Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[Richard]

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.

Which is a very simplified account and not remotely close to a full summing-up of the workings.
Does do a reasonable job of explaining it's inconsistency, though.

 

[Richard]

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

Well done.

I don't know, but I can make a fairly safe guess.

 

[Richard]

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

Because it made it look like New Zealand were equals of South Africa when in fact they are rather substantial inferiors.

 

[Richard]

No in NZ they use kookaburras

For how long is that then?
I can assure you that in 2001\02 they were using Dukes in the Tests.
And if Martin really has struggled with a Duke having done well with a Kookaburra, I congratulate him - on a totally unique achievement!
All other swing-bowlers recognise that the Duke is the more favourable ball.

 

[marc71178]

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.

You have not gone anywhere near to showing that it's impossible and pointless.

People have far more valid points about the farcical first chance theory.

 

[marc71178]

Which is a very simplified account and not remotely close to a full summing-up of the workings.

What did you expect, when I said:

it's a fairly simple concept that doesn't take much understanding

That sums it up perfectly for laymen, and at the end of the day, the only people who need to know the real ins and outs of it are the people who calculate the ratings.

I assume you don't like it because you prefer the Dickinson system whereby you decide who is good and bad and we all have to agree.

 

[marc71178]

I don't know, but I can make a fairly safe guess.

Without watching any of it, what are you then? It's either some sort of superhuman or it's deluded.

 

[marc71178]

Because it made it look like New Zealand were equals of South Africa when in fact they are rather substantial inferiors.

No, you have decided that they are, and nothing will change your view of that, even if they were to lose 3-0 you'd give NZ no credit because they're a side that you've decided are poor.

 

[Richard Rash]

Because it made it look like New Zealand were equals of South Africa when in fact they are rather substantial inferiors.

Well at the end of the day in their own conditions they are clearly not. They proved it by playing at least equally as good or as bad as South Africa during that series. You may be right but I think we will have to wait till NZ tours SA later in the year before we can really determine if they are substatially inferior away from home

 

[Richard Rash]

For how long is that then?
I can assure you that in 2001\02 they were using Dukes in the Tests.
And if Martin really has struggled with a Duke having done well with a Kookaburra, I congratulate him - on a totally unique achievement!
All other swing-bowlers recognise that the Duke is the more favourable ball.

He struggled with the amount of swing he was getting. Said he never felt comfortable or felt he could control the swing.

 

[Richard]

You have not gone anywhere near to showing that it's impossible and pointless.

People have far more valid points about the farcical first chance theory.

Yes - because you think so.
Because one suits you, the other doesn't.

 

[Richard]

What did you expect, when I said:

it's a fairly simple concept that doesn't take much understanding

That sums it up perfectly for laymen, and at the end of the day, the only people who need to know the real ins and outs of it are the people who calculate the ratings.

I assume you don't like it because you prefer the Dickinson system whereby you decide who is good and bad and we all have to agree.

I don't like it because the point-scoring system changes according to unreliable variables, which are assumed to be constant.
The people who need to understand it are those expected to take the thing seriously - a simple two-points-for-win-one-for-draw-series-only is far easier, less inconsistent and IMO much fairer.

 

[Richard]

Without watching any of it, what are you then? It's either some sort of superhuman or it's deluded.

Or someone who realises that the exact detail of everything ever to happen isn't really that relevant.

 

[Richard]

No, you have decided that they are, and nothing will change your view of that, even if they were to lose 3-0 you'd give NZ no credit because they're a side that you've decided are poor.

I've looked at the players and decided that, yes.
If there's something wrong with that in your estimation, fine.
But of course for you results and statistics are the be-all-and-end-all (as long as they're in Tests - otherwise they don't matter at all) and nothing else is allowed to counter that.

 

[Richard]

Well at the end of the day in their own conditions they are clearly not. They proved it by playing at least equally as good or as bad as South Africa during that series. You may be right but I think we will have to wait till NZ tours SA later in the year before we can really determine if they are substatially inferior away from home

I'm more than happy to do that, and especially if South Africa at least draw the current series I'd back them to get the whitewash they were deprived of 5 years previously.

 

[Richard]

He struggled with the amount of swing he was getting. Said he never felt comfortable or felt he could control the swing.

Funny thing - he regularly struggled to swing the ball.
If he'd swung it, even had he struggled to control it, he'd have posed far more problems than he did given the propensity for impetuosity in the England batting-line-up of the day.

 

[Richard Rash]

Funny thing - he regularly struggled to swing the ball.
If he'd swung it, even had he struggled to control it, he'd have posed far more problems than he did given the propensity for impetuosity in the England batting-line-up of the day.

Just telling you what he said

 

[Richard]

And I'm telling you why it makes little or no sense.

 

[Richard Rash]

And I'm telling you why it makes little or no sense.

Lol i am not really interested in what you have to tell me

 

[marc71178]

Or someone who realises that the exact detail of everything ever to happen isn't really that relevant.

If you're going to spout off about something, surely you have to actually have some knowledge of what actually happened?