Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[C_C]

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

My sample size is very much relevant, given that the players have been playing as a team for essentially 2 years.
That is an insignificant sample-space. In cricketing terminology, time is almost as much relevant as simply # of tests played.

RIGHT NOW is defined by past record - what you determine as 'immediate' is way too small a sample space to draw a conclusion about how good this team is. RIGHT NOW, India is playing great cricket and England is not even playing any cricket. Thank you very much.

 

[greg]

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

It's why Greece won the European Championship, despite not having a single non-mediocre (by C_C's definition) player

 

[C_C]

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

Any sports fan that indulges in that kinda claptrap should be dealing in a profession similar to Miss Cleo and not anything remotely close to science.
Why India havnt won much overseas and why Pakistan has been inconsistent is easily explained by their sum total team composition, not this psuedo-scientific claptrap about a team being less than the sum of its parts.

 

[Swervy]

My sample size is very much relevant, given that the players have been playing as a team for essentially 2 years.
That is an insignificant sample-space. In cricketing terminology, time is almost as much relevant as simply # of tests played.

RIGHT NOW is defined by past record - what you determine as 'immediate' is way too small a sample space to draw a conclusion about how good this team is. RIGHT NOW, India is playing great cricket and England is not even playing any cricket. Thank you very much.

what a complete idiot...you are totally clueless arent you. A pedant of the highest order.

You hide behind BS constantly and try to twist everything to suit you, when the reality is you have been shot down in flames.

Try harder next time

 

[greg]

My sample size is very much relevant, given that the players have been playing as a team for essentially 2 years.
That is an insignificant sample-space. In cricketing terminology, time is almost as much relevant as simply # of tests played.

RIGHT NOW is defined by past record - what you determine as 'immediate' is way too small a sample space to draw a conclusion about how good this team is. RIGHT NOW, India is playing great cricket and England is not even playing any cricket. Thank you very much.

No they're not. Blignaut and Coventry have put on 40!

 

[greg]

Any sports fan that indulges in that kinda claptrap should be dealing in a profession similar to Miss Cleo and not anything remotely close to science.
Why India havnt won much overseas and why Pakistan has been inconsistent is easily explained by their sum total team composition, not this psuedo-scientific claptrap about a team being less than the sum of its parts.

Lol. Most sports fans aren't dealing in scientific professions. Incredible insight.

I wonder how many of the current England team would have ever made it through the C_C talent filter?

 

[C_C]

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.

By the same logic, England cannot claim greatness based on a once-in-a-lifetime defeat of AUstralia preceeded by fattening their purse against minnows.

FACT : England has been playing together for only 2 years or so. They are upstarts
FACT : England has played the bottom 3 teams more often in the last 2 years than almost ANY other test nation
FACT : England compiled a victory against a weakened Aussie team
FACT : India has a more established track record than England
FACT : England has blazed for the last 2 years, on a heavy diet of minnows while India has merely been bright in the same timespan

All these facts leads to one logical conclusion - There is not much of a difference between India and England RIGHT NOW but if England can keep up their level of play for another couple of years, they will be the clear #2 side ( assuming that OZ doesnt start free-falling).

 

[C_C]

what a complete idiot...you are totally clueless arent you. A pedant of the highest order.

You hide behind BS constantly and try to twist everything to suit you, when the reality is you have been shot down in flames.

Try harder next time

The complete idiot here is the one who claims to be a physicist yet deviates from one of the most fundamental process of statistical data inference paradigms associated with ANY science.
A moron of the highest order who no doubt would be lapped up by the legions of the english fans out here.

And if elementary paradigms associated with statistical inference is BS to you, please let me know which college you got your so-called physics degree from - i will make sure i advice all whom i know to stay the **** away from that institution.

Anyways, i have had enough of trying to drill some common sense and basic logic into brains of insufficient intelligence - the so called physicist who defies the fundamental paradigm of statistical inference- without who's application one cannot pass physics 101 and his cohort of highschool lackeys.. Its about time i stopped wasting my time here and went to sleep.

 

[greg]

By the same logic, England cannot claim greatness based on a once-in-a-lifetime defeat of AUstralia preceeded by fattening their purse against minnows.

FACT : England has been playing together for only 2 years or so. They are upstarts
FACT : England has played the bottom 3 teams more often in the last 2 years than almost ANY other test nation
FACT : England compiled a victory against a weakened Aussie team
FACT : India has a more established track record than England
FACT : England has blazed for the last 2 years, on a heavy diet of minnows while India has merely been bright in the same timespan

All these facts leads to one logical conclusion - There is not much of a difference between India and England RIGHT NOW but if England can keep up their level of play for another couple of years, they will be the clear #2 side ( assuming that OZ doesnt start free-falling).

Seeing as England aren't claiming greatness that is a rather irrelevant point. Nobody is seeking to place this England team in a historical context. There are just assessing how good they are relatively to other teams at the moment. They may get better in the future, they may not be able to sustain their current level of performance, but all that is irrelevant to the argument to how good, relatively, they are at the moment.

 

[Barney Rubble]

My sample size is very much relevant, given that the players have been playing as a team for essentially 2 years.
That is an insignificant sample-space. In cricketing terminology, time is almost as much relevant as simply # of tests played.

RIGHT NOW is defined by past record - what you determine as 'immediate' is way too small a sample space to draw a conclusion about how good this team is. RIGHT NOW, India is playing great cricket and England is not even playing any cricket. Thank you very much.

You say RIGHT NOW India is playing great cricket, but isn't that negated by the same virtue that England's victories over so-called "minnows" (South Africa and Australia-minus-McGrath ) are negated - because they're playing Zimbabwe? You contradict yourself way too often to be taken seriously.

 

[C_C]

You say RIGHT NOW India is playing great cricket, but isn't that negated by the same virtue that England's victories over so-called "minnows" (South Africa and Australia-minus-McGrath ) are negated - because they're playing Zimbabwe? You contradict yourself way too often to be taken seriously.

I said that sarcastically, einstien!

 

[Barney Rubble]

I said that sarcastically, einstien!

It's EINSTEIN, Einstein!

And forgive me for not bothering to decipher your "scientific-arguments-which-don't-actually-make-sense".

 

[C_C]

Seeing as England aren't claiming greatness that is a rather irrelevant point. Nobody is seeking to place this England team in a historical context. There are just assessing how good they are relatively to other teams at the moment. They may get better in the future, they may not be able to sustain their current level of performance, but all that is irrelevant to the argument to how good, relatively, they are at the moment.

How are you comming to a 'at the moment' conclusion ?
Based on what ?
Based on their past performance ( defined by SOME date in your mind).
This past performance has to be compared to the past performance of other teams with the compositional time-frame( ie, with the core players intact and playing together), what is their mean performance per season, what is their established performance, who their performances are against.
Such data needs to be first weighed appropriately and then associated with both the timeframe and # of matches played, thus giving it a relevant uncertainty error ( and ANY statistical inference - which is what trying to figure out how good a said team based on track record is - despite what our so-called physicist would have you believe) that has to be taken into consideration.

 

[Swervy]

How are you comming to a 'at the moment' conclusion ?
Based on what ?
Based on their past performance ( defined by SOME date in your mind).
This past performance has to be compared to the past performance of other teams with the SAME compositional time-frame( ie, with the core players intact), what is their mean performance per season, what is their established performance, who their performances are against.
Such data needs to be first weighed appropriately and then associated with both the timeframe and # of matches played, thus giving it a relevant uncertainty error ( and ANY statistical inference - which is what trying to figure out how good a said team based on track record is - despite what our so-called physicist would have you believe) that has to be taken into consideration.

you are embarressing

 

[C_C]

you are embarressing

Indeed. So says the so-called physicist violating the fundamental paradigm of statistical inference.

 

[Swervy]

Indeed. So says the so-called physicist violating the fundamental paradigm of statistical inference.

this is laughable.

right I am going to work

this will continue later no doubt...you best get looking stuff up in the BS bible for some other dross to spew out...you have 9 hours

 

[greg]

How are you comming to a 'at the moment' conclusion ?
Based on what ?
Based on their past performance ( defined by SOME date in your mind).
This past performance has to be compared to the past performance of other teams with the compositional time-frame( ie, with the core players intact and playing together), what is their mean performance per season, what is their established performance, who their performances are against.
Such data needs to be first weighed appropriately and then associated with both the timeframe and # of matches played, thus giving it a relevant uncertainty error ( and ANY statistical inference - which is what trying to figure out how good a said team based on track record is - despite what our so-called physicist would have you believe) that has to be taken into consideration.

It doesn't matter how I'm doing it. I'm just doing it.

 

[C_C]

this is laughable.

right I am going to work

this will continue later no doubt...you best get looking stuff up in the BS bible for some other dross to spew out...you have 9 hours

Inorder for me to do that, i would need to read where you got your education from. Ciao!

 

[Scaly piscine]

Dear me, people are still feeding the troll.

 

[C_C]

It doesn't matter how I'm doing it. I'm just doing it.

Ofcourse it matters how you are doing it. If you dont know the process, you cannot justify your thinking and thus it will be prone to holes - such as the ones i am exposing. Even E=MC^2 had to be explained by theorems and logic , not just coz a Swiss patent clerk strolled up to the podium and said 'it doesnt matter how i am doing it, i am just doing it'.