SA getting toughened up

[Richard]

I think it is because, given the way the Super Series is scheduled, it is better to pick the guys who are in form, as when playing against the best side in the world, what matters most would be a person's confidence and his state of mind.

Yes, but they're talking about a series 11 months down the line - and they're mentioning who's in form now! It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Richard]

Harmison's success is about a year now.

Sehwag has been in much better form than Smith.

It's been real for 9 months (the last 3 of which have contained no Test-cricket).
Sehwag has been luckier than Smith, would be a more accurate assessment.

 

[marc71178]

Last August is 15 months ago.

Of course it's impossible that in the calendar year Sehwag's performed better isn't it?

Because you like Smith but not Sehwag the fact that Sehwag has scored 1102 runs in 1 less innings than Smith has 781 from is irrelevant, it's all luck.

 

[Richard]

No, nothing to do with the fact I dislike Sehwag. I have never disliked Sehwag. I do, however, realise that he has been very lucky to score the runs he's scored since the Border-Gavaskar 2003\04.

 

[Richard]

Last August is 15 months ago.

Yes, and that was just part of the usual pattern of Harmison getting a set of good figures at the end of a series. The Bangladesh game was part of a set of him doing well against poor teams.
The West Indies Tests were part of an entirely new pattern.

Of course it's impossible that in the calendar year Sehwag's performed better isn't it?

Because you like Smith but not Sehwag the fact that Sehwag has scored 1102 runs in 1 less innings than Smith has 781 from is irrelevant, it's all luck.

No, the other way around, as per usual.

 

[marc71178]

Luck alone cannot explain how he has scored more than half as many runs again as the supposedly great Smith in one less innings (especially when you look at the quality of the attacks faced in this time)

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and that was just part of the usual pattern of Harmison getting a set of good figures at the end of a series.

Oh yes, the usual pattern, as shown to be such a typical pattern by St Johns and Trent Bridge.

Such a usual pattern that in the next 2 series he played he proceeded to have his worst figures in the last Test.

 

[Richard]

Luck alone cannot explain how he has scored more than half as many runs again as the supposedly great Smith in one less innings (especially when you look at the quality of the attacks faced in this time)

Can't it?
Even when you look at his first-chance average? And see how significantly less it is.

 

[Richard]

Oh yes, the usual pattern, as shown to be such a typical pattern by St Johns and Trent Bridge.

Such a usual pattern that in the next 2 series he played he proceeded to have his worst figures in the last Test.

St.John's and Trent Bridge were both part of the next pattern, which started at Sabina. Simply, he got very good figures almost without fail.

 

[marc71178]

Can't it?
Even when you look at his first-chance average? And see how significantly less it is.

No, because I only look at actual real figures, not made up ones.

 

[marc71178]

St.John's and Trent Bridge were both part of the next pattern, which started at Sabina. Simply, he got very good figures almost without fail.

So how many patterns does he have?

You claim to have one which I show doesn't exist so you say that that is a new pattern.

But then again that so-called pattern stops abruptly in the very next series he plays, or is that yet another pattern you've found?

 

[Richard]

No, because I only look at actual real figures, not made up ones.

You look at nothing, then? Because all figures are made-up, otherwise they wouldn't exist.
Just because certain figures receive more publicity than others means you believe one is real and the other is make-believe.

 

[Richard]

So how many patterns does he have?

You claim to have one which I show doesn't exist so you say that that is a new pattern.

But then again that so-called pattern stops abruptly in the very next series he plays, or is that yet another pattern you've found?

yourself.
Harmison's career up to the Caribbean series followed a very clear pattern - his series against up-to-standard teams produced terrible averages at the start (100.34 in The Ashes, 72.something in the SA Tests) and good spells at the end (6-156 in The Ashes, 4-33 in the SA Tests). When he played the substandard teams he got excellent figures.
From the Caribbean games onwards he's had 8 outstanding Tests and 3 very, very poor ones.
I noted these patterns long before you decided to attempt to disprove them.

 

[marc71178]

You said that there was a pattern with him getting good results last Test to partially negate his bad results from the rest of the series.

How can 2 be a pattern?

 

[Richard]

One pattern stops - another starts.
Not incredibly difficult to understand.

 

[marc71178]

Except how is 2 a pattern when followed by 2 the opposite?

 

[Richard]

Because it has stopped before the other has started.

 

[marc71178]

But 2 is not a sequence that can be deemed any sort of pattern.

 

[Richard]

If you ask you.

 

[marc71178]

No, a pattern of 2 is just 2 things the same in a row - there's no sequence there at all (especially when it is followed up by 2 of the opposite thing in the next 2 events)

As per dictionary.com: Pattern - A representative sample; a specimen

How is 2 a representative sample?