Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 17 of 160 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767117 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 2398
Like Tree399Likes

Thread: *Official* 3rd Test at Edgbaston

  1. #241
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    "Form" doesn't necessarily mean much but equally I think people have a tendency to write off batsmen based on past performances when there's evidence they may have improved. Bairstow is what, 25? A lot of highly successful international batsmen have poor periods early in their career and look to have been found out in one way or another and come back a while later with a much better idea of how to play to their strengths. Sometimes it's a technique overhaul like Clarke and sometimes its just experience etc. If Bairstow is making a ton of runs and there's clear opportunities to bring him in for an underperforming player, he's worth another shot IMO. If he was 35 or this had happened several times in the past it might be a bit different.

    I think form not mattering applies more when a player is a known quantity. Weight of runs in domestic cricket could be evidence that someone is legitimately better than before.
    A look back at the past shows many players weren't successful the first time around.
    Matthew Hayden only established himself at the third attempt. Same with Justin Langer.

  2. #242
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    It's almost like this is why we need real people selectors instead of adding everyone's name to a spreadsheet and pressing

    For what it's worth, some people have investigated the form thing. I honestly don't think selectors put that much stock in form if they have other info about a player anyway.
    ****, published in 1985 and still hardly anyone involved in the game understands the argument. This whole research thing might be a waste of time.
    hendrix likes this.

  3. #243
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,936
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    It really isn't. If someone you think is a worse batsman is making bucketload of runs, then you pick him, because you might be wrong about how good that player is. The attitude above is that of an elitist.
    No. In that case, the worse batsman is not actually worse, it's just that the selector's perception is wrong.

  4. #244
    Hall of Fame Member harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    18,242
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    If a batsman has a genuine, permanent upswing (say, from fixing his technique), that's not said to be good form; it's understood that he's genuinely better than he once was.

    If you think Jonny Bairstow is genuinely better than he once was, and is genuinely a better batsman than James Taylor, by all means pick him. But you're not picking him "on form", are you? You're picking him because he's better.
    What if he's just doing better because of something you can't observe that easily, like reading the conditions better, researching the opposition bowlers more etc. That's not valid?
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~


  5. #245
    Hall of Fame Member TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    15,356
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    you're not quite understanding what I'm saying. It's not a "lucky period". It's just that scores are seldom distributed perfectly evenly.

    say your average is 2, across 10 innings.

    that could be:

    1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
    just as often as it could be:
    1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
    The point being, the run of good scores can just be a random grouping of scores that aren't distributed for perfect sampling.

    If a batsman has a genuine, permanent upswing (say, from fixing his technique), that's not said to be good form; it's understood that he's genuinely better than he once was.

    If you think Jonny Bairstow is genuinely better than he once was, and is genuinely a better batsman than James Taylor, by all means pick him. But you're not picking him "on form", are you? You're picking him because he's better.
    No, because form isn't indefinite. All players will have periods in and out of form, it's almost inevitable. If you want to see that as a player just repeatedly becoming "better than he once was" and then "worse than he once was" and repeating that cycle then that's just a different way of saying "in and out of form".

    And as I said earlier, random grouping of good/bad scores can happen as well, but that's a completely different thing.
    zorax likes this.

  6. #246
    Hall of Fame Member harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    18,242
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    No. In that case, the worse batsman is not actually worse, it's just that the selector's perception is wrong.
    But they will argue what you've been saying, that the player in question isn't actually better. And what can anyone say about that then?

  7. #247
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Quote Originally Posted by uppercut View Post
    ****, published in 1985 and still hardly anyone involved in the game understands the argument. This whole research thing might be a waste of time.


    Dammit.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 21-07-2015 at 02:35 AM.

  8. #248
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Zinzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cover point
    Posts
    25,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Compton View Post
    Cook
    Compton
    Root
    KP
    Bell
    Stokes
    Buttler
    Moeen
    Wood
    Broad
    Anderson
    I much prefer that line-up & I'm guessing this chap would too;


    Shady Slim and LongHopCassidy like this.

  9. #249
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    I feel like you're not actually reading what I've written.
    Steve Smith has scored very well recently because he's very good. That's not to say he's always going to score that highly, but that group of scores is within his bell curve, so to speak.

    The argument for picking a worse batsman over a better batsman because one is "in form" is ridiculous.
    Well, I don't think dropping a batsman because they are out of form is ridiculous, assuming the streak of poor performances is significant enough. So I guess it's a given that picking on form to some degree is a valid concept.

    Honestly I think this is just a terminology thing, because there's a lot of ways to think about it. The real issue here is it can be hard to distinguish form from ability. In reality neither is static, batsmen improve and get worse, and form comes and goes, so I think inherently I agree with your point that picking a player you believe to be fundamentally worse because you think they are on a hot streak or whatever is dumb. It's more that you think their hot streak represents an improvement in their potential to make runs, just like a long period of low scores might indicate that a batsman has gotten worse, been figured out, or that their confidence is shot and they are playing below their normal level because of it.

    The argument isn't "quick, Bairstow sucks but he's scoring runs right now so let's pick him before he goes back to being bad again", it's "Bairstow is scoring runs right now which means we know he's playing good cricket and might meet his potential if we pick him now". Behind that is a belief that he might be a more capable test batsman than last time he was picked, based on the runs he has scored. Ie that the potential is higher, not just that he's temporarily performing better than he "should" or something, which seems to be how you're interpreting "form".
    harsh.ag, hendrix, Pothas and 2 others like this.
    It's cold on the outside they say
    But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze

  10. #250
    International Coach Gnske's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    11,237
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

    The argument for picking a worse batsman over a better batsman because one is "in form" is ridiculous.
    I've read some stupid things but this only barely makes my top 5 for the day

    Disappointed

  11. #251
    International Debutant Compton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    2,893
    Why not just use the simplest logic?

    If Australia were picking England's team, who would they leave out? They'd much rather face Ballance and Lyth (who they've worked out) than Taylor or KP.

  12. #252
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,281
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    It really isn't. If someone you think is a worse batsman is making bucketload of runs, then you pick him, because you might be wrong about how good that player is. The attitude above is that of an elitist.
    You're confusing form for performance. How a player actually performs should form a substantial part in any good estimation of how good that player is, but we all know enough about cricket to realise that how many runs someone has made in the last three months is not the best indicator of likely future performance we can muster, particularly when it's done at a lower level.

    What I've really learned from reading this entire discussion is how different everyone's idea of what 'form' is actually is. To me, form is a cyclical element of cricket separate from real quality, not a statistical compilation of a player's short-term performances. There's too much variance in cricket to determine a player's form just by looking at how he's performed recently; the player himself is really the only one who will have a grasp on his form. To avoid picking too much on form, then, isn't to stubbornly ignore actual performance and pick purely based on eye, but to attempt to weed out those cyclical factors which may temporarily distort a player's output. To me, this involves avoiding the knee-jerk reactions of things like dropping a good player purely because he's had a few consecutive failures or promoting a player purely based on three quarters of a good domestic season.. and instead looking for more substantive changes in quality that aren't so subject to cyclical factors and variance, like observed technical alterations or more longer term changes in performance.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 21-07-2015 at 02:54 AM.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  13. #253
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,253
    The argument against form is that the player's last five or six scores don't tell you any more about his next score than the five or six before that. It's just that the batsman topping the run charts this season isn't more likely to score runs in his next game than the one topping last year's run charts. So it's obviously a positive that Bairstow is playing well, and I 100% agree with Faaip's post about how he might have improved. But the discussion is paying disproportionate attention to his very-recent run of scores, because it shows he's "in form", but the nature of the game means that this doesn't tell you much. Root is averaging 49 for the summer; if Haddin held that one catch at Cardiff he'd be averaging 32.

  14. #254
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,936
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    What if he's just doing better because of something you can't observe that easily, like reading the conditions better, researching the opposition bowlers more etc. That's not valid?
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    But they will argue what you've been saying, that the player in question isn't actually better. And what can anyone say about that then?
    1. Good performance and good form aren't the same thing. Good performance deserves reward. Because good performance is an indicator of ability.

    2. I didn't say that distinguishing between form and ability is easy. I said picking based on form, NOT ability, is wrong. Because form, by popular definition, doesn't exist.
    Last edited by hendrix; 21-07-2015 at 02:54 AM.

  15. #255
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Root is averaging 49 for the summer; if Haddin held that one catch at Cardiff he'd be averaging 32.
    This line of logic assumes everything else remains the same after Haddin's drop and you know this isn't true. What's to say he wouldn't have been driven on to score a huge second innings ton or played better at Lord's? Impossible to know.



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
  •