-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Lillie VS Hadlee
- Thread starter The Maestro
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
So. Another great theory that we have goes like this .....
If a bowler gets only 3 wickets in 3 tests at 101 runs each then, irrespective of his record in another 66 tests, it must be concluded that he could not bowl well in the conditions presented in these matches. That he was not a good enough bowler to master those conditions.
Question : Isnt it possible that he just ran into a bad patch, an unlucky phase, a small time when edges did not go to hand or batsmen got beaten but didnt snick or whatever ?
Answer :NO. Satistically blah blah blah. It proves he could not bowl in these conditions.
Question: But surely if he had bowled more on those wickets he might have improved his record, dont you thin ?
Answer : NO. Statistically blah..blah..blah It is proven what I say.
I asked myself, what would we have done if the failure/statistically-poor-performance had come in the same conditions where the great successes had come? Whom would we have blamed then? Perhaps, it was a specific batsman or two in that team who made it impossible for this fallible bowler to bowl like other infallible greats. Interesting.
There once was a bowler who, in three successive tests, got a sum total of 5 wickets for 273 runs. An astronomical average of 54.6. Clearly a useless bowler and one who could not do anything against the opposition he faced in those conditions.
The we found that before these three games, he had taken 80 wickets at 14.2 runs each. And after these three games he proceded to take another 16 wickets at 16.2 runs each. More surprisingly, the opposition was the same and the conditions were the same.
Something funny here, no ?
This bowler, one Mr CTB Turner, holds many records including taking his 101 test wickets in just 17 tests at 16.5 runs each !!
Could it be just one of those quirks of sport that he did not get the same success in those three games ???
Some theories leak the moment you put something weightier than air in them.
If a bowler gets only 3 wickets in 3 tests at 101 runs each then, irrespective of his record in another 66 tests, it must be concluded that he could not bowl well in the conditions presented in these matches. That he was not a good enough bowler to master those conditions.
Question : Isnt it possible that he just ran into a bad patch, an unlucky phase, a small time when edges did not go to hand or batsmen got beaten but didnt snick or whatever ?
Answer :NO. Satistically blah blah blah. It proves he could not bowl in these conditions.
Question: But surely if he had bowled more on those wickets he might have improved his record, dont you thin ?
Answer : NO. Statistically blah..blah..blah It is proven what I say.
I asked myself, what would we have done if the failure/statistically-poor-performance had come in the same conditions where the great successes had come? Whom would we have blamed then? Perhaps, it was a specific batsman or two in that team who made it impossible for this fallible bowler to bowl like other infallible greats. Interesting.
There once was a bowler who, in three successive tests, got a sum total of 5 wickets for 273 runs. An astronomical average of 54.6. Clearly a useless bowler and one who could not do anything against the opposition he faced in those conditions.
The we found that before these three games, he had taken 80 wickets at 14.2 runs each. And after these three games he proceded to take another 16 wickets at 16.2 runs each. More surprisingly, the opposition was the same and the conditions were the same.
Something funny here, no ?
This bowler, one Mr CTB Turner, holds many records including taking his 101 test wickets in just 17 tests at 16.5 runs each !!
Could it be just one of those quirks of sport that he did not get the same success in those three games ???
Some theories leak the moment you put something weightier than air in them.
Last edited: