Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[greg]

and minus WI makes them ???

11 wins 12 losses in 35

 

[C_C]

11 wins 12 losses in 35

Yea and for India ?

 

[greg]

Yea and for India ?

?

 

[C_C]

?

Record over the same time minus WI,ZIM,BD.

 

[greg]

Record over the same time minus WI,ZIM,BD.

11 wins 12 losses in 35

 

[C_C]

11 wins 12 losses in 35

Okay that was India's record then. Do England now.

 

[greg]

20 wins 19 losses in 54

(although leaving out Windies in 2000 is obviously ridiculous)

Incidentally a pretty clear demonstration that a "sample space" for England is a shorter timespan than the equivalent sample space for India.

 

[C_C]

20 wins 19 losses in 54

(although leaving out Windies in 2000 is obviously ridiculous)

Incidentally a pretty clear demonstration that a "sample space" for England is a shorter timespan than the equivalent sample space for India.

20-19 isnt that far from 11-12, is it ? Plus, what is their win %, loss % and mean difference between wins and loss % ?

 

[Jamee999]

1. If an established sample space = living off past glories, then english record = living off minnows

Like Australia?

 

[C_C]

Like Australia?

Like west indies.

 

[Jamee999]

But at the moment, we're very very much "living" off our Australian victory.

Now this Aussie team is not a minnow.

I may have mis-interpreted this convo, just ignore me if I have

 

[Slow Love™]

I think there might be a special circle of hell reserved for those who read this thread from beginning to end. Boy, I hope I don't make it.

*runs screaming*

 

[greg]

20-19 isnt that far from 11-12, is it ? Plus, what is their win %, loss % and mean difference between wins and loss % ?

This is a pointless thread but I'll indulge you. More interesting to me is series results. Since 2000 (and excluding your "minnows")

India have Played 14 won 4 lost 6

England have played 13 won 7 lost 5 (I've included the Windies series of 2000 in that)

And most of that includes the results of an England team who were worse than the current one.

Still, I'm sure results don't tell the full story

 

[Scaly piscine]

This is a pointless thread but I'll indulge you. More interesting to me is series results. Since 2000 (and excluding your "minnows")

India have Played 14 won 4 lost 6

England have played 13 won 7 lost 5 (I've included the Windies series of 2000 in that)

And most of that includes the results of an England team who were worse than the current one.

Still, I'm sure results don't tell the full story

Here's another scoreline:

greg 537 C_C -1


I'm sure that doesn't tell the full story either...

 

[greg]

Here's another scoreline:

greg 537 C_C -1


I'm sure that doesn't tell the full story either...

No that's unfair. He scored a goal or two a couple of days ago when i got unwisely drawn into discussing the mathematical modelling of spacecraft re-entry

 

[C_C]

This is a pointless thread but I'll indulge you. More interesting to me is series results. Since 2000 (and excluding your "minnows")

India have Played 14 won 4 lost 6

England have played 13 won 7 lost 5 (I've included the Windies series of 2000 in that)

And most of that includes the results of an England team who were worse than the current one.

Still, I'm sure results don't tell the full story

The result is the bottomline. I go by match per match basis because a 2-1 series loss is a helluva lot better than 4-0 series loss but is still a series lost.

And yes- most of that result includes results of an english team that was worse and different than the current one. That is why you need to give this england team some time, instead of saying they are definite numero duo because of 2 years of success feeding more often on minnows than ANY other team!

 

[tooextracool]

1. Even with Flower, Streak,Campbell, Goodwin, etc. on the side, ZIM were a minnow in test cricket - their record and the very short period of time they played together justifies that.

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.

2. Performance is relative. Ever heard of a thing called the Bell Curve ? No ? Well when you enter REAL life and leave highschool, you might get a clue about it. Excellence is simply people near the top in a given era, good is in the upper half, mediocre is around the middle and poor is around the bottom. Simple as that. If in an era there are 10 batsmen averaging 70, a batsman averaging 40 is poor and a batsman averaging 50 is mediocre. Since we are talking the same era here, he is a mediocre batsman by this era's benchmark.

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.

And yes, he is an excellent captain - his results compared to results under Tendulkar or Azharuddin shows that.

give him a medal, his results are better than those under 2 rubbish captains, what a captain.

I dont care what the actual achievements are, if a captain can improve the achievements almost twice-folds with essentially the same core of players, he is an excellent captain.Period.

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.

4. One is also more experienced and has played a few matches on extremely helpful conditions sometimes.

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.

As per being a disgrace to Wasim Akram- Pathan has shown the most potential for a under 25 bowler along with Franklin. You might think you know how to guage talent but i will take Wasim's word along with Bruce Reid's word over yours.

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.

5. Tendulkar is the best batsman of his generation and at most the second best. You have shown your ignorance by calling him an overrated batsman, considering that he has been more successful than any batsman of his generation against top quality attacks and has faced more top quality attacks than any other batsman of his generation. But dont let your faulty logic and hatred stop you..

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.

6. Zimbabwe caused them problems but they've done far better against the best team of this era by a comfortable margin compared to the next best.

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.

As per Harbhajan being ordinary, again, you show your ignorance. Ashley Giles or Daniel Vettori is what you'd call ordinary. Harbhajan is more accomplished a bowler than Murali or Warney at his age and is easily the 4th best spinner in the world currently, after Murali, Warney and Kumble- and in that order.

he maybe better than giles, but that doesnt make him anything special, especially when you consider how poor he is away from home.

7. A minnow is one who has a significantly worse record than the main-pack. Simple as that. 1920s/30s West Indies, India of the 30s/40s/early-mid 50s, Pakistan of the 50s, New Zealand of the 50s-mid/late 70s, Sri Lanka of the 80s-early-mid 90s and West Indies from late 2000 are all in the SAME category. True, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are far worse, but it doesnt change West Indies's minnows status over the last 5 years or so..

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.

8. I have shown you that their performance against legitimate teams is considerably worse than India's of the 80s and even then, India of the 80s wasnt a very good team.

you said initially that any team with a 12-29 record is a minnow, so obviously india of the 80s was a minnow then.

9. Sri Lanka doesnt need Lara to be out of the side to pumell WI- see their record in the series where Lara scored 650+ runs. However, i am stating a FACT that given that Lara was unlikely to bat in the second innings and Chanderpaul was out, the odds were overwhelmingly in favour of SL winning the match if the weather permitted it.

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.

10. Winning abroad consistently would improve India's stature considerably- arguably that is the only feather missing in its cap. But it again, doesnt change the fact that India is the third best team currently at worst in TEST CRICKET- their record against the best opposition( OZ), home excellence and a much-improved away record reflects that. England's grasp on #3 is tenuous - they have built that claim over a much shorter period of time than IND and have relied mostly on minnows to bolster their claims. And RSA is arguably the clear 4th - their record against IND recently is nothing hoo-haa and their record against the best opposition, OZ, is far worse.
You'd do well to realise that performance against OZ matters just as much as away performance, since both represent a bigger challenge. Thus India's ordinary away record is counter-balanced by their excellent performance againts OZ over the years.
But then again, i guess logical thinking and you dont exactly go hand in hand.

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?

11. I think i understand the game far more than you do. As for calling probabilistic modelling rubbish - all i can say, kiddo, is when ( if) you deciede to persue a technical career, you'd know how foolish your comments are. For ANY rating system is a probabilistic modelling, especially one that is talking about how good sports teams are now or will be in the future. You can be yet another comntemptous englishman for all i care, mooching off of India, but the fact remains that your logical reasoning is non-existant and in the real world, where there is money riding at stake, my pattern of analysis will get picked every single time over yours or some of your fellow englishmen in this thread.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Err 4 out of 10 is 40 % as compared to ZERO. And when Aussie bowlers take wickets it is because of poor shots and when English bowlers take the wickets it is because of great bowling, isn't it ?

if you'd watch the series, you wouldnt have too much doubt about that. only warne bowled consistently well for australia in that test match and pretty much for the entire series.

I was merely implying that Jones' reverse swing was more effective and gave more trouble and so was Hoggard under swinging conditions. I wasn't talking about any particular test match but over all series. Now you can think whatever you want.

then how do you explain how england won oh so many test matches in the last year and a half despite minimal contribution from simon jones?

 

[tooextracool]

Hahaha, your opinion is based on facts ? such as Mcgrath averages 21 as compared to Flintoff's 32.

and flintoffs batting average of 33 compared to mcgraths 7. a 26 vs a 11 run difference in their bowling, and lets not even get into the fielding.

Err you had set the criteria of last two years and Mcgrath hasn't played SL in last two years, that's why his avg. against SL in Aus. And now I expect you to change the criteria again to suit your argument. .

so what was your point of including mcgraths performance against SL at home when its a completely different set of conditions compared to the ones in SL? especially when you consider that the first test of that series was played on a minefield.

No you are the who boosted about how Flintoff averages below 25 when the fact is that even at his best (during ashes 2005) he was 27+.

err when did i say that flintoff averaged below 25? i said that he outbowled every other pace bowler bar simon jones in that series.

It's funny that you compare Injured mcgrath to a fully fit Freddie, as someone said despite his injury and not bowling well Mcgrath ended up with better averages.

1) you were the one that brought mcgraths averages during the ashes series into the equation, not me. its glaringly obvious that mcgrath is a better bowler than flintoff.
2) the fact that mcgrath averages less than flintoff in the series only goes to show how unreliable averages can be.

Doesn't make a difference to me. If I have 4 bowlers who could bowl as consistently and well as Mcgrath, I would have them all ahead of Flintoff. I really dont care what Mcgrath can do with the bat.

except we're not talking about picking 4 bowlers but picking the first player of a team.

Why is it going to be biased ? After all you are the one who is claiming that Everyone else (except me) would have Flintoff ahead of Mcgrath in their XI, so I suggested that to prove your claim why not have the poll and see how many aussie agree with that as they are included in 'Everyone else', right ?

err if you could read, you would realise that i never claimed that EVERYONE ELSE would pick flintoff over mcgrath. i said that there'd be plenty of people who'd pick mcgrath first and plenty of others who picked flintoff first. just because you pick mcgrath over flintoff doesnt mean that someone who picks flintoff is wrong to do so.

As I said, I looked at the two year criteria set by you and that mean I looked at the dates around 17th/18th of Sep (or whenever I made that post) SA didn't come up so I didn't post SA. Anyways just looked at his performance against SA 10 wickets@59, 423@53. Okay good with bats, forgettable with the ball. You sill want to compare him to Mcgrath and say he isn't far behind

even though his bowling now is far far better than it was then? you constantly post tripe, when you've probably never watched a ball of flintoffs bowling in the last 2 years.

And when was the last time Flintoff destroyed a top order batting line up with the ball ? How about NEVER.

how about in his last test match at the oval?

There was a poll some time back on who is a better allrounder and there were lot of people who thought of Gilchrist as better allrounder than Flintoff..and also check out how many neutrals voted for Gilli and how many did that for Flintoff.

and the poll probably took place before the series even started.

Why are we not playing specialist players ? Are you saying that you would pick 11 players like flintoffs(if there were available) ahead of the likes of Mcgraths, Dravids and Gilchrists ?

Why ? Is it because Flintoff can replace Strauss/Flintoff as openers ? If I need an Opener in my team I will have one of Strauss/Tresco rather than Flintoff.

this is quite stupid. its like saying if i wanted an opener i would pick strauss/tresco over mcgrath, and therefore strauss and tresco are ahead of mcgrath when it comes to who would be picked first in the side.
and we're not talking about 11 flintoffs, we're talking about 1 flintoff. in the same way that you wouldnt win with 11 mcgraths you wouldnt win with 11 flintoffs,even if you're more likely to win with 11 flintoffs than with mcgraths

I am not the one who kept saying that 'Everyone else would' have flintoff ahead of Mcgrath, so stop ranting.

for the love of god, i never said that EVERONE ELSE would select flintoff over mcgrath. get over it and stop making up things that didnt happen. i said that there was a strong CASE for flintoff to be more important to a team overall than mcgrath and you argued against it, which obviously means that you think anyone who selects flintoff ahead of mcgrath is wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

If you have 10 batsmen averaging 70, anotehr 10 averaging 60, then one who is averaging 55 is mediocre.

so given that mark waugh averaged less than goodwin, should we consider him mediocre too?