Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 15 of 160 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565115 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 2398
Like Tree399Likes

Thread: *Official* 3rd Test at Edgbaston

  1. #211
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    68,265
    But the best batsman is the one who's putting together a consistent run of decent scores, isn't he? That is, the bloke who's in form.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.

    "Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality." - Bob Hawke

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  2. #212
    Request Your Custom Title Now! OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Elton Chicken Burrah
    Posts
    33,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    But the best batsman is the one who's putting together a consistent run of decent scores, isn't he? That is, the bloke who's in form.
    Yeah exactly,hendrix's argument doesn't make much sense. The better batsman currently is simply the one who is scoring more runs (ie) in better form.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**t over your head and get a woolly bull to f**k some sense into you.

  3. #213
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    Not sure what your personal experience or viewing perspective does to change the fact that no one has ever put forward a proper argument to prove that form is anything other than a clump of good scores that, by chance, happen to be grouped together.

    The point being, if you're going to select a batsman, surely it shouldn't be based on a concept that's about as well proven as the tooth fairy. Just select the best batsman.
    Depends completely how you define form. I think a player's definition of form would be far removed from how you've raised it.

  4. #214
    International Vice-Captain Tangles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    4,250
    I doubt the county attacks he has faced are anything near Haze, triple Mitch and Nate.


  5. #215
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangles View Post
    I doubt the county attacks he has faced are anything near Haze, triple Mitch and Nate.
    Nope, but he has quite a few runs in conditions where no-one else really notched any.

  6. #216
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    68,265
    Otherwise England would just pick Pietersen wouldn't they? He's the best batsman who isn't retired who isn't in their side. The fact he's playing T20 somewhere and not making FC runs shouldn't count on this argument - he's the best player, so just pick him.

    As for whether you're in form or not, if you've played long enough you know if you're watching the ball and seeing it well, your feet are moving properly in a timely manner and you're well balanced don't you? Isn't that what being in form is? Making runs/ taking wickets which usually equates (from a batting POV) with those sorts of things. It seems a bit too semantic to get into an argument over this. Surely anyone who's played cricket enough has lent on a defensive shot or a cover drive and felt the "ping" of the ball out of the middle when you're just doing it all right and it races off to the fence? Or even leaving the ball well and seeing it early out of the hand? By contrast, if you've played long enough you've probably also had that feeling where you don't know where your off stump is, and you can't hit anything out of the screws no matter how hard you try. I don't see this as just a random run of low or high scores. I just call it being in or out of form.

  7. #217
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post

    As for whether you're in form or not, if you've played long enough you know if you're watching the ball and seeing it well, your feet are moving properly in a timely manner and you're well balanced don't you? Isn't that what being in form is? Making runs/ taking wickets which usually equates (from a batting POV) with those sorts of things. It seems a bit too semantic to get into an argument over this. Surely anyone who's played cricket enough has lent on a defensive shot or a cover drive and felt the "ping" of the ball out of the middle when you're just doing it all right and it races off to the fence? Or even leaving the ball well and seeing it early out of the hand? By contrast, if you've played long enough you've probably also had that feeling where you don't know where your off stump is, and you can't hit anything out of the screws no matter how hard you try. I don't see this as just a random run of low or high scores. I just call it being in or out of form.
    My point is that a player knows whether he is in or out of form, before the results actually come. You know when you're feet are moving right, your body is getting into the right position, whether or not you're making runs. Sometimes you're in good enough form to nick a good outswinger.
    Burgey, zorax and Flem274* like this.

  8. #218
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    the guy's trash bro
    Posts
    48,493
    Quote Originally Posted by theegyptian View Post
    Interestingly the Gillespie article for the guardian suggests they haven't worked technically with Bairstow since he played his last test for England.

    Jonny Bairstow is good enough for the Ashes but be brave and back him | Sport | The Guardian

    'So we made a pact: the Yorkshire coaches – myself included – agreed we would not speak to him about his method and instead judge him solely on his returns. This would be our only feedback. No longer would he have support staff stopping him every second ball in the nets, telling him to change his grip, stance, backlift or alignment. Instead, the only advice would be when he sought it and based solely on his gameplan for any given day. Sure, we still discuss conditions and what his approach for an innings will be, but in the 18 months that have followed his technique has not been brought up.'
    thats a dumb pact
    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blo...cricket-legacy

    Brad McNamara ‏@bbuzzmc
    Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.

  9. #219
    Gob
    Gob is online now
    International Vice-Captain Gob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    banana stand
    Posts
    4,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Malleeboy View Post
    I think Ponting at 942 (Hobbs is 942 as well) is a more realistic target or even Hutton at 945. Smith is a real chance of being No2 on ICC points system...
    Purely on ICC ranking he would make the Australian side ATG ICC points side.


    3 Bradman 961, 4 Ponting 942 , 5 Smith 936

    Hayden 935 as one opener, Gilchrist at 874 as keeper at 7

    Leaves only one opener and 6 open.
    6 would be between Hussey 921, Walters 922, Harvey 921 but of course many would opt for Miller (681 batting, 862 bowling) at 6 to give a genuine all rounder.
    Openers is Warner at 880 and Lawry 871 but you could crib a little and make Hussey the opener.

    Can't help but feel that the number of games played at a higher frequency has warped ICC point system significantly, as a player in amazing forum can rack up many more tests in that period.
    As good as Smith is, it is hard to perceive him as the 10th best of all time.....
    He is not and he would struggle to make in to top 40 atm but thats because he has only played 30 tests

    Australia play close to 30 tests over the next 18 months including the rest of the Ashes,6 home and away tests against NZ,3 in SL,4 against SA and 4 in India. By the time they are done Smith would still be 27 and if his average remains in the mid to high 50s, we'd probably have the youngest ATG since Sachin
    Dead Dove Do Not Eat

    Virat-Vaughan-Amla

  10. #220
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    thats a dumb pact
    Be interesting to see if the player has naturally fixed it himself; Bairstow would be aware of his flaws more than anyone else, but not having others fret over it could well have made a large difference in him still playing in a natural manner and emphasise his own strengths; while working out how he can improve his weakness rather than apply remedies suggested by others.

  11. #221
    International Vice-Captain Tangles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Nope, but he has quite a few runs in conditions where no-one else really notched any.
    Fair enough I just don't think he can score runs against an attack as good as Aus. I don't think he's more likely than Ballance either since most ppl are shuffling the batting order to fit him in which could negatively affect Root and Stokes if they are moved.

  12. #222
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Malleeboy View Post
    I think Ponting at 942 (Hobbs is 942 as well) is a more realistic target or even Hutton at 945. Smith is a real chance of being No2 on ICC points system...
    Purely on ICC ranking he would make the Australian side ATG ICC points side.


    3 Bradman 961, 4 Ponting 942 , 5 Smith 936

    Hayden 935 as one opener, Gilchrist at 874 as keeper at 7

    Leaves only one opener and 6 open.
    6 would be between Hussey 921, Walters 922, Harvey 921 but of course many would opt for Miller (681 batting, 862 bowling) at 6 to give a genuine all rounder.
    Openers is Warner at 880 and Lawry 871 but you could crib a little and make Hussey the opener.

    Can't help but feel that the number of games played at a higher frequency has warped ICC point system significantly, as a player in amazing forum can rack up many more tests in that period.
    As good as Smith is, it is hard to perceive him as the 10th best of all time.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Gob View Post
    He is not and he would struggle to make in to top 40 atm but thats because he has only played 30 tests

    Australia play close to 30 tests over the next 18 months including the rest of the Ashes,6 home and away tests against NZ,3 in SL,4 against SA and 4 in India. By the time they are done Smith would still be 27 and if his average remains in the mid to high 50s, we'd probably have the youngest ATG since Sachin
    Interesting that Smith is so highly rated in the official rating system. It's supposed to be a combination of career + current form, but it seems to me that him getting into the top 10 so quickly suggests that relatively new players (<40 tests) are slightly overrated.

    I just updated my system and I have him at 899 points and behind AB who is at 956. Just to be clear my system doesn't have a ceiling (the highest ever is 1154), but the basic premise is the same. A player's past matches are taken into account but less so with time, and his rating is discounted if he is still a "new" player. Right now Smith is on the cusp of being an established player, but his rated is still slightly discounted.

    I think there is a fair argument still that AB > Smith as the best Test batsmen right now. Just for a quick comparison, checking their last 20 innings:
    AB: 121 (Pak), 19, 90, 164 (Pak), 13, 103 (Ind), 74, 91 (Aus), 48, 116 (Aus), 29, 14, 43, 21, 51, 37, 12, 7, 152 (WI), 10, 148*(WI)
    Smith: 36*, 22, 55, 0, 97, 162* (Ind), 52*, 133 (Ind), 28, 192 (Ind), 14, 117 (Ind), 71, 25, 5*, 199 (WI), 54*, 33, 33, 215 (Eng), 58*

    They both made 6 tons, with AB facing the tougher opposition (similar except for facing Aus and not as much of Ind). Just based on these innings I think it's close. But then if you add the diminishing returns from the prior innings, AB has much more of positive history.

    Considering how it's not clear that Smith is even the best Test batsman around right now, I think putting him to be having the 10th best "peak form" rating of all time is a bit of a stretch. He has the potential to get there in the next year imo, but right now it's too soon.

    In terms of career ratings, I have him at #66 all-time (he just jumped past Cook who is at #67). I think it's fair considering his run, but his position is very volatile and a few bad scores and he will drop out of the top 100 quickly.
    Last edited by viriya; 21-07-2015 at 12:17 AM.
    cricrate - follow twitter and facebook for updates

  13. #223
    Hall of Fame Member TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    15,378
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    Not sure what your personal experience or viewing perspective does to change the fact that no one has ever put forward a proper argument to prove that form is anything other than a clump of good scores that, by chance, happen to be grouped together.
    I can't even comprehend how anyone with cricket experience can say something like this

    You can know when you're in form, or when you're not. I've had both. It's not solely psychological, nor is it just a result of a few lucky innings. You can be in form and make ducks, or be out of form and make 50s, but you can still often tell if you're "seeing them well"

    Randomly putting together a few good scores or a few failures can happen as well, and some people may call that "form", But that's completely different to what people generally refer to as "being in form".

  14. #224
    Hall of Fame Member hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    15,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    But the best batsman is the one who's putting together a consistent run of decent scores, isn't he? That is, the bloke who's in form.
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    Yeah exactly,hendrix's argument doesn't make much sense. The better batsman currently is simply the one who is scoring more runs (ie) in better form.
    Read the rest of the conversation. Others were advocating picking Bairstow over Taylor not because they think Bairstow is a better batsman, but because this is the do-or-die-Ashes and you must pick the guy on a hot streak.

    I'm saying that entire premise is faulty.

  15. #225
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend zorax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    23,583
    Wouldn't change anything tbh. At most drop Ballance, but tbh Australia would love to have forced England to replace their number 3 mid-Ashes yet again.

    Keep the same XI, back them, and try harder.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *Official* 3rd ODI at Edgbaston
    By Furball in forum Ashes 2013/2014
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 01:40 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 02:06 PM
  3. *Official* Third Test at Edgbaston
    By marc71178 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1904
    Last Post: 15-08-2011, 06:43 AM
  4. *Official Third Test at Edgbaston
    By superkingdave in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 3718
    Last Post: 15-08-2009, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •