Of 'fact free' criticism

[full_length]

I think many would agree that there's plenty of that going around on this forum

Let's collect a few favourites here.

I'll throw in a few to start with

1) India is a terrible away ODI team.

2) The subcontinent teams are poor tourists in ODIs.

3) The above tend to struggle to bat well outside their own countries.

With regard to the above, here's a few facts that certain people here can shove wherever they want

I chose to collect all matches played under Saurav Ganguly's captaincy for India. That turned out to be a 'nice' number- 20. So chose the last 20 away matches for ALL teams to compare.

arranged in order of decreasing away win percentage; column headers are Team name, No. of away matches considered, no. of these won, no. lost, no. tied, win percentage, highest score, lowest score:

Australia: 20 14 5 1 0 72% 338 162

Pakistan: 20 13 7 0 0 65% 302 135

India: 20 10 7 0 3 59% 326 123

Sri Lanka: 20 11 9 0 0 55% 274 191

S. Africa: 20 10 9 1 0 52% 363 106

England: 20 10 10 0 0 50% 280 89

W.Indies: 20 9 11 0 0 45% 324 119

Zimbabwe: 20 8 12 0 0 40% 309 38

and .... last but not the least....

N.Zealand: 20 4 15 0 1 21% 291 122

[Edited on 23/11/2002 by full_length]

 

[Rik]

Wow, 50% for England? That's not as bad as I thought...

 

[full_length]

Re:

No not bad at all. England acquitted themselves very well in India, Pak, and Sri Lanka, esp. in India coming back to win the last two matches... and with a tough chase in Pak.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by full_length
No not bad at all. England acquitted themselves very well in India, Pak, and Sri Lanka, esp. in India coming back to win the last two matches... and with a tough chase in Pak.

Not bad for a team constantly being branded as "****"

 

[full_length]

Laxman, the inconsistent test player

Some choice observations:
-He's an inconsistent player.
-His average is going down (someone actually expects it to end up 'somewhere near Stephen Fleming- mid 30s' )


Refer to http://forum.cricketweb.net/viewthread.php?tid=341&page=15

His history and stats are posted there.

Some choice stats that make some people look really stupid are:

His averages in the last three years:
2000: 52 (5 inn)
2001: 54.31 (16 inn)
2002: 63.80 (19 inn)
Average since Jan 1, 2000: 58.11
Overall average: 43.6

Note that he's played a LOT of innings this year and got an average of nearly 64 Very inconvenient eh?

 

[wahindiawah]

Originally posted by Rik

Originally posted by full_length
No not bad at all. England acquitted themselves very well in India, Pak, and Sri Lanka, esp. in India coming back to win the last two matches... and with a tough chase in Pak.

Not bad for a team constantly being branded as "****"

Unfortunately for England, the way things are going right now, that percentage will sufer and sufer alot! I do think that Aussie media was a bit harsh on England, but the English side really didn't put up a decent fight in any match and were asking for trouble.

 

[full_length]

Unfortunately for England, the way things are going right now, that percentage will sufer and sufer alot! I do think that Aussie media was a bit harsh on England, but the English side really didn't put up a decent fight in any match and were asking for trouble.

Aren't you talking about tests here?

All stats that I put up are for ODIs.

 

[wahindiawah]

Oops my mistake, got mixed up between the two formats!

 

[marc71178]

Could you show us where exactly these "facts" have been posted - I don't remeber any of them in all honesty, I can remember things similar to what you've "quoted" here, but not exactly the same, and in some cases I think you've misinterpreted them.

 

[full_length]

quite familiar marc..

the point of this topic is that none of the 'facts' were posted Are you asking about the enumerated points I made by any chance?

which ones dont you remember?

I forgot to put this in: please don't waste time with verbal gymnastics "I didnt say this exactly" or "those were not the *exact* words used". I wont get into that.

[Edited on 24/11/2002 by full_length]

 

[full_length]

And now I am curious... surely you remember the laxman debate :O

 

[marc71178]

I remember the Laxman, but I don't remember anyone saying he was inconsistent - far from it

As for the India away games, that was referring to the different conditions in SA that they'll encounter wasn't it?


So in effect these "facts" are your interpretation of posts which have been made?

 

[Gotchya]

full_length, surely you took this out of context ?
None of those 'accusations' make any sense...at all !

Nobody said anything biased about India, there were no such stupid comments either. Just that you missed a few posts before the ones you are reacting to here.
It has been reasonable analysis of the relative strength of your favourite side, and a such i find you reaction amusing.

With regard to the above, here's a few facts that certain people here can shove wherever they want

and for once stop being such a cynic

 

[marc71178]

I'm glad it's not just me that found his post strange.

 

[full_length]

hmm you find the post 'strange'..

"Accusation" is too strong a word for what I did here Gotchya. I guess that suggestion that you can 'shove whereever..' came out sounding all wrong! (and some say a smilie makes it all right ) If you can, take that away and read the rest of what I said.

I don't think I quoted anyone here, or made any kind of an 'attack' on any poster. I don't understand where the 'accusing' part came from.

I am surprised that you chaps totally deny that the three misconceptions I referred to in my first post this topic are harboured by a good many here. If they are not, I stand corrected. Remember what that means-
You say that most people on this forum agree that

1) India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have no more trouble than anyone else batting abroad in swinging/seaming/bouncing conditions, and in general, batting away from home.

2) They(SC teams) perform just as well outside their respective nations as other countries, in ODIs.

3) There is no skew in India's ability to perform overseas/home.

4) Laxman is a consistant performer, and not just an over rated fellow with odd big scores, tall home records, and otherwise patchy performances.

Strange. I thought that the first thing everyone factors into a discussion on a subcontinent team's chances or India's batting potency is where the match is held (call it 'conditions') and it's usually considered a bigger problem for these teams to bat well outside home than for other teams. If that's not true, I was off.

(Note NZ's record outside home- the most skewed of all- I forgot to put this in my post as something people have missed.)

I can point you to a number of topics where these were assumptions made by posters when discussing any ODI tournament that the subcontinent teams participated in (in evaluating their chances or their batsmen), but won't take that much trouble over this!


The Laxman thingie is really strange.
I thought that I heard atleast a few calls for Laxman's head (including from you Gotchya), mention that Laxman scores high in India alone that he is over rated (underrated I'd say!), he should make way for younger players ( :P ) etc. etc. I thought that also falls under the category of fact free criticism because these assumptions are not based on fact at all.



Finally, an explanation of the topic:
I intended this to be a topic where you can debunk any generally accepted myth floating around. In other words, point out where some criticism is based on assumtions that are NOT based on fact. Which is what I did.

 

[marc71178]

To prove the assumptions wrong, you need to actually get the assumptions right in the first place.

At no point can I remember anyone saying that the subcontinent nations have problems in ALL away games - only that, of all the nations, they will have the most difficulty adapting to the conditions in SA, as they differ a lot more than for other nations such as Aus and NZ.

I deny the 3 "misconceptions" as you call it because to my mind, they've never been made!

 

[Gotchya]

I can point you to a number of topics where these were assumptions made by posters when discussing any ODI tournament that the subcontinent teams participated in (in evaluating their chances or their batsmen), but won't take that much trouble over this!

You know what ? there are some people who think in absolute terms, so sometimes the reply to such talk is necessarily in absolute terms as well. Just to get the point across clearly. I am sure there is nothing biased or any false assumptions being made about anyone. Its just that some of the arguements are so damning that the reply has to be equally exaggerated and convincing.

The Laxman thingie is really strange.
I thought that I heard atleast a few calls for Laxman's head (including from you Gotchya), mention that Laxman scores high in India alone that he is over rated (underrated I'd say!), he should make way for younger players ( :P ) etc. etc. I thought that also falls under the category of fact free criticism because these assumptions are not based on fact at all.

No you dont remember correctly, the only time i said anything about laxman was when people were saying that they would prefer damien martyn over him, as i remember it that was the first and last time i had the word laxman in my posts...anyway that is irrelivent to your point.

Finally, an explanation of the topic:
I intended this to be a topic where you can debunk any generally accepted myth floating around. In other words, point out where some criticism is based on assumtions that are NOT based on fact.


Accusation" is too strong a word for what I did here Gotchya. I guess that suggestion that you can 'shove whereever..' came out sounding all wrong! (and some say a smilie makes it all right ) If you can, take that away and read the rest of what I said.

The general tone of your original post was such that I thought you were out here to take revenge :baddevil:, but this post makes things a little clearer. Thanks for posting this bit.

 

[The Argonaut]

What the figures show is that Australia deserve to be on the top line of betting having also played well in South Africa earlier this year. Pakistan are a good OD side and you could throw a blanket over the rest. The other stats are very close. The surprise was the NZ stats.

There will be many 50-50 games in the World Cup and these will decide who wins, who can win the close games. I still think there are a number of sides that can win the World Cup - Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. None of the others will I think.

I think the main argument against the performance of subcontinent sides away comes in the test format not the one day games.

 

[full_length]

I am sure there is nothing biased or any false assumptions being made about anyone.

Delibrately, malicious, biased assumptions? I dont think so either.

But assumptions that arent supported on fact, yes they do exist, and it is based on these assumptions that people are making many calls as I explained earlier.

I thought that the first thing everyone factors into a discussion on a subcontinent team's chances or India's batting potency is where the match is held (call it 'conditions') and it's usually considered a bigger problem for these teams to bat well outside home than for other teams. If that's not true, I was off.

That was my say on this. It's up to you to examine for yourself if that's not the case.
I think it is. My reading of posts under several topics here indicated that misconceptions I mentioned in earlier posts exist and are common. I *am* aware from your posts (Gotchya) that you dont make these assumptions. But I am of the opinion that that's not the case for a sizeable number of posters from outside the SC.

I did not want to point out specific posts so we could avoid exactly what's happening now.

Since it's clear that this topic is not going to do very well- what with the personal aspect dominating over any sensible topical discussion- I'll end my participation in this line of discussion with a few samples as justification for the 'assumption' part/accusation!

Just from a couple of topics:

From anzac
"Similarly the batting line ups will have to adjust to the extra pace off the pitch, but more so the extra lift as this is what tends to catch out players when they play off the front foot with their hands too low!!!!

"In this theory the teams that should have the least trouble with the conditions should be SA, Australia, Pakistan & WIndies; followed by the likes of NZ & England.

"The top class players of any side should be able to make the adjustment quickly enough, but the real test will be for the batsmen of lesser ability."

Note: this was from the "conditions ...SA" topic, and clearly about ODIs.

Argonaut says
"It will affect the Indians the most based on their previous poor displays on bouncy pitches. "

in the same topic. Note that we are still talking about ODIs and the misconception that Indians don't do well in conditions other than Indian underlies that statement. Ofcourse, my stand is that it's not based on fact.

I just noticed T_C mentioned that VVS hasnt done justice to his talent. if he expected more than 50+ ave each year then he would be right. Again this was based on perception, not an accurate one.

Neil Pickup says:
"In the Subcontinent, quite possibly, but never on fast, bouncy Aussie/NZ/SA/WI/English (to an extent) pitches - we'll see come the World Cup. "

in a thread on ODI ratings, in response to someone's insisting that India's on the top of the ladder.
He's not wrong to say this (that Australia and possibly SA are better teams- he had the ratings down that way) but it's not the bouncy tracks at all. It's simply because Indians dont have 30 good overs from pacemen and some other reasons. Even in India, Australia and SA are successfull unless the track's really turning square. And surprise, surprise! -both Australia and SA are better/as good tourists in ODIs according to the stats I put up. Meaning their performance wont suffer drastically abroad. And they both beat/came close to beating India in ODI tournaments in India. Things seem to add up. But this is not the general arguement that Neil makes in that post. He simply says that India may be better than anyone else athome, but are simply poor tourists. I disproved that.

I dont think I have to prove that laxman part any further. There's a few pages on that. (BTW, Tim made that Stephen Fleming comparison, apart from comparing with Mathew Sinclair)


Its dissapointing that I had to quote these chaps- not conducive for any good topical discussion. BTW, I chose who to quote, (and then looked for their posts in just two topics) because I was sure almost everyone outside the SC has said something or the other like this. Note that these posters are hardly malicious or biased or stupid!

For the sake of completeness:

No you dont remember correctly, the only time i said anything about laxman was when people were saying that they would prefer damien martyn over him, as i remember it that was the first and last time i had the word laxman in my posts...anyway that is irrelivent to your point.

Sorry. I had a haaard time trying to find out where I got that from. It turned out to be L_o_D


It was just my opinion that this was the case. I didnt say in particular that "Gotchya said such and such" except for the Laxman thingie (and even that was only during our exchange). The arguements were objective and dealt with 'absolutes' as you like to say.

 

[full_length]

I think the main argument against the performance of subcontinent sides away comes in the test format not the one day games.

You are right.. now. In tests that seems to be true.

It's only recently that more than two batsmen do well in the same inning abroad for India. That's why they are winning tests abroad. But it doesnt happen enough- that's why they lose series (as opposed to saving them. Bowlers play a HUGE role in winning matches in tests..)

ps: i refer you to my previous post where I quoted you.

[Edited on 25/11/2002 by full_length]