Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[Richard]

But it paid no attention to dominance.

Say, for arguments sake, Australia won every series with white-washes but lost 2-1 twice against SA, and SA won every series 2-1.

That would then have SA top, when Australia are far more dominant.

A system doesn't have to be that simple to be effective (just look at PwC)

And PWC, too, attempts an impossible task and does a very poor job of it.
Series-scorelines are largely unimportant - you can win 2-1 or you can win 4-0 - you've still won the series and that's all that really matters.
The current table is not only incoherant but inconsistent, relying on ever-changing formulae, probably understood only by it's devisor, well-known as one of The World's better mathematicians.

 

[Richard]

well losing 5-1 to australia says a lot. and personally, most teams end up beating pakistan in pakistan so really losing to them is only an indication of being poor.

They came pretty darn close to drawing in Pakistan - about as close as they came to winning in England.

 

[Richard]

another way of looking at it, is that he averages 40+ at home and 28 away. again not something of a test class player.

And if you take it in the periods I've mentioned, his away average is 21.16 and his home first-chance average 28.something.
He only played at home 4 times in that period and the way he batted I'm confident he'd need luck for his only good innings as he did.
In his good period his home average is 41.15 and away it's 38.65.
Yes, you can look at it in other ways but IMO this is the most revealing.

and they played poorly because martin bowled well, hence they didnt under perform, just that the opposition actually bowled well.

So they were outdone by a rare good performance.
In other words, an anomaly.

 

[Richard]

it was predictable because they were no longer a good side, and their poor bowling showed up.

The same way England suddenly becaume a rubbish side 6 months earlier?
No, both sides went to pieces, with a bit of bad luck, and were hammered.

 

[Richard]

which changes the fact that he bowled well throughout the series how? he took 18 wickets from 2 games, certainly more than 1 good spell in the entire series.

He had one good spell that resulted in a win all series.
But for that spell, the win would almost certainly have been a draw.

this is a load of rubbish. the SA bowlers were as accurate as always. the only reason why pollock(since hes the only one who is usually economical anyways) had a poor ER was because players like cairns and oram smashed them all over the park not because of the bowlers bowling any worse.
with regard to series, yes he maybe poor, but hes quite capable of hammering un pentrative bowlers on flat pitches, as his 119 in india would say.

He's capable of hammering unpenetrative, inaccurate bowlers - if you look at the SA bowlers for the rest of that series (or the rest of his career in Terbrugge's case), they were all economical otherwise.
If the bowlers had been inaccurate yes, Cairns and Oram might have smashed them all over the park but Styris almost certainly wouldn't have.

 

[Richard]

so if australia beats bangladesh does it mean they dont deserve to win since bangladesh is poor?

It means the win is totally meaningless - just like it is when anyone beats Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

we've already dealt with the other occasions, such as the hammering in pakistan, SL, india and against australia.

Being beaten in the subcontinent and by Australia is something most do - only losing in Pakistan (and to a lesser extent not winning in England) is the only meaningful thing.

 

[Richard]

Actually no, it's a fairly simple concept that doesn't take much understanding

Go on, then, "wise guy" - give us an exact summary of the workings, that anyone could understand.

 

[Richard]

Ok that doesn't make sense at all. You could determine how the bowlers were bowling and assume they were bowling crap just because you have seen Styris bat before? Maybe, just maybe Styris punched above his weight and played above himself.. In any case people like Martin Crowe and Ian Smith said it was one of the best innings they had seen played by a NZer ever

Wow - patriotic Kiwis, that says a lot.
Maybe he did - but I find that almost impossible to conceive - it couldn't have been better-timed, if so.

 

[Richard]

I am just telling you what he said regarding his performance in England. I don't think he would just make it up that they were using different balls. Too many people would know around cricketing circles if he were lying. People should be able to confirm that I am right in saying they use different balls in England than that to NZ and Richo is just lying without checking his facts just to try get one over me finally.

The standard balls used in England and New Zealand are Dukes - with Readers sometimes for various competitions.
Maybe he did struggle in England, and maybe he wasn't lying - maybe he was just misinformed.

 

[Richard]

Not really. The first test was even. And you said NZ had no right to even draw the series so SA must have underperformed in the first test to only manage a draw against little old NZ.

No, both teams did justice to the weakness of the opposition's bowling-attack to make a draw in The First Test.

And even you have admited that Chris Martin bowled well. He was the difference on a flat track. SA didn't bowl that badly. They took two early wickets and then had NZ 220 for five or something like that until Chris Cairns took them apart like he can to any attack on his day regardless of whether they are bowling badly or not. Chris Martin bowled awesomely well and NZ took 20 wickets on a flat track relatively cheaply and won the test by nine wickets and dominated the game and played bloody well and definetly deserved to win the test

You don't need to tell me about Cairns - I am perfectly well aware of his capabilities of taking attacks apart.
Nonetheless if they'd bowled better at Styris (and to a lesser extent Oram) he'd probably have got something more like 80*.
Martin I've already discussed - it was a remarkably timed breakout performance which happened at about the worst possible moment from a wider cricketing point-of-view.

 

[marc71178]

Series-scorelines are largely unimportant - you can win 2-1 or you can win 4-0 - you've still won the series and that's all that really matters.

Erm no, there is a big difference between dominating a series and scraping it.

 

[marc71178]

And PWC, too, attempts an impossible task and does a very poor job of it.

No, 1 person thinks it does a very poor job of it.

Everyone else realises what it does is just about right for what it is setting out to do.

 

[marc71178]

Go on, then, "wise guy" - give us an exact summary of the workings, that anyone could understand.

The number of points earned by a team for any given Test or series depends on two factors: the result (won, drawn/tied or lost) and the rating of the opponent against whom the result was achieved. The higher an opponent's rating, the more points are earned for beating them. Points are ‘weighted’ in the same way as the match/series total.

There - looks pretty simple and easy to understand.

 

[marc71178]

Nonetheless if they'd bowled better at Styris (and to a lesser extent Oram) he'd probably have got something more like 80*.

Without even watching it, you know how badly they bowled.

Well done.

 

[Richard Rash]

The standard balls used in England and New Zealand are Dukes - with Readers sometimes for various competitions.
Maybe he did struggle in England, and maybe he wasn't lying - maybe he was just misinformed.

No in NZ they use kookaburras

 

[Richard Rash]

The number of points earned by a team for any given Test or series depends on two factors: the result (won, drawn/tied or lost) and the rating of the opponent against whom the result was achieved. The higher an opponent's rating, the more points are earned for beating them. Points are ‘weighted’ in the same way as the match/series total.

There - looks pretty simple and easy to understand.

Yep sounds straightforward enough to me

 

[Richard Rash]

Martin I've already discussed - it was a remarkably timed breakout performance which happened at about the worst possible moment from a wider cricketing point-of-view.

Sorry explain why it was so bad for the widdering cricketing point of view?

 

[Richard]

Erm no, there is a big difference between dominating a series and scraping it.

Yes, there is - but as long as you win it it doesn't really matter.

 

[Richard]

No, 1 person thinks it does a very poor job of it.

Everyone else realises what it does is just about right for what it is setting out to do.

And of course you are in such a brilliant position to assert that 1 person only does...
Even if I were (and I'm not, incidentally) I think I've done a pretty good job in showing why it's task is a totally impossible and pointless one.
Of course, for some it is an important part of any arguments they might put-forward, so of course they have to defend it's integrity - even if it's simply flailing in the dark.