Kamran Abbasi is a big idiot

[rodzilla1010]

What I am trying to say that there should be certain amount of professionalism when you take on the job of critising a team. Using a title like "i am embarrressed, are you?" is just ridiculous. Pakistan is in the top3 of both versions, they must have done something good.

Its nice to be fair and say that they had a bad series and they should do soemthing better than what they did in SA..instead of hailing them as the worst losers of the century.

 

[Richard]

Pakistan are certainly not nailed-on top-3 in either.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Actually they are, there are only 2 teams who are in the top 3 of both version
1) Australia
2) Pakistan

 

[nightprowler10]

Actually they are, there are only 2 teams who are in the top 3 of both version
1) Australia
2) Pakistan

Just barely though.

 

[Richard]

Actually they are, there are only 2 teams who are in the top 3 of both version
1) Australia
2) Pakistan

Nonsense.

You could make a case for Pakistan being as low as 6 in both Tests and ODIs.

Certainly there's precisely no way they're better than England and SA in Tests or SA in ODIs.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Richard, they are not better than SA in ODI's that the rankings indicate..SA is joint #1

but in test i doubt it..we lost in SA by a margin of 1 test..excatly the way in Pak by a margin of 1 test the alst time they visited Pak

Same with england...we didnt win a test against eng in eng..eng didnt win a tst in pak either

Aus,Eng,SA and PAK are top 4 test sides
and Pak,Aus and SA are top 3 odi sides

 

[Richard]

England came a damn sight closer to winning in Pakistan than Pakistan did in England.

In any case, it's not only about head-to-heads. Yes, we had 2 shockers in failing to beat SL at home and in Aus, but apart from that our Test-cricket has been far better than Pakistan's in the last 3 years.

SA are quite patently a better Test side than Pak - they have finally started beating countries other than WI again, FFS.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Wasnt' Pak winning the game before Hair pulled his final stunt as an umpire?
we were leading by 100 odd runs with 6 eng wickets remaining a whole Pak innings to go

Please we are only 1 point behind england in the test rankings...

 

[Swervy]

Wasnt' Pak winning the game before Hair pulled his final stunt as an umpire?
we were leading by 100 odd runs with 6 eng wickets remaining a whole Pak innings to go

Please we are only 1 point behind england in the test rankings...

well Pakistan were 30 ahead with 6 English wickets to go,,,Pakistan had the upper hand, but the game could well have been saved by England as well.

By the way, I think you should be saying 'wasnt Pak winning the game before Inzy refused to continue with the match, thus conceding'

 

[rodzilla1010]

well its a matter of a opinion...but the bottom line is england didnt win a tst in pakistan either...so you got nothing on us

 

[Swervy]

well its a matter of a opinion...but the bottom line is england didnt win a tst in pakistan either...so you got nothing on us

yeah,..fine by me, I aint arguing

 

[C_C]

And for all those I could name probably 50 or 60 examples to the contrary.

And that's before you even get into why some of those cases are not so simple as they seem. Kumble\Warne and McGrath\Walsh, for example, relative to pitch-conditions.

Okay, some Math 101 for you then : Correlation to a theory is not dependent on simply plotting 50% or more values within the pattern - its about both the weight given to the sample points ( in this case, not all sample points are equal) as well as having a lot more than just 50%.
I can say with complete confidence that your theory of correlation is false given the # of high profile cases i've listed- in a list that is in no way exhaustive. The fact that there are so many cases i've listed at casual glance certainly blows away your 'very rarely' qualifier to it. It throws up enough cases- and enough high profile ones ( bear in mind, i checked only the high profile ones- i suspect for every 1 you can find in your corner, i can match it too, for i certainly didn't have to look long or hard for that list of examples) to definitely put it, at the very least a 50-50 coin toss.
And i am not going to argue over you on this either - if you feel that you have a better understanding of correlations, sure go ahead- but you'd be wrong.
I don't exactly want to discuss statistics with you in a long tedious exercise that'd only show you in too much detail on how you are in error.

Just because you yourself made the conversion from lazy to hard-working doesn't mean that many do. Don't project your prejudices onto others.

A skill can be honed through practice, not learnt. Work ethic is not rated as skill by anyone i know- and i'd suspect people who consider work ethic as a skill are definately in the minority.

There are many of that opinion.

I am not one of them and you arn't convincing me based on supposition either.
The bottomline for me is that Barry Richards was an accomplished county player who didn't get much chances. He could've been a flop like Hick or been another Tendulkar. Fact however, is that he is unproven at the highest level and i consider it unfair to lump unproven people along with categorically proven ones based on supposition.

Anyways,this is very very OT.

 

[Richard]

Okay, some Math 101 for you then : Correlation to a theory is not dependent on simply plotting 50% or more values within the pattern - its about both the weight given to the sample points ( in this case, not all sample points are equal) as well as having a lot more than just 50%.
I can say with complete confidence that your theory of correlation is false given the # of high profile cases i've listed- in a list that is in no way exhaustive. The fact that there are so many cases i've listed at casual glance certainly blows away your 'very rarely' qualifier to it. It throws up enough cases- and enough high profile ones ( bear in mind, i checked only the high profile ones- i suspect for every 1 you can find in your corner, i can match it too, for i certainly didn't have to look long or hard for that list of examples) to definitely put it, at the very least a 50-50 coin toss.
And i am not going to argue over you on this either - if you feel that you have a better understanding of correlations, sure go ahead- but you'd be wrong.
I don't exactly want to discuss statistics with you in a long tedious exercise that'd only show you in too much detail on how you are in error.

Let's just say I'm confident enough that those whose Test records are better than their FC ones are in a very small minority, then.

Because it would, after all, take rather a long time to research.

I am not one of them and you arn't convincing me based on supposition either.
The bottomline for me is that Barry Richards was an accomplished county player who didn't get much chances. He could've been a flop like Hick or been another Tendulkar. Fact however, is that he is unproven at the highest level and i consider it unfair to lump unproven people along with categorically proven ones based on supposition.

Except Hick (and, indeed, most flops) didn't average 70 in their first 4 games. That does play a small part, y'know.

Richards, incidentally, was far more than an accomplished "county" player; he was accomplished in county, provincial and state cricket (played plenty in all 3 countries) and also, it shouldn't be forgotten, in international First-Class matches (ROW games) and also Packer games which, while deservingly devoid of all status, weren't completely meaningless.

 

[Richard]

Wasnt' Pak winning the game before Hair pulled his final stunt as an umpire?
we were leading by 100 odd runs with 6 eng wickets remaining a whole Pak innings to go

Please we are only 1 point behind england in the test rankings...

Quite frankly I couldn't give a flying **** about the rankings, it was much better when we had a proper Championship.

Even if Pakistan had won at The Oval, which they probably would have, their performance in England was still far worse than England's in Pakistan.

 

[C_C]

Let's just say I'm confident enough that those whose Test records are better than their FC ones are in a very small minority, then.

As i was going over data, it seriouly wasn't such a minority. Go take a look- heaps of people do better at one level, worse at another. It didnt take me more than 5 min to come up with that list - that should give you an idea how frequently i encountered it amongst the ranks of etablished longtime players.

That does play a small part, y'know.

I tend not to rate people after a series or two - incase you forget, Kambli is a fine example of big bang start and dead-ending his career.

The bottomline is, Richards was unproven at the top level and how good he is in comparison to established players is just a supposition.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Actually they are, there are only 2 teams who are in the top 3 of both version
1) Australia
2) Pakistan

It's debatable whether Pakistan are even in the top 3 for anything IMO.

 

[Richard]

As i was going over data, it seriouly wasn't such a minority. Go take a look- heaps of people do better at one level, worse at another. It didnt take me more than 5 min to come up with that list - that should give you an idea how frequently i encountered it amongst the ranks of etablished longtime players.

And I could do the same for the opposite. Probably even quicker.

I tend not to rate people after a series or two - incase you forget, Kambli is a fine example of big bang start and dead-ending his career.

The bottomline is, Richards was unproven at the top level and how good he is in comparison to established players is just a supposition.

I tend not to rate people too much based on 1 series but I also tend not to completely and totally discount it because "Vinod Kambli went downhill after a sensational start".

Not many, after all, make such a start.

 

[C_C]

And I could do the same for the opposite. Probably even quicker.

Probably. Which is my entire point : there is no correlation. If you can find N number of players who's FC record and Test record are proportional to another player's but i can find N number too who don't fall into that pattern.
Ie, FC record is not a benchmark for comparisons with test cricketers.

 

[Davey]

Nonsense.

You could make a case for Pakistan being as low as 6 in both Tests and ODIs.

Certainly there's precisely no way they're better than England and SA in Tests or SA in ODIs.

Now hang on a second...

Its probably another team that should be in second correct, however how you can be so sure of England's standing against other teams is debatable...

I mean wow England won the last few games of the ODI series over here , so what? i find it really hard for you to be judging otehr teams so immediately when if you recall just before that good form England gained, they were getting bowled out for measely scores by both the Kiwi's and us. Furthermore

You were thumped at HOME 5-0 By Sri Lanka (quite comprehensively i might add) and if i recall correctly murali wasnt even playing in some of the ODI's!!??? And then a draw in the tests??
Psscht

anyway my point is besides Australia and South Africa its debatable when judging the other teams against each other

P.S You wanna talk about strange rankings.. why is England still second in Test matches? Boggles the mind

 

[Salamuddin]

SA are quite patently a better Test side than Pak - they have finally started beating countries other than WI again, FFS.

How exactly are South Africa a patently better test team than Pakistan ?