i know what is enough thank you. you certainly dont need to take courses in statistics to be able to use them effectively
Unfortunately you dont know enough.
If you did, you would've realised that a 2-3 pts difference in average over a 3 match series is a piffle.
except that stats show him to be ahead not behind.
Proper application of stats does show him behind by a lil bit.
Proper application of stats also include the bowlers they faced off against and take into account the prime form and subsequent near-career end lack of it.
no hes not, as ive said countless times. if he was he would have been at least capable of scoring against australia,SA and pakistan(and WI with walsh and ambrose), instead of the disgraceful averages that he has against them
I disagree. Overall, he is a better batsman. While he is a bit behind against quality opposition, he is definately ahead against the rest. And remember one thing- neither hussain nor butcher are half as good ODI batsmen as Ganguly is/was.
how many times have you asked the same question, despite me explaining it again and again? do you have the ability to read english or not?we've had an entire argument about how bowlers keep bowling until they stop taking wickets, and after all that we're back to square one. go back and read my posts, i couldnt be bothered to go thro the entire thing again.
Bowlers DO NOT bowl until they stop taking wickets...by and large bowlers bowl 7-10 over spells and get replaced by a fresher bowler(unless he is a spinner).I can give you numerous examples of bowlers going off 1-2 overs after taking a wicket simply because they are too tired.
In anycase, McGrath-Gillespie are a lot better at taking wickets than Vaas-whomever.
The difference between Murali comming in and Warne comming in is that in general fewer wickets have fallen in favour of SL compared to AUS and the batsmen at crease are far more settled, having spend significantly more time in the crease and under considerably less pressure (since less wickets have fallen) as compared to Warne.
Just to illustrate my point, in the last series between AUS and SL, Warne and Murali came on to bowl with the opposition thus positioned:
Murali
1st test : AUS 55/1 , AUS 11/0
2nd test: AUS 23/0 , AUS 0/0
3rd test: AUS 72/2 , 36/0
Warne :
1st test : SL 33/0, SL 0./0
2nd test: SL 58/4 , SL 56/2
3rd test: SL 63/0 , SL 18/0
As you can see, Warne comes in when the opposition are significantly worse off....even in SL...factor in other countries where McGrath-Gillespie etc. get an extended run and warne comes in 2nd change, you'll find that warne comes in after significantly more wickets have fallen and there is significantly more pressure on the batsmen.
Whats more, the OZ unit has the ability to sustain that pressure which mutually benifits them and in that area, SL are seriously lacking.
Its really quiete brainless to argue that a bowler doesnt want excellent bowlers to back themselves up and instead would prefer to be a lone warrior- check interviews from Walsh who lamented seriously that WI's lack of support bowlers was seriously hurting the team cause. Having an excellent bowling cast is what benifits OZ and benifitted the WI of the yesteryears...simply because the batsmen are under a lot more pressure and are a lot more tested. Against NZ for eg, the average batsman didnt even face HALF as many topclass delivery as they did against WI of that era and its a matter of pure time vs the WI when you will come crashing down...just like against OZ(to a lesser extent) in this era.
Every single bowler would prefer to have 3 topclass bowler around him, since it makes his job so much easier.Another factor is that batsmen cannot afford to play you out as you are the 'sole threat' but instead will have to flash his arm against you just as much as another.
