Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 131
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Michael Vaughan is awesome

  1. #46
    State Captain Shaggy Alfresco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    1,762
    I'd rather have a lucky batsman that makes centuries than a luckless one that doesn't.

  2. #47
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Alfresco View Post
    I'd rather have a lucky batsman that makes centuries than a luckless one that doesn't.
    The point is though, no-one is intrinsically lucky. If a batsman has been exceedingly lucky in the past, his luck is likely to drop to a more normal level - he doesn't have any more or less chance of having luck in the future than any other batsman. Hence, he is therefore unlikely to repeat the efforts he has already achieved. If someone had been lucky but you could guarantee said luck would continue throughout their career, it wouldn't matter a great deal - the point in bringing up luck is not to discount the runs a batsman has scored, but to suggest he's not as likely to keep scoring them as a previously luckless batsman with a similar (or even inferior, within limits) record.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  3. #48
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The point is though, no-one is intrinsically lucky.
    Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.

    And if you want to label Collingwood lucky during the past couple of years, a) I'd not necessarily agree, and b) you'd have to be even-handed and label Strauss as imbecilic in many of his efforts over the same period. I'd choose lucky over stupid, if those are my choices.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  4. #49
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.
    That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.
    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008


  5. #50
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.
    There is nothing to suggest that said luck will actually continue though. If someone has been lucky, their luck is likely to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    And if you want to label Collingwood lucky during the past couple of years, a) I'd not necessarily agree, and b) you'd have to be even-handed and label Strauss as imbecilic in many of his efforts over the same period. I'd choose lucky over stupid, if those are my choices.
    I never said Collingwood was lucky though - I was simply arguing the case in theory of a lucky batsman and an unlucky one.

  6. #51
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.
    Said it better than I did, TBH.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 27-05-2007 at 07:54 AM.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.
    Which is bollocks anyway. How lucky was he to get stuck playing in such difficult circumstances in his first 3 Tests where he was on a hiding to nothing? How about when when he was given lbw to Tait when it hit him inches outside the line of off-stump?
    World Scrabble Champion 2014. National Scrabble Champion 2009, 2015.
    Author of Word Addict
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    ECB - you are a complete ****ing disgrace, #FTECB

  8. #53
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    Which is bollocks anyway. How lucky was he to get stuck playing in such difficult circumstances in his first 3 Tests where he was on a hiding to nothing? How about when when he was given lbw to Tait when it hit him inches outside the line of off-stump?
    That's true, and as Richard says he has played some genuinely good (or better) innings, however large numbers of the runs he has scored have been quite lucky.

  9. #54
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.
    But what some people here assert is that some batsmen have been consistently lucky throughout their careers. So I ask, if you think some people are consistently more lucky than the norm over a decent period of time - thus suggesting you don't think these things "even themselves out" -on what basis do you say, "they'll soon stop being so lucky"? The long career of unreasonable "luck" they've enjoyed would suggest otherwise actually.

    I'm not seriously suggesting that some people are charmed and will be lucky indefinitely. What I'm saying is that labelling someone "lucky" is a generally meaningless and hideously overused puerile excuse proffered up when people dislike either the technique or sometimes even the personality of players who succeed and they can't supply proper argument as to why that player is not good that has not been disproved by the facts. Player A averages 12 runs more per innings than Player B, but you want to believe Player B is better? Player A must be lucky - cheating bastard that he is. A bowler you think is not equipped to succeed at Test level consistently takes wickets? Must be lucky.

    Somebody can be lucky over a short period, but to suggest that success over the course of more than two or three innings can be solely, or even in large part, put down to luck is insulting to the player in question's ability and the intelligence of those of us reading it.

    You might as well not say anything at all if that's the best you can come up with...

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    That's true, and as Richard says he has played some genuinely good (or better) innings, however large numbers of the runs he has scored have been quite lucky.
    No they haven't been any more lucky than anyone else, you're using ramblings from a proven crackpot like Richard who is in no place to judge what are lucky runs anyway. That's just his get out clause for when he's comprehensively wrong. McGrath and all those Test wickets? Lucky.

  11. #56
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    I'm not seriously suggesting that some people are charmed and will be lucky indefinitely. What I'm saying is that labelling someone "lucky" is a generally meaningless and hideously overused puerile excuse proffered up when people dislike either the technique or sometimes even the personality of players who succeed and they can't supply proper argument as to why that player is not good that has not been disproved by the facts. Player A averages 12 runs more per innings than Player B, but you want to believe Player B is better? Player A must be lucky - cheating bastard that he is. A bowler you think is not equipped to succeed at Test level consistently takes wickets? Must be lucky.
    Can be measured to some extent by dropped catches and the like, and you'd have a hard time arguing that certain Collingwood innings haven't been lucky in that regard.

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    Can be measured to some extent by dropped catches and the like, and you'd have a hard time arguing that certain Collingwood innings haven't been lucky in that regard.
    How many times was Collingwood dropped during his double century then?

  13. #58
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    No they haven't been any more lucky than anyone else, you're using ramblings from a proven crackpot like Richard who is in no place to judge what are lucky runs anyway. That's just his get out clause for when he's comprehensively wrong. McGrath and all those Test wickets? Lucky.
    No, you don't seem to have an argument here, you're not arguing why they're not lucky.

    Multiple dropped catches equals lucky, and it's happened in more than one Collingwood innings.

  14. #59
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    How many times was Collingwood dropped during his double century then?
    That was a good innings, it's other innings that weren't.

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    No, you don't seem to have an argument here, you're not arguing why they're not lucky.

    Multiple dropped catches equals lucky, and it's happened in more than one Collingwood innings.

    What the hell? Multiple dropped catches happen to everyone. You don't have an argument because you're using Richard's rhetoric which is wishy-washy bollocks. You haven't shown Collingwood to be more lucky than anyone else, so you do not have an argument.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vaughan eyes third Test comeback
    By chaminda_00 in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-11-2006, 09:13 PM
  2. Vaughan to score an ODI ton before his 100th ODI?
    By Scaly piscine in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 13-07-2005, 06:24 AM
  3. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM
  4. Road to the Top : Episode I
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25-12-2004, 03:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •