tooextracool
International Coach
no you've got it wrong.C_C said:
wins against minnows get marked a small amount.
losses against minnows count a heck of a lot.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??
- Thread starter GladiatrsInBlue
- Start date
wins against minnows get marked a small amount.
losses against minnows count a heck of a lot.
tooextracool
International Coach
if sarwan,gayle, collymore and collins are high school kids then so are ganguly, parthiv, irfan, zaheer,nehra and yuvraj.C_C said:
C_C
International Captain
tooextracool said:records justify nothing, except to people who are over reliant on stats.
englands record between 86-90 stands at 3-19, and only a fool would call them a minnow then. and as shown earlier india also had a very poor record in the 80s, but no one would call them minnows at the time.
zimbabwe were a decent side back from 97-2000, they competed against almost every team- they beat india, beat pak, could have and would have won a test in england had it not rained and could have and should have won a test in the WI.
because of course there were so many people averaging 70 at the time?
if in a particular era you have 10 people averaging in the 50s and 20 averaging in the 40s, you cant just remove 10 of the people averaging in the 40s and say, they're mediocre. btw heres a list of batsman who were better than him during the time in which he played:
andy flower
michael slater
mark waugh
steve waugh
mark taylor
aravinda de silva
saeed anwar
inzamam ul haq
rahul dravid
mohammad azharuddin
sachin tendulkar
gary kirsten
jacques kallis
daryl cullinan
brian lara
shivnarine chanderpaul
alec stewart
which is less than 20, and therefore he was a pretty damn good player.
give him a medal, his results are better than those under 2 rubbish captains, what a captain.
which explains why india is playing so brilliantly under him at the moment.
the fact that you laud a 11-12 record says a fair bit about you.
1) the fact that he is more experienced and has a better bowling record would suggest that hes a better bowler right now.
2)pedro collins have had to bowled on a fair few dead flat wickets, considering how flat the wickets are in the WI these days.
which is like saying i'd take javed miandads word over yours.
as i said earlier, if you cant use your own knowledge to decide how good a player is, then you might as well not bother about watching cricket. ive seen far too many 'experts' make foolish claims that end up biting them in the '***' in the future.
oh i dont hate tendulkar because there is nothing about him that is there to hate, and i've never let 'hatred' against a player come against rating his abilities. and i dont really care what you think about tendulkar, because i've explained my reasons why he isnt as good as hes made out to be in the past. and even you make him out to be as good as you think he is, he was still overrated considering how people put him down to be 2nd best to bradman and what not.
which isnt and never will be the benchmark for how good a team is. india had one fluke series agianst a full fit australian side which they won 2-1, which is about as comparable to WI 2-2 draw against australia in 99, it didnt prove anything other than the fact that miracles are possible. fact is india have struggled to compete against the rest of the teams, particularly away from him, and of late they've not exactly set the world alight at home either.
he maybe better than giles, but that doesnt make him anything special, especially when you consider how poor he is away from home.
no its not, you obviously dont know what a 'ordinary team' is. and ordinary test side cna have a poor record compared to everyone else, but as long as its winning tests and test series, it is not a minnow.otherwise england in the late 80s and india in the 80s were both minnows.
you said initially that any team with a 12-29 record is a minnow, so obviously india of the 80s was a minnow then.
because of course, SL in SL is as good a side as SL away from home?
if they really could 'pummel' WI in that series, how come they lost 1 test? and thats despite the fact that chanderpaul didnt play in it. i dont see how anyone could suggest that SL would have won the rain effected test either,given that they were still trailing with nearly 2 innings left in the game and only 130 odd overs.
yes, so 1 win against a fully fit australia side 4 years ago, wow what an achievement.
india lost both tests in NZ, got hammered in SA in 2001, even lost to the so called minnow in 2002, couldnt beat pakistan at home recently, couldnt beat NZ at home, lost to SL in 2001, lost to zimbabwe in 2001, and yet they are number 3?
oh here we go again, C_C talking about all his graduate courses and what not, even though they dont change the fact that he knows nothing about cricket. you can bring einstein back to life, but it doesnt mean that he'll know more about cricket than anyone else. your pattern of analysis relies solely on statistics, when the game is far far more than that. and if your analysis shows that india and england were minnows at different times of the 80s or even WI are minnows right now, and you'll only be laughed at by the real world.
1. There is no such thing called 'over-reliant on stats'. If you are applying statistics with an understanding of its applications, you are designing a far more robust model/opinion based on quntified facts rather than just media brainwashing/BS jingoistic opinions.
Clearly you know naught about statistical inference, which for your information, is used by bookies when they are giving odds for the game
2. Yes, England was a minnow in that period and India was very close to being a minnow in that other period. Sri Lanka was definately a minnow in that period. Zimbabwe were a minnow of the 90s as well. Who are the minnows for the respective decades, based on results ? Answer : South Africa around 1900s-1920s, West Indies 1920s-1930s, India/Pakistan 1930s-mid/late 1950s, New Zealand from 1950s-mid/late 1970s, Sri lanka from 1980s-early/mid 1990s, Zimbabwe early 90s-current, Bangladesh 2000-current.
Does WI of 2000-2005 fall into that category ? yes .
Simple as that.
Yes, i may get laughed out for that but that is why not many people are logical. You use facts to form opinions, not look for facts to justify a pre-concieved opinion.
The former is called research. The latter is called psuedo-science and data mining.
3. You sure dont seem to get the idea of an example, do you ? I am sure your favourite lil zimbok averaged 50+ that you sneer at the example, attempting to deride it as if i said it as an observed fact. Goodwin played till 2000 and for your information, outta the players who had played some significant # of matches till then and were active/still are active,i would easily put Carl Hooper, Saurav Ganguly, Graham Thorpe, Ponting, Stephen Fleming, Sanath Jayasurya,etc. ahead of Goodwin as well.
4. Whether you like it or not, Ganguly is one of the best captains in the game today and is justified by the marked improvement India have shown under his tenure. His man-management skills and backing of players is peerless and his on-field decision-making is above average. Simple as dat and you better deal with it.
5. You are criticising my assessment that 11-12 record is very close to a 20-19 record. Says a lot about your non-existant brain.
6. Yes, Pedro i rate as a better bowler but not by much but the difference is that Pathan is a bright young prospect while Pedro is at his peak. A bit like comparing Wasim Akram with Karsan Ghavri in 1986.
7. Yes, a lotta experts have made foolish comments but then again, experts rarely agree and when they do, they rarely get it wrong. And we are talkin about evaluating potential here, something someone like Akram is far more qualified to judge than you are.
8. Tendulkar has credible claims to be considered the best batsman after Bradman and while others may get rated higher than him, it is a close call either which way. The fact that you think he is massively overrated shows your utter lack of cricketing understanding and knowledge
9. Except tht i am not talking about one fluke series. 2001 was just as much a fluke as this english victory. Atleast 2001 was achieved against a fully fit Aussie team which were younger a playing at a much higher level than they have been of the recent past. Besides, India's record against OZ in the new millenium is 4-5. That is a significantly better record and a significantly higher win % than ANY other nation.They havnt been as dominating at home as they were in the 90s but they have been a lot more successful away from home compared to the 90s. Their home record is pretty decent and their away record is average. Their record against the best team is excellent, have been at it for atleast 4-5 years and overall, they are just a tad behind a upstart team, performing well and have been together for just two years and feeding more on minnows than any other team
10. He is poor away from home but he hasnt played much away from home yet. Plus he is a youngster and one of the most precocious spinners ever - spinners rarely mature till their late 20s and at a comparative stage in terms of maturity, Harbhajan stands better than most spinners in history of cricket. He is also quiete good historically as a spinner and one of the top 5 spinners since the 90s. Overall, not bad for a 24 year old at all.
11. It is 7-31 or something like that once you take out their fellow minnows from the equation. And yes, India were very close to being a minnow( the only saving grace is that they drew a lot more matches than WI and SL-the minnows of that period) and so was England.
Unlike you, i dont form an opinion based on pusillanimous vacillations and then look for facts to justify my opinion - i look for facts and form an opinion based on facts
12. SL lost one test due to a Lara special and i stated a probability hypothesis. Given that Lara was unlikely to bat and Chanderpaul wernt playing ( Plus SL were around 10 runs or so ahead with 10 wickets in hand), SL didnt NEED a huge score to score a likely victory.
That is common sense. With lara and chanderpaul out, WI would've struggled to chase 250.
13. Yes, they are #3 - show me a team that has done significantly better in that timeframe apart from Australia. All the potential contenders ( England and RSA) are close to that record - they either have a much poorer record in the subcontinent or a much poorer record against OZ, thereby effectively nullifying india's weak point ( away from home)
14. I dont like to self-gloat but given the immaturity of posters here, i am forced often to indulge in that as self defence. Having said that, i think i've watched far more cricket than you have, talked to a lotta cricket players - including a few worldclass/great ones who've helped me greatly understand the game and give insights. Furthermore, i dont data-mine like you and other psuedo-science babblers ( see intelligent creation theorists for one) but rather, i let the data draw the conclusion. You'd be wise to do the same instead of formulating an opinion influenced by your prejudices and limited knowledge and then searching for data to back that up.
C_C
International Captain
Yuvraj doesnt play test cricket regularly and has played maybe 5 tests or so- dont see how he enters the picture.tooextracool said:
And yes, Ganguly is a far better player than Sarwan is, Parthiv played as a wicketkeeper and Zaheer/Nehra arnt much far from Collins and Collymore.
If you do a head-2-head, you will get 1 close result ( Lara vs Tendulkar), 2 in WI's favour by a little ( Chanderpaul vs Ganguly and Jacobs vs India keeper), 4 clear-cut results in india's favour ( Laxman, Kumble, Harbhajan, Dravid and Sehwag and rest ( who are minor cogs in the wheel) balancing out rather evenly. That is fairly comprehensive and the results show that as well. 11-12 is a helluva lot better than 7-30 or somethign like that !
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
No, they are not.C_C said:
A minnow can only beat another minnow.
In this so called minnow time, the WI have won games against several sides.
If the conract disagreements continued and they lost the top 9 or so players, then they'd probably be more likely to be referred as such, but the FACT is that they haven't.
C_C
International Captain
Self cudos is the lowest art really.marc71178 said:
India's record over the past 4-5 years is good in that period. You should always bear in mind that good is a subjective term, much dependent on the record of the other teams over the same era.
You clearly dont dont understand the concept of minnows and have avoided reasoning on that issue like a plague- because you realise that your claims of 'England being far and away the #2 side' would fall flat.
Justify, based on results, why, West Indies of the last 5 years cannot be considered a minnow from the historical context in cricket - like they were in the 20s and 30s, like South Africa was in the early 1900s, IND/PAK were in the 50s, NZ were in the 50s-late 70s, Sri Lanka were in the 80s-early 90s.
You define minnows as Bangladesh or Zimbabwe- which quite clearly shows a lack of understanding of cricketing history. The fact that ZIM and BD are very poor doesnt change the fact that WI's record over the last 5 years is consistent with the minnows of the erstwhile eras.You could include Mongolia and Scotland in the Test nations as well and doesnt matter what they do, BD,WI and ZIM would still be minnows. RSA/NZ/PAK/IND/SL were minnows too in those respective eras i mentioned and they beat a non-minnow side once in a blue moon as well. And yes, 7-30 record is once in a blue-moon.
Infact, one can argue that WI of the last 5 years can be classified even lower than the historical minnows for their respective periods, for the minnow teams of the decades gone by drew a lot more matches than this WI team does.
Whether you are a minnow or a top side is dependent on your overall standing, not just a simple head to head. Going by that logic, if OZ lost a 2 test series against Zimbabwe in 2001, they would be considered a minnow too by your definition.
And how recent is recent, mr 'i dont have a clue about data inference' ? Last match ? Last series ? Last few series ? Last 24 hour period ? All of these come with various errors directly proportional to the sample points ( ie, the time period) in question.
Yeah. 11-12 record, with similar % matches won and lost ( England played a lot more tests) is not worthy of challenging for #2 but a 19-20 or 20-21 record is.
Make up yer mind which line of argument you wanna stick to, since the two are NOT congruous - England over the last 4 years or England over the last 2 years.
You'd notice that the first line is flawed due to a vastly different team composition 4 years ago and the second line has very little sample space.
In short, England has to do this for a few more seasons before i consider them the clear #2.
2-5 is rather close to 3-3, given that the difference is essentially one match ( If you ever learn some mathematics and logical thinking, you will find that 2-1 is about as close as 95-100, due to the data parity and sample space oriented errors in your data).
By whom ? A so-called Physicist who violates the fundamental paradigm of statistical inference ? Or by you, who got no clue about how to draw a conclusion scientifically based on the data presented ? Or by the various legions of yer fellow highschool kids who dont have a clue about what i am talkin about ?
Do better than that, ol boy!
Last edited:
The fact that you choose to define "minnows" a certain way does not make you right. That is just how you choose to define them. The fact that you attach little significance to results against certain teams does not make you right. That is just what you choose to do. As long as it works for you, or what you are trying to achieve then good luck to you.(what are you trying to achieve? Do you gamble on the basis of your conclusions?)
But don't go on and on about "the concept of minnows" as though it were some long established and well defined sporting principle.
But don't go on and on about "the concept of minnows" as though it were some long established and well defined sporting principle.
And the whole point about the matches between England and Windies is that for predicting the future they were about so much more than the results (although they were still mightily impressive - if 7-30 is a 'minnows' record they should still have managed to win, or threaten to win a test or 2). What these matches showed was that England had a serious pace attack that could hunt in a pack, and cover for each other as conditions and form dictated. They showed that England had a new resilience in their batting order that would not fold at the first sign of trouble. They showed a dynamic lower middle order that could take the game away from the opposition in a very short space of time. They showed that they could construct plans for the world's best batsmen and execute them ruthlessly and with repeated success across several games. They showed the emergence of an allrounder who could genuinely win a match with both bat and ball. All of these were things first identified in the 8 matches vs the Windies, and were to be the defining features of England's Ashes success. Had you ignored all these things because Windies were 'minnows' then you would have missed a fundamental change in the potential and strength of this England side and (with the proviso that you will have noted the SAfrica result) you must have had England's victory this summer down as one of the greatest sporting upsets in history!
None of these factors identified above would have meant a thing against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. They were hugely significant against the West Indies.
None of these factors identified above would have meant a thing against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. They were hugely significant against the West Indies.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Oh since that TB argument doesn't work, you have switch back the gear and started talking about entire series. Just how good was Flintoff bowling in the first test ? let me guess 2/123 in 27 overs. 3rd test 1st inning 1/65, 4th test 1st inning 1/54, 2nd innings 2/83.tooextracool said:
Certainly not because of Flintoff's bowling
may be they were playing against weak teams.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Only a fool will compare the difference between and bowling avgs and uses that prove that Flintoff is a better player than Mcgrath. And 33 isn't a great test avg. especially in this era of flatter wickets when most decent batsmen are averaging in 50+. So no I would still have Mcgrath over Flintoff.tooextracool said:
Oh okay I read it wrong but you did accuse my not liking Flintoff for the reason of selecting Mcgrath before him. And no I never said you cant have Flintoff ahead of Mcgrath, I wasn't even arguing that. This whole discussion started when you said 'Mcgrath isn't streets ahead of Flintoff as a bowler' and 'that is a fact' and I argued otherwise and when you were proved completele wrong as usual you changed your tune.
You sure can have Flintoff ahead of Mcgrath, infact there are many members on this forum who will have Shahid Afridi ahead of Flintoff.
Anyways, that's what I have to say on this. I dont have time to go through miles long posts of your and repeat the same thing again and again.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Winning a third of their games is not a "good" record, especially when coupled with losing the same number.C_C said:
Minnows can only beat other minnows.C_C said:
West Indies have beaten many other sides in that time, so if they're minnows, so are the sides that they've beaten.
Maybe you should justify why they are minnows.
I can't be bothered with the rest of the post because it is full of patronising things which are completely unfounded.
Things like learn Mathematics (would you like to know where I went to university to do mathematics?)
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
If a team wins 50 games in a row then loses 30 games in a row, that gives them a 50-30 record that in theory looks good.C_C said:
However it glosses over the fact that the team is playing poorly.
Hence including a period when a side was performing better than they are now is irrelevant.