How did this bloke play for aus a??

[Richard]

Says the master of all assumptions and generalisms.

Nope, I use them far, far less than most people.
The one general rule I use plenty is the fingerspinners-aren't-going-to-be-much-good-unless-they're-from-the-subcontinent one, and as of yet there's nothing to suggest that's a bad rule.

 

[Richard]

so why mention it later on again?

Where "in the blue hell" did I mention it? Not once have I said a thing about Martyn's early career in this thread (other than "I've removed it"), because it frankly doesn't matter with regards discussion of his later career, because he's clearly not the same player.

and if you remove all of lara's 100s he averages 32. clearly all or nothing.
and you're going to love this one.....if you remove all of bradman's 100s he averaged a meagre 34.10. i always need bradman was inconsistent.
you really gotta stop making yourself being a joke, the fact of the matter was that even during the worst period of his career he managed to average 44, and score 3 100s and 3 50s in the period of a year.

There's a difference between averaging 32 and averaging 22.
And as for Bradman... hardly a good idea to remove something that happened over 1\3 of the time.

well done sherlock in ignoring the crux of the argument. the fact that inzy has been more inconsistent than martyn, and still ended up averaging 50.

Something utterly irrelevant to the fact that I think Inzamam is near certain to finish his career with a higher average than Martyn.

 

[King_Ponting]

Pretty interesting how this thread has developed into a totally off the subject argument

 

[steds]

Pretty interesting how this thread has developed into a totally off the subject argument

They always do. Welcome to CC

 

[tooextracool]

Where "in the blue hell" did I mention it? Not once have I said a thing about Martyn's early career in this thread (other than "I've removed it"), because it frankly doesn't matter with regards discussion of his later career, because he's clearly not the same player..

"And Martyn has never averaged 70, he just did from the very start of his comeback."

There's a difference between averaging 32 and averaging 22.

clearly, especially when we are looking at bradman's entire career and martyn's poor period only
and as we all know 32 is absolutely brilliant.

And as for Bradman... hardly a good idea to remove something that happened over 1\3 of the time..

just like its extremely stupid for you to remove martyn's 100s, just because its the only way your argument has any credibility. its not just a fluke 100, he made 3, and he scored a few 50s in the same year.

Something utterly irrelevant to the fact that I think Inzamam is near certain to finish his career with a higher average than Martyn.

good god! what part of INZAMAM HAS BEEN MORE INCONSISTENT THAN MARTYN AND STILL AVERAGED 50 do you NOT understand?
why will martyn average less than inzy when he's been more consistent and a better player than inzy against all countries?
next time you make an argument, try coming up with one that actually makes sense.

 

[Jamee999]

Did you know?

Did you know that in matches when his team has won the match that Graham Thorpe(62.62) averages more than Brian Lara(61.02) Therefore, Thorpe is a better, and much more influentual batsman.

Selective stats rock

 

[aussie]

And you typify the attitude that perpetuates amongst most cricket followers, and one that I can't stand.
Still - there we go.

what attitude is that

 

[aussie]

Averaged 44 because of 3 centuries (1 unbeaten) - if you remove the centuries it's 22, which is exactly what I mean - he was all-or-nothing in that period, and there have been other similar and polar-opposite periods since.

Come on Richard, why do you have to take out his major innings and illustrate his poor one's, i dont get that mate. If you take out all of Lara's, Tendulkar's or some of the great batsmen off alltime innings, would you still call them inconsistent

 

[aussie]

Pretty interesting how this thread has developed into a totally off the subject argument

its normal here of CC

 

[Prince EWS]

Nope, not at all. Overall averages hide many, many patterns, and it's far better not to bother with them.
Kumble's case, like almost every other, demonstrates this well:
1989\90-1999: 174 matches, economy-rate 4.10-an-over, average 27.79
1999\2000-2004\05: 87 matches, economy-rate 4.69-an-over, average 37.97
With Hogg, whose career is shorter, there are more ups and downs, and there are various anomalies etc.
When Hogg's been good he's been very good, but equally if you take out 1 or 2 innings he's been poor.

I really dont think its fair to take out a bowlers best bowling performances simply because you feel like it.

I wonder what Bradman would average if we removed all his innings above 50...

I think its fair enough to seperate Kumble's statistics, as there is a quite distinct different there in the two time periods, but you are just taking out Hogg's performances because they are good - which is not right at all...

 

[Richard]

Why not? If someone's done exceedingly poorly in 10 games and well in 2, don't you think it's best to get rid of the anomalies? Especially when they have such a large, misleading pull.

 

[Richard]

Come on Richard, why do you have to take out his major innings and illustrate his poor one's, i dont get that mate. If you take out all of Lara's, Tendulkar's or some of the great batsmen off alltime innings, would you still call them inconsistent

Not neccessarily, Lara and Tendulkar have both had phrases of their careers where they were rarely if ever dismissed cheaply.
Of course, both have had phrases of inconsistency, Lara especially.

 

[Richard]

what attitude is that

Said already.
The "see the best in everything" attitude.

 

[Richard]

Did you know?

Did you know that in matches when his team has won the match that Graham Thorpe(62.62) averages more than Brian Lara(61.02) Therefore, Thorpe is a better, and much more influentual batsman.

Selective stats rock

All stats are selective.
Some rock, some are just extremely annoying, such as the example you give here.

 

[Richard]

"And Martyn has never averaged 70, he just did from the very start of his comeback."

Where in that did I mention the period before his comeback?
That comment was aimed at Marc's ludicrous statement that I expect Martyn to average 70 forever.

clearly, especially when we are looking at bradman's entire career and martyn's poor period only
and as we all know 32 is absolutely brilliant.

It's a darn sight better than 22.

just like its extremely stupid for you to remove martyn's 100s, just because its the only way your argument has any credibility. its not just a fluke 100, he made 3, and he scored a few 50s in the same year.

And almost anyone will score a few 50s in a year.
Fact is, Martyn played 3 good innings and did not much else. Hence he was inconsistent.

good god! what part of INZAMAM HAS BEEN MORE INCONSISTENT THAN MARTYN AND STILL AVERAGED 50 do you NOT understand?

Where do you get the idea I don't understand any of it?

why will martyn average less than inzy when he's been more consistent and a better player than inzy against all countries?
next time you make an argument, try coming up with one that actually makes sense.

Martyn will average less because his average has gone up and down like a yo-yo on several occasions in the last 4 years.
Inzamam's has remained pretty stagnant for the last 3 years (overall gone up by 1.03 overall).
Why?
Because Inzamam has played far, far more Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

It's a darn sight better than 22..

gee martyn averages less than bradman, he must be inconsistent
jesus you're comparing the best player ever to him, and even he doesnt have a brilliant average when you remove 100s.
not to forget that i was looking at martyn's worst period, not his overall career.

And almost anyone will score a few 50s in a year.
Fact is, Martyn played 3 good innings and did not much else. Hence he was inconsistent...

OMG it was the worst period of his career, everyone is allowed to have a bad patch, in inzy's worst period that lasted 1.5 years, he played a whole 1 good inning
and martyn played more than 3 good innings in his worst period.

Where do you get the idea I don't understand any of it?...

because you still havent explained why martyn will average less than inzy when hes been more consistent.

Martyn will average less because his average has gone up and down like a yo-yo on several occasions in the last 4 years..

or rather if you take his average in the last 3 years, like you did with inzy, then his average has gone from 51 to 46 and back to 51. hence the net change is near 0.

Inzamam's has remained pretty stagnant for the last 3 years (overall gone up by 1.03 overall).
Why?
Because Inzamam has played far, far more Tests.

point being? why not look at inzy's entire career, given that that gives a more accurate indication OF HOW INCONSISTENT HES BEEN IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. and if you did that you'd find that his average fell from 50-40 and has now gone back to 50.
hence hes been more inconsistent.

 

[Richard]

gee martyn averages less than bradman, he must be inconsistent
jesus you're comparing the best player ever to him, and even he doesnt have a brilliant average when you remove 100s.
not to forget that i was looking at martyn's worst period, not his overall career.

I'm not the one comparing the best player ever to him, you are.
I've given my reasons why that comparison is utterly pointless.

OMG it was the worst period of his career, everyone is allowed to have a bad patch, in inzy's worst period that lasted 1.5 years, he played a whole 1 good inning
and martyn played more than 3 good innings in his worst period.

Everyone is allowed to have a bad period, quite.
Nonetheless Martyn was either all or nothing in that period.

because you still havent explained why martyn will average less than inzy when hes been more consistent.

Because for most of his career Inzamam has averaged more than Martyn, and even while Martyn's been more consistent he's played less Tests so a smaller inconsistency will take the average down further.
Understand?

or rather if you take his average in the last 3 years, like you did with inzy, then his average has gone from 51 to 46 and back to 51. hence the net change is near 0.

It is, but that suggests that it will go down again sometime, and judging by his age and the general stupidity of Australia's selectors I'd not bet against him being dropped terminally when it happens.

point being? why not look at inzy's entire career, given that that gives a more accurate indication OF HOW INCONSISTENT HES BEEN IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. and if you did that you'd find that his average fell from 50-40 and has now gone back to 50.
hence hes been more inconsistent.

He has indeed, but recently his average hasn't changed much.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not the one comparing the best player ever to him, you are.
I've given my reasons why that comparison is utterly pointless..

how is it utterly pointless? the best batsman in the history of cricket only averaged 32 when you remove his 100s. if martyn averages 22 in his worst period when you do the same, i'd think he's done quite a brilliant job.

Everyone is allowed to have a bad period, quite.
Nonetheless Martyn was either all or nothing in that period...

what the hell is your point?
its a bad period.if we were looking at players in their bad period only, lara would be rubbish, as would tendulkar.
and at least when he got going he managed to score prolifically, which is almost always the sign of a very good player, instead of getting 70 odd.

Because for most of his career Inzamam has averaged more than Martyn, .

err what? inzamam has averaged over 50 in all of 3 tests in his entire career. if you're prepared to eat your computer if martyn ends up averaging over 50 at the end of his career, then god bless you..

and even while Martyn's been more consistent he's played less Tests so a smaller inconsistency will take the average down further.
Understand?

again, do you have any idea what you are talking about?
are you going to tell me that inzy is will average more than sehwag, graeme smith etc simply because hes played more tests? you really are talking through your teeth here.

It is, but that suggests that it will go down again sometime, and judging by his age and the general stupidity of Australia's selectors I'd not bet against him being dropped terminally when it happens.

i doubt they'd drop him, unless his average goes down to about 40, and id say its on the rise, i'd expect it to go up to about 56 or so.
and how do you know that inzy's average wont go down? given that hes barely ever managed to average over 50 in his test career.

He has indeed, but recently his average hasn't changed much.

and what does that have to do with his career average?

 

[Richard]

how is it utterly pointless? the best batsman in the history of cricket only averaged 32 when you remove his 100s. if martyn averages 22 in his worst period when you do the same, i'd think he's done quite a brilliant job.

And Bradman scored 100s more regularly than every 3 innings.
Bradman's career is also longer than Martyn's period of reference here.

what the hell is your point?
its a bad period.if we were looking at players in their bad period only, lara would be rubbish, as would tendulkar.
and at least when he got going he managed to score prolifically, which is almost always the sign of a very good player, instead of getting 70 odd.

Oh, it is, and Marytn is undoubtedly a good player.
Lara's poor period produced an average of 39; Tendulkar's the most hopeless inconsistency you'll see (either 500 without being dismissed or single-figure score after single-figure score); what is the point?
Fact is, Martyn had a poor period and he was extremely inconsistent in it.

err what? inzamam has averaged over 50 in all of 3 tests in his entire career. if you're prepared to eat your computer if martyn ends up averaging over 50 at the end of his career, then god bless you..

Indeed - I'll be astonished if Martyn finishes with an average of over 50.

again, do you have any idea what you are talking about?
are you going to tell me that inzy is will average more than sehwag, graeme smith etc simply because hes played more tests? you really are talking through your teeth here.

No, just that he's almost certain to play more Tests than Martyn, so if he has another poor period it'll not affect his average as it would Martyn's if Martyn had exactly the same set of scores.

i doubt they'd drop him, unless his average goes down to about 40, and id say its on the rise, i'd expect it to go up to about 56 or so.
and how do you know that inzy's average wont go down? given that hes barely ever managed to average over 50 in his test career.

Because attacks are weak, and since his 329 he's not experienced much paucity?

and what does that have to do with his career average?

Err, it is his career average...?

 

[Swervy]

I just dont get this talk about Martyns 'bad' patch...in amongst that 'bad' patch, he went 7 innings scoring 522 runs, with 3 100's and 2 50's,and all but 1 of those +50 innings was against the then second best team in the world. During that spell he averaged 104.4.

I think it would be better to say he failed in 4 innings in a row after that spell, but bounced back with a 67, and a 20 that may well have saved Australia from losing the test..he then scored 34 in a test which the opposition barely scored 100 in 2 innings.

Its a pretty good 'bad' patch