SA getting toughened up

[Richard]

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?

Fine, then - 2 things of the same in a row.

 

[marc71178]

Which makes your whole pattern thing completely and utterly irrelevant, and that seems to have been one of your main reasons for not rating Harmison...

 

[Richard]

Why does it make it irrelevant?
Twice in a row, the same thing happened - Harmison bowled absolutely appallingly (and was exposed for it) for most of a series, then got some improvement in figures at the end, then got to bowl to a substandard team who shouldn't have been playing Test-cricket.
Then after this happened twice, he got stacks of incredibly good figures in quite a few matches, though with some very poor games mixed in here and there.

 

[marc71178]

Because twice is not a pattern - it is a coincidence, especailly when followed by the exact opposite happening then twice in a row (which is also not a pattern)

 

[Richard]

Exact opposite?
No.
And it may have been coincidence - nonetheless, both occasions tell you something on their own.

 

[marc71178]

What do they tell you - they certainly do not form any sort of pattern.

And getting his worst figures of the series in the last match is the opposite of getting his best figures in the last match of the series.

 

[Richard]

And when has that happened? When has he got his worst figures of the series in the final innings\three innings? Never, that's when. Well, unless you count the one-off Test against India - which certainly isn't a series.