Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
Hell yes.a massive zebra said:Perfect post.
This could be used as a prime example of why SJS without doubt the very finest member of the forum.
...and your follow-up wasn`t half bad either.
Hell yes.a massive zebra said:Perfect post.
This could be used as a prime example of why SJS without doubt the very finest member of the forum.
Langer's branding as a 'nudger & nurdler' is a misconception, indeed.SJS said:Australian selectors are totally crazy to have played Langer in only 7 odi's so far, after all he has one of the highest ever strike rates (88.9) in the game !!
It is also important to understand that statistical probability is a funny thing.FaaipDeOiad said:So what if Murali tours Australia again and plays say 4 or 5 more tests there, and struggles and finishes his career averaging 80 there. Would he not be an all-time great? Is Warne not an all-time great because of his poor India average (or Murali for that matter)? It's ludicrous to suggest that because a player doesn't succeed in one place means that all the rest of their amazing success is suddenly rendered insignificant.
That's very deep!Top_Cat said:4*(McGrath)/'Fourtunate Foursome' = 0
Therefore,
0 = cricket as we know it.
Therefore,
Cricket as we know it does not exist.
That is twice as many five fors in ODIs as God himself, the Rt. Hon. Shane Warne.SJS said:Tendulkar has two five fors in odi's. This itself is quite a remarkable figure but whats absolutely mind boggling is the COINCIDENCE that both of them have come on the non regular venue of Kochi !!
Indeed.Steulen said:Both Warne and Tendulkar are schoolboys compared to the great Michael Clarke. We all know Test bowling is the only thing that matters and Clarke is simply peerless. Just look at his average!
Indeed. On top of that, Clarke has been tossed the ball in just 5 test matches and bowled just 110 deliveries, so let us not forget that remarkable strike rate. Assuming that his spectacular bowling abilities will see him bowling more often in the future, and he bowls as much as Warne does over his next 123 test matches, he will, at the same stage in his career, have a remarkable 2505 test wickets. This gives him an excellent wickets per match ratio of no less than 20.37, meaning he will on average shatter not only Laker's record but also all realms of possibility by taking more wickets than there are to take in each match. This certainly puts Warne and Murali to shame!Steulen said:Both Warne and Tendulkar are schoolboys compared to the great Michael Clarke. We all know Test bowling is the only thing that matters and Clarke is simply peerless. Just look at his average!
That, my contemporaries, is one of the best.FaaipDeOiad said:Indeed. On top of that, Clarke has been tossed the ball in just 5 test matches and bowled just 110 deliveries, so let us not forget that remarkable strike rate. Assuming that his spectacular bowling abilities will see him bowling more often in the future, and he bowls as much as Warne does over his next 123 test matches, he will, at the same stage in his career, have a remarkable 2505 test wickets. This gives him an excellent wickets per match ratio of no less than 20.37, meaning he will on average shatter not only Laker's record but also all realms of possibility by taking more wickets than there are to take in each match. This certainly puts Warne and Murali to shame!
I still think the Laxman average when he doesn't get to 10 is the best.Steulen said:The most brilliant (and common) example of out-of-context stats is when it is said of player X: "He was talismanic/instrumental/whathaveyou to the team: averaging 54 when they won and 27 when they lost". Duh....
CricInfo's daily list of past events uses this all the time.
So Botham isnt an all-time great because he failed consistently against the West Indies.tooextracool said:exactly, and failing miserably in australia will change turn everything upside down. and you can almost guarantee thats not going to happen. because murali is too good a bowler to average 80 odd over 4 tests anywhere in the world. and my point is not that he must succeed to retain his status, my point is that he must not disgrace himself, so if he came out averaging 40 odd at the end of the series, hed still be an all time great.
err no, obviously not. if someone hasnt had the chance to prove himself in certain conditions, then you can only consider the person in all other conditions. there have been plenty of greats, who for example didnt play in certain countries. ambrose for example, didnt bowl a ball in india. lillee played only 3 games in the subcontinent. botham only played one test in pakistan. but the fact is that a player can only prove himself in the conditions that he plays in, and if hes done well(or at least not disgraced himself) in all the conditions that hes played extensively on, then hes an all time great.
the bowling equivalent of going faster than the speed of light...coolFaaipDeOiad said:Indeed. On top of that, Clarke has been tossed the ball in just 5 test matches and bowled just 110 deliveries, so let us not forget that remarkable strike rate. Assuming that his spectacular bowling abilities will see him bowling more often in the future, and he bowls as much as Warne does over his next 123 test matches, he will, at the same stage in his career, have a remarkable 2505 test wickets. This gives him an excellent wickets per match ratio of no less than 20.37, meaning he will on average shatter not only Laker's record but also all realms of possibility by taking more wickets than there are to take in each match. This certainly puts Warne and Murali to shame!
actually Botham didnt consistantly fail against the WI's, its just he didnt consistantly succeed..3 times in 20 matches he took 5fors and 10 times took 3 or more wickets including one of his best bowling performances ever with his 8 wicket haul in 84social said:So Botham isnt an all-time great because he failed consistently against the West Indies.
And Murali has had a chance to rectify his record in Australia. Unfortunately, he's chosen not to tour.
Stupid statement.tooextracool said:yes he did get a dicey lbw but either way that was a very poor shot to play early on in his innings.
ponting has become a better player since 2001 yes, but certainly i havent heard anything about him improving his ability against spin. if anything, hes gone backwards since the start of his career.
it's the matrix controlling and manipulating our mind..!!!Top_Cat said:4*(McGrath)/'Fourtunate Foursome' = 0
Therefore,
0 = cricket as we know it.
Therefore,
Cricket as we know it does not exist.
Botham took 19 wickets @ 35 in '84.Swervy said:actually Botham didnt consistantly fail against the WI's, its just he didnt consistantly succeed..3 times in 20 matches he took 5fors and 10 times took 3 or more wickets including one of his best bowling performances ever with his 8 wicket haul in 84
In 84 in fact he was one of Englands most consistant players scoring 350 runs and taking 31 wickets...not bad for a failure
social said:Botham took 19 wickets @ 35 in '84.
Overall, he averaged 20 with the bat and 35 with ball against the WI.
Hardly cause for celebration.
Not that I hold it against him as I still rate him as an all-time great.
Unfortunately, the selective use of statistics would preclude others from making the same determination.
James said:If you want to post on the Cricket Web Forum you play by the rules. As simple as that.