Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

[SJS]

It is amazing how often people quote some stats like a batsman's or bowlers failure in a particular tour in a partticular cpountry to prove that he was not good enough and vice versa. Very often these stats are totally misleading but go unchallenged because they are so striking. Pontings failure in India is one such stat. People refuse to accept, if they want to make an anti-Ponting point, that this could be a statistical chance just as a captain can win ten tosses in a row.

The pointing of Murali's figures in Australia of 116 runs per wicket is a case in point. I was answering that post without realising that the thread got closed.

While I am not so keen to argue with Scallywag so as to revive the thread but I think the point of out-of-context or freak stats being quoted in arguments is one I would like to point at. For this I am using my reply to Scallywag which wasnt posted in the now closed thread.

Originally Posted by Scallywag

So whats Muralis average in Australia.

116 runs per wicket

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahaha

While I would like to get into the argument as to who is the better of the two. I am amazed that you find these stats so significant.

1. Do you realise that these figures of 116 runs per wkt are over just two test matches?

2. Do you realise that these two mathces were played TEN years ago ?

3. Do you realise that upto that stage, Murali was nowhere near the bowler he was to become later having taken his wickets at an unimpressive 34 runs each ? And till that stage he was taking a moderate 3.5 wickets per test ?

4. Do you know that since then he has taken 450 wickets at just over 20 runs each ?

5. Do you know that in taking these 451 wickets he has averaged a staggering 6.6 wkts per test match, easily the most astonishing and sustained wicket taking spree in the history of the game ever ?

6. Do you realise that during the last ten years, while he was virtually running throught batting orders all over the world, he did not play a single test in Australia so as to better his first and only two tests performance there ?

7. Do you know that while he did not play in Australia, during this period, he did play Australia at home in 6 tests in last ten years and
- took 43 wkts
- at over 7 per test
- at an average of 22.1 per wkt and
- a strike rate of 47.1 balls per wkt ?

Do you think there is any significance of the average of 116 per wkt in Australia that you quote and for some weird reason find hilarious ?

If you do, I salute you and shut my mouth up

While we can forget , at this point about the Warne vs Murali debate (arent we sick of it) but I think we need to be carefull in bandying about freak stats with misplaced conviction to make invalid points.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by SJS

It is amazing how often people quote some stats like a batsman's or bowlers failure in a particular tour in a partticular cpountry to prove that he was not good enough and vice versa. Very often these stats are totally misleading but go unchallenged because they are so striking. Pontings failure in India is one such stat. People refuse to accept, if they want to make an anti-Ponting point, that this could be a statistical chance just as a captain can win ten tosses in a row.

The pointing of Murali's figures in Australia of 116 runs per wicket is a case in point. I was answering that post without realising that the thread got closed.

While I am not so keen to argue with Scallywag so as to revive the thread but I think the point of out-of-context or freak stats being quoted in arguments is one I would like to point at. For this I am using my reply to Scallywag which wasnt posted in the now closed thread.


While I would like to get into the argument as to who is the better of the two. I am amazed that you find these stats so significant.

1. Do you realise that these figures of 116 runs per wkt are over just two test matches?

2. Do you realise that these two mathces were played TEN years ago ?

3. Do you realise that upto that stage, Murali was nowhere near the bowler he was to become later having taken his wickets at an unimpressive 34 runs each ? And till that stage he was taking a moderate 3.5 wickets per test ?

4. Do you know that since then he has taken 450 wickets at just over 20 runs each ?

5. Do you know that in taking these 451 wickets he has averaged a staggering 6.6 wkts per test match, easily the most astonishing and sustained wicket taking spree in the history of the game ever ?

6. Do you realise that during the last ten years, while he was virtually running throught batting orders all over the world, he did not play a single test in Australia so as to better his first and only two tests performance there ?

7. Do you know that while he did not play in Australia, during this period, he did play Australia at home in 6 tests in last ten years and
- took 43 wkts
- at over 7 per test
- at an average of 22.1 per wkt and
- a strike rate of 47.1 balls per wkt ?

Do you think there is any significance of the average of 116 per wkt in Australia that you quote and for some weird reason find hilarious ?

If you do, I salute you and shut my mouth up

While we can forget , at this point about the Warne vs Murali debate (arent we sick of it) but I think we need to be carefull in bandying about freak stats with misplaced conviction to make invalid points.

Perfect post.

This could be used as a prime example of why SJS is without doubt the very finest member of the forum.

[marc71178]

Because he agrees with you, you mean?

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Because he agrees with you, you mean?

Yes and because nearly all his points are stunningly well written and supported.

[Mister Wright]

Sats can be used out of context, but despite that, they are there for all to see and cannot be disputed. The wonderful thing about life is that things are never the same and constant and that one situation will never be the same for every player, so to also use those stats against or for a player in a certain situation unless knowing all the factors is open for debate - hence a forum!

[Scallywag]

See I can incite good discussion.

Even though you are wrong.

[cameeel]

its hard to see where he's wrong scallywag after reading his first post, pretty convincing argument

[biased indian]

Originally Posted by Scallywag

See I can incite good discussion.

Even though you are wrong.

so why no stats this time around???

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by Scallywag

Even though you are wrong.

...and why is that?

[age_master]

Murali has had oporitunity to Play in Australia since than but chickened out!

[FaaipDeOiad]

I would guess offhand that Scallywag was trying to make a point about the way other people use random stats to put down a player.

eg: Ponting is rubbish because he averages 12 in India, or Warne is rubbish because he averages 40 odd in India. Well, Murali is rubbish because he averages 116 in Australia, and even worse than Warne in India. Dennis Lillee is rubbish because he only has three wickets in the subcontinent, well Murali is rubbish because he only has two wickets (or something like that) in Australia. And so on... it works on both sides of the fence.

I don't think any of these players are rubbish and they are obviously all-time greats by any objective standard, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well.

[tooextracool]

i certainly cant see how anyone in their right mind cant see that ponting's failure is not misleading. 8 tests over 8 years at an average of 12.29, and in each of those tests he was made to look like an absolute novice against spin. jesus, how in the world you could call someone who batted worse than a tailender in one country over an extended period of time an all time great i'll never know. as far as im concerned, an all time great is a player who can be relied on in all countries.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

i certainly cant see how anyone in their right mind cant see that ponting's failure is not misleading. 8 tests over 8 years at an average of 12.29, and in each of those tests he was made to look like an absolute novice against spin. jesus, how in the world you could call someone who batted worse than a tailender in one country over an extended period of time an all time great i'll never know. as far as im concerned, an all time great is a player who can be relied on in all countries.

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.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

no its not, i dont expect players to succeed in every country. there have been plenty of all time greats that had problems in certain countries. but how many average 12.29 over 8 tests? theres a line between poor and disgraceful and ponting is so far beyond it that he cant even see it.
shane warne's average in india isnt anywhere as poor, given the number of spin bowlers who have succeeded in india. and its certainly not to the point where he looks like a complete novice. not to mention of course that he had a pretty good time in his last series.
and yes if murali ends up getting hammered at over 80 in australia after 8 tests, then he wont be an all time great, but because im certain hes too good for that, im fairly sure that he'll come out with good figures.

[Top_Cat]

and yes if murali ends up getting hammered at over 80 in australia after 8 tests, then he wont be an all time great, but because im certain hes too good for that, im fairly sure that he'll come out with good figures.

Number 1, not considering Murali to be an all-time great because of failures in Australia (based on the fact that offies generally don't do well here anyway) is what's ludicrous. He's ALREADY an all-time great. Suceeding in Australia will just cement it.

Number 2, if he decides to never tour here again, we'll never know will we? Will that engender doubt as to whether he's an all-time great? We'd be forced to judge him on current record and right now, it's pretty woeful. Does this really affect his status as an all-time great? You're a more harsh judge than I if you consider it does.