Visit Howstatdotcom and become a Cricket Pundit

[SJS]

Before the mods slap me on the wrist for advertising on the forum, I must quickl;y inform that I am just doing social servise as well as helping to bring about peaceful resolutions to so many arguments in our CW family.

For example :

You want to know who are the 10, 20, 30, 50 ... best batsmen of all time. Just click here and save everyone the trouble of getting to blows with you.

Conversely, you want to know who is the worst batsman ever in the history of the game. Here it is.

You are not able to decide between Afridi and Jessop as to the greatest entertainer of all time? No Problem. I give it to you free with no fighting

Similarly you could go on to find out the

• Best Openers of all times
• Worst runner between wickets
• Best Bowlers of all time
• Worst Bowlers of all time

I could go on and on. So stop arguing about things that a computer can tell you.

See I did make a Pundit out of you

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, Martin. Ridiculously low S/R with a ridiculously low average.

 

[Pratters]

Haha, yeah SJS. It is some thing which is grinding my cricketing gears for a while as well. A lot of people just put stats and use it to decide which player is better.

 

[Richard]

Before the mods slap me on the wrist for advertising on the forum, I must quickl;y inform that I am just doing social servise as well as helping to bring about peaceful resolutions to so many arguments in our CW family.

For example :

You want to know who are the 10, 20, 30, 50 ... best batsmen of all time. Just click here and save everyone the trouble of getting to blows with you.

Conversely, you want to know who is the worst batsman ever in the history of the game. Here it is.

You are not able to decide between Afridi and Jessop as to the greatest entertainer of all time? No Problem. I give it to you free with no fighting

Similarly you could go on to find out the

• Best Openers of all times
• Worst runner between wickets
• Best Bowlers of all time
• Worst Bowlers of all time

I could go on and on. So stop arguing about things that a computer can tell you.

See I did make a Pundit out of you

Equally, there are a number of pundits out there who might improve their punditry with a few visits.

 

[silentstriker]

A lot of people just put stats and use it to decide which player is better.

*SHRUG*, depends how you use them. SJS just posted a three parter on spinners in Australia based purely on stats. A cricinfo page does very little, but stats properly analyzed give you a lot.

 

[Pratters]

*SHRUG*, depends how you use them. SJS just posted a three parter on spinners in Australia based purely on stats. A cricinfo page does very little, but stats properly analyzed give you a lot.

*SHRUG* Erm, I do know that and have said the same SEVERAL times. Problem is, a lot of people do not do that.

 

[SJS]

*SHRUG*, depends how you use them. SJS just posted a three parter on spinners in Australia based purely on stats. A cricinfo page does very little, but stats properly analyzed give you a lot.

Absolutely. Stats need to be analysed and also put in context and even then you draw conclusions cautiously as you may see from my conclusions on that report but here when someone asks a list of ten (or 100) best batsmen of all time, the inclusion (or exclusion) of some is defended purely on the basis of averages.

This is not using stats. This is worse than abusing them. This is to give up one's right to think. If people are going to say WG should not be on the best 100 batsmen of all time because he averaged 32 in tests then they are not using stats, they are simply admitting that they do not understand anything about the game of cricket except the digits and those two in the most basic form.

 

[SJS]

I may have given figures to show that Murali fares poorly in Australia which is what the figures say but my conclusion from that is not that Murali is not a great bowler.

 

[Richard]

Absolutely. Stats need to be analysed and also put in context and even then you draw conclusions cautiously as you may see from my conclusions on that report but here when someone asks a list of ten (or 100) best batsmen of all time, the inclusion (or exclusion) of some is defended purely on the basis of averages.

This is not using stats. This is worse than abusing them. This is to give up one's right to think. If people are going to say WG should not be on the best 100 batsmen of all time because he averaged 32 in tests then they are not using stats, they are simply admitting that they do not understand anything about the game of cricket except the digits and those two in the most basic form.

Absolutely.

Worse still, they do not understand how cricket was at the time, nor how best to use averages.

 

[silentstriker]

I may have given figures to show that Murali fares poorly in Australia which is what the figures say but my conclusion from that is not that Murali is not a great bowler.

Now but it shows how Murali suffers more in Australia than other spin bowlers of the past - which is what it was intended to do.

 

[SJS]

Now but it shows how Murali suffers more in Australia than other spin bowlers of the past - which is what it was intended to do.

Sure that he does. Its undeniable. And with two tours its slightly worse than Lillee's single tour of three tests.

BTW Harbhajan has a terrible terrible record in Australia. 1 wkt for 169 runs at a strike rate of 210 !! Fortunately, its still just one test match. If he has a bad tour this time around he may join Murali

 

[pasag]

Haha, yeah SJS. It is some thing which is grinding my cricketing gears for a while as well. A lot of people just put stats and use it to decide which player is better.

Without wanting to sound like a broken record - too true, too true.

I laughed pretty hard at the opening post as well, SJS can be really funny sometimes and his sig is an opinion I share as well.

Look, I hope people don't see this stuff as a personal attack, but it is stuff I feel very strongly about, and feel it is a huge issue in discussing cricket.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I know it's not the point that SJS was making (rather the exact opposite of), but how impressive is the Hobbs/Sutcliffe opening combo's average?

 

[Ikki]

World Cup Final 1999

Statistically, Moody was the best bowler. Realistically, Warne was.

 

[Flem274*]

Just a question SJS. You say that it shouldn't be decided on just averages but that top 100 list goes on averages. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Heath, where are you?

>>>>>>>>>WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH>>>>>>>>

 

[SJS]

Just a question SJS. You say that it shouldn't be decided on just averages but that top 100 list goes on averages. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Look at my left chhek and try guessing where my tongue is

 

[SJS]

I know it's not the point that SJS was making (rather the exact opposite of), but how impressive is the Hobbs/Sutcliffe opening combo's average?

I see what you are saying BB. It cant be anyone's case and it certainly hasn't EVER been mine that stats are useless. They important without doubt but complete reliance on stats and drawing simplistic conclusions is today the bane of discussing cricket with most people. This is what is my lament.

Unfortunately there is a propensity of media (electronic as well as print) 'experts' to write and speak using media as their major props which has brought about a massive decline in the ability of the new cricket fan to look at the game beyond figures.

 

[Ikki]

Love the sig SJS.

 

[NUFAN]

World Cup Final 1999

Statistically, Moody was the best bowler. Realistically, Warne was.

I would take 4/33 over 2/17 always.