wise with their main bowler far from his full fitness in all but 1 match. Not all that different from IND vs AUS in AUS really, except that this is way overhyped due to the media BS about it being the oldest series and all that brouhaha and first time England has defeated OZ in many people's living memory here.

 

[Swervy]

If you indeed are a qualified physicist, you should very well know that inorder to guage how good a team is, you can have two schools of thought - how good are they RIGHT NOW and how good is THIS TEAM.
One is essentially an instantaenous vector, the other is influenced by accumulated data.
And i dont need to remind you that in terms of accumulated data, the diversity of the sample space has a helluva lotta input in determing the answer.
I dont need to remind you that a trend backed up by 20 sample spaces is not considered to be as accurate as a trend backed by 40 sample spaces.
I am rather surprised that a so-called physicist denys the importance of establishing a wide enough sample space that does not have nearly half its data from a 20th percentile region.

put down the text book Einstein!!!!!

We are talking about cricket here

 

[C_C]

we arent dealing with particles we are dealing with a team of players, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, both mentally and phyically, and how they gel together as a team to produce results on a cricket pitch in various weather conditions on differing pitches under varying amounts of pressure

You are talking utter tripe

A team is a sum of its players. If you really are a physicist, you should know that. All this talk of ' sum is more than the total or less' is just psuedo-science bullshyte that wouldnt hold up in any scientific journal.
Again, you should know that.
And you should know that a statistical inference ( which is what it is - no different in principle than a gallup poll - where the sample points- be it opinions or scorecards- are used to form a conclusion) is heavily dependent on the width of its sample field.
Again, that is not quantum vaccum fluctuation, this is common logic!

 

[Swervy]

and to answer how good is this team playing RIGHT NOW (lets not get pedantic..we all now what is meant by right now in cricketing terms)...England are playing the best cricket in the world.

How good is this team??? Very good thanks. Given that now team has the same players for 40 tests, let alone 20 or 15 renders your arguement about sample sizes redundent

 

[C_C]

put down the text book Einstein!!!!!

We are talking about cricket here

We are talking about statistical inference here. Establishing how good a team is, is statistical inference.
Very much science and application of science to this given field.

 

[greg]

Not really jaw-dropping at all. First team to beat Australia outside the subcontinent in a dozen years is about as relevant as saying they are the first team to lose in Sri Lanka since the world cup.
Utterly irrelevant.
They have beaten an Australian team going through a bad patch form-wise with their main bowler far from his full fitness in all but 1 match. Not all that different from IND vs AUS in AUS really, except that this is way overhyped due to the media BS about it being the oldest series and all that brouhaha and first time England has defeated OZ in many people's living memory here.

Quite right. Not all that different from Ind vs Aus in Aus. But that was nearly 2 years ago and has arguably been superceded by India's pretty decisive defeat at home. India can't dine out on that series for ever.

 

[Swervy]

A team is a sum of its players. If you really are a physicist, you should know that. All this talk of ' sum is more than the total or less' is just psuedo-science bullshyte that wouldnt hold up in any scientific journal.
Again, you should know that.
And you should know that a statistical inference ( which is what it is - no different in principle than a gallup poll - where the sample points- be it opinions or scorecards- are used to form a conclusion) is heavily dependent on the width of its sample field.
Again, that is not quantum vaccum fluctuation, this is common logic!

and yet any sports fan will understand that notion of a team being less than the sum of its parts...its why Pakistan have constantly failed at test level, its why India cannot string together more than one good series at a time..its why NZ for a period gained results which defied logic given that each individual bar a couple went brilliant and yet they could destroy a team of indivuals like India