Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear

[Richard]

 

[Richard]

My comment you refer to in this thread was sarcastic and this thread was a just medium for me to express my frustrations with your stance and the way you defended it in the Hayden vs Hussain thread (ie repetition of the same points as shown by your 148 posts in the thread and the inability to move on from a subject).

I know it was, and that's exactly what I was referring to. You were insinuating that the idea was ridiculous - and you'd already done that elsewhere. This thread, IMO, is just a means for others to jump on the bandwagon.

Richard, you are a person that some people think is unfairly and overly criticised (which I dont agree with as I think the volume you post and the 'unusualness' of some opinions voiced is bound to bring a certain level of disagreement) so I find it strange that you decide to come out and randomly have a go at a well supported and interesting thread.

I've left it alone this long, haven't I? Not like this is a new thread.

 

[Son Of Coco]

*30 second ad for the new series return*

Right...so...encouraged by a new conundrum found in another thread, and Richard's apparent hatred of this in its original format I think it's time to get things back on track.

The Question: Is Steven Tikolo a better cricketer than Sir Donald Bradman

The Answer: Of course he bloody well is!

In fact, he's so much better a comparison of the two players borders on unfair...

 

[SJS]

*30 second ad for the new series return*

Right...so...encouraged by a new conundrum found in another thread, and Richard's apparent hatred of this in its original format I think it's time to get things back on track.

The Question: Is Steven Tikolo a better cricketer than Sir Donald Bradman

The Answer: Of course he bloody well is!

In fact, he's so much better a comparison of the two players borders on unfair...

Its almost 30 hours since that 30 seconds ad. But it HAS been noticed. I promise we will get back to work.

*shouts of we have heard that before you damn shoe-maker*

I know, I know but please give me another chance

I need just one thing. Will someone please list all the pending orders in the stats factory while I oil the old bones er machine parts . Thank you.

Vic Orthdox - where the hell are you ??​

 

[shortpitched713]

Andrew Symonds being a better Test batsman than Garry Sobers was one of them, I believe.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Richard Hadlee - The Great New Zealand Disappointment

Much has been made of his prowess with the ball, however there are some alarming statistics that counter the many claims of brilliance. For example:

Did you know that in his first 3 full test matches Richard Hadlee averaged 119.66 runs per wicket? That's right! In an alarming 3.48837% of all the matches he played in his career he averaged greater than 115 runs per wicket. If we take the 3.48837% and call it the 'Golden Years', it's fair to suggest that anything lying outside this period must indeed be treated as an anomaly, and therefore struck from the record. In stats terms we'll refer to the other 96.5 odd percent of his career as 'extreme variables' - lying outside the reasonable area of expectancy given the results in these three Tests and therefore struck from the record.

Hadlee was a one trick pony, and I implore you not to let the fact that he performed the trick 431 times at an average of 22.29 fool you into thinking otherwise! In his fifth last test he took 2/132...and as the old saying goes - "You're only as good as your fifth last test!".

That makes Hadlee as good as someone who took 2 wickets at an average of 66! Geoffrey Boycott has a test bowling average of 54.57; Mark Taylor - 26.00; Allan Border 39.10.

Read it and weep Richard Hadlee...you were a disgrace to the art of bowling!

Over to you SJS...

Worth noting, once again, the genius authorship of this post.

 

[SJS]

R E O P E N I N G
S H O R T L Y​

 

[funnygirl]

Great thread .

 

[Dan]

What about: Jamie Cox is a better bowler than Sidney Barnes?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

What about: Jamie Cox is a better bowler than Sidney Barnes?

Simple.

Jamie Cox never played Test cricket, but I thnk it's safe to extrapolate from first-class strike rate of 145.8, which compares favourably to Sidney Barnes' Test strike rate of 148.4.

 

[Dan]

I accidentally spelt it wrong - i meant Sydney Barnes

 

[Dan]

I accidentally spelt it wrong - i meant Sydney Barnes

 

[Son Of Coco]

R E O P E N I N G
S H O R T L Y​

Yes...very, very, soon.

 

[SJS]

GRAND OPENING

We are proud to announce the reopening iof the Stats factory on popular demand (although some murmurs are being heard from radical corners that this factory is spreading reactionary products that are weaning the cricketing public away from their most loved sport on the planet The Cricket stats !!

Hmmm. To each his own. We cater to our customers.

The new product we have been commissioned to come up with is an analysis to prove/or disprove the theory that the incomparable Mohammad sami, the beloved son of millions from the holy land would, if the selectors in their senility wouldn't keep dropping him, eventually reach and overtake the 235 wickets in 93 Test matches taken by Sir Garfield Sobers.

Aha. This should be a cake walk or is it a piece of cake .... what ever.

Here are Sami's figures over his first 32 Tests. I have taken 32 not for some ulterior motive but to be able to reduce the work load - he did not do anything different in his 33rd test.

I have divided it into lots of 4 Tests each.

Here is what he has done so far.

[B]Test #	Wkts	Avg	Wkts/Test[/B]
4	14	34.7	3.5
8	24	36.8	3.0
12	32	43.6	2.7
16	43	45.4	2.7
20	53	47.9	2.7
24	65	46.1	2.7
28	73	48.4	2.6
32	77	51.3	2.4

First things first. At the rate at which he is taking wickets how long will it take him to take 235 wickets.

What we did was to then extrapolate the trend of Sami's wicket taking rate (Wickets per Test) and see what happens to it. We were in for a shock.

It appeared that by the time Sami reached his 118th Test, his Wickets per test would drop to 0.

Oh holy - cow dung !!

But wait surely in that many Tests, or much before that, our beloved Sami, would have crossed the silly landmark the West Indian fans crow needlessly about. Afterall our client was so sure he would do it by the 93rd itself. So we multiplied the cumulative Tests with the advancing (steeply downwards) wicket taking rate to see what happens to the aggregate wickets.

Here is the graph. Have a look.

It appears that our hero would approach the first target of 100 (approach not reach) in his 60th Test and then in the next 60 Test he would somehow manage to return these wickets to the opposition by taking the same number of negative wickets.

Holy - bovine excreta.

We'll be back. Have faith we know our chump can do it. Have faith.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Can't the factory cope with the figure 235 either?

 

[steve132]

GRAND OPENING

We are proud to announce the reopening iof the Stats factory on popular demand (although some murmurs are being heard from radical corners that this factory is spreading reactionary products that are weaning the cricketing public away from their most loved sport on the planet The Cricket stats !!

Hmmm. To each his own. We cater to our customers.

The new product we have been commissioned to come up with is an analysis to prove/or disprove the theory that the incomparable Mohammad sami, the beloved son of millions from the holy land would, if the selectors in their senility wouldn't keep dropping him, eventually reach and overtake the 235 wickets in 93 Test matches taken by Sir Garfield Sobers.

Aha. This should be a cake walk or is it a piece of cake .... what ever.

Here are Sami's figures over his first 32 Tests. I have taken 32 not for some ulterior motive but to be able to reduce the work load - he did not do anything different in his 33rd test.

I have divided it into lots of 4 Tests each.

Here is what he has done so far.

[B]Test #	Wkts	Avg	Wkts/Test[/B]
4	14	34.7	3.5
8	24	36.8	3.0
12	32	43.6	2.7
16	43	45.4	2.7
20	53	47.9	2.7
24	65	46.1	2.7
28	73	48.4	2.6
32	77	51.3	2.4

First things first. At the rate at which he is taking wickets how long will it take him to take 235 wickets.

What we did was to then extrapolate the trend of Sami's wicket taking rate (Wickets per Test) and see what happens to it. We were in for a shock.

It appeared that by the time Sami reached his 118th Test, his Wickets per test would drop to 0.

Oh holy - cow dung !!

But wait surely in that many Tests, or much before that, our beloved Sami, would have crossed the silly landmark the West Indian fans crow needlessly about. Afterall our client was so sure he would do it by the 93rd itself. So we multiplied the cumulative Tests with the advancing (steeply downwards) wicket taking rate to see what happens to the aggregate wickets.

Here is the graph. Have a look.

It appears that our hero would approach the first target of 100 (approach not reach) in his 60th Test and then in the next 60 Test he would somehow manage to return these wickets to the opposition by taking the same number of negative wickets.

Holy - bovine excreta.

We'll be back. Have faith we know our chump can do it. Have faith.

SJS:

This thread was great when it started, but unfortunately it no longer seems quite as funny as it was. Real life has overtaken the parody. We have seen too many recent posts that claim to be based on statistical analysis but are devoid of both logic and an understanding of cricket.

 

[SJS]

SJS:

This thread was great when it started, but unfortunately it no longer seems quite as funny as it was. Real life has overtaken the parody. We have seen too many recent posts that claim to be based on statistical analysis but are devoid of both logic and an understanding of cricket.

Well said.

In fact, this thread WAS started to drill some sense into those making indiscriminate use of statistics (quite an impossible task when you realise that the poor souls have nothing if they dont have even statistics). That purpose went completely unrealised but we did have a bit of a laugh and also tested our own 'innovativeness' to try and 'prove' the ridiculous. Just for kicks.

Even that lost its charm hence I withdrew in large and it was manned with distinction by 'understudies' some of whom did a fantastic job.

Now it has been brought up since a fantastic claim (even by the fantastic standards of this fantastic poster) has been made which gave me a chance to revisit the ruins as it were.



But having started this Sami - the potential Sobers excercise we might as well finish the job for , howsoever deaf the unhearing and unseeing might be, sarcasm still makes a point - and guess what, we use stats to do it. Now you cant argue with figures can you, rubber like, twisted but malleable figures

 

[honestbharani]

Look, SJS, I mean to be nice and all............ But YOU, of all people, should know that whatever Sami can do, our Lord and Saviour AA can do it better.....





Right now, I demand the factory to take this as high priority and prove that Agarkar would have not only reached/bettered Sobers bowling records by his 93rd test, but also his batting records!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Now get on it..

 

[pasag]

 

[Son Of Coco]

Woh woh woh...

What's going on here!?

I've seen people in the streets holding signs about the second coming, but this is remarkable!