I've actually completely rejected any sort of statistical analysis on this.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 15-05-2013 at 10:24 PM.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Batting scores aren't random, but that just strengthens the case for that "analysis" to be ridiculous, really. They're a product of your physical performances out there in the middle with the bat against the bowlers you're facing and the fielding side; they're not a product a statistical sequence or randomly generated, and they're certainly not a product of the cricket gods deciding your recent record is flattering/unflattering and that you're due for a bad/good score.
So, all in all, I actually agree with honestbharani here. As you all know I love my stats but the sports world of late has been infected by what I like to call "voodoo stats" - statistics without a logical explanation that are clearly products of uncontrolled variables, poor sample sizes or just good old fashioned coincidences. Certain batsmen being more or less likely to score big after a string of five (totally arbitrary from what I can see) big innings is just another one of those.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 15-05-2013 at 10:36 PM.
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
Heres some methods if you feel like doing it yourself.
How is the existence (h0 form does not exist) form not a explanation? As for anti-form don't bowlers tend to have better plans against in form batsmen, also see playing for your place.
As an aside are you suggesting form doesn't exist at all or just that some players don't slump/improve after a series of good/bad innings?
Didn't Pickup do some sort of analysis years ago which basically concluded that there was no such thing as form?
Trott to score the most runs
Broad to take most wickets
Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)