Yuvraj Singh

[Swervy]

yeah sorry

 

[marc71178]

Well, obviously (if you can) judge on how many of the wickets were earned through good deliveries. Surely that goes without saying?

So in other words, we have to take Willis as a success on number of wickets, but you don't have to take McGrath or Lee because you're changing the rules.

But averages are far more important than number of wickets.

Yet you slagged Waqar off for being uneconomical when he took his wickets at 23 last season...

 

[Richard]

taken from wisden 1985

Bob Willis-An assessment by David Frith

'he was not always quite a universal favourite at Edgbaston.many warwickshire supporters were resentful because he seemed to be giving more for his country than his county'

'Willis took 285 Championship wickets for his county (Warwickshre) at an average of 25.51.Clearly, with 325 test wickets at 25.20 he takes his place in the Hall Of fame as an England bowler of immense stature,but with relatively scant county acheivement to go with it'

For warwickshire:

1979 11wickets at 36.45
1980 35wickets at 27.40
1981 13wickets at 28.53
1982 26wickets at 34.30
1983 21wickets at 37.38
1984 9wickets at 42.22

For england
season 1978/79 20wickets at 23.05
season 1979 10wickets at 29.80
season 1979/80 3wickets at 74.66
season 1980 14wickets at 29.07
season 1981 29wickets at 22.96
season 1981/82 15wickets at 30.06
season 1982 25wickets at 22.08
season 1982/83 18wickets at 27.00
season 1983 20wickets at 13.65
season 1983/84 14wickets at 25.14
season 1984 6wickets at 61.16

they kinda look like the figures of a man who maybe wasnt so successful in domestic cricket but very successful at test level..for those last few seasons at least...hence Warwickshire fans attitude towards him.

i dont think he meant it like that, but that was the kind of person he was..same with Gower, and really Botham,and probably a number of players....the rush one must get from playing test cricket seems to gee these players up

PS willis actually had a lower bowling average in tests than he did in championship cricket for warwickshire

And nothing changes the basic fact that he did better overall in domestic First-Class cricket that in Test-matches. Whatever the season-by-season figures of the later part of his career, the fact is Bob Willis' domestic record, overall, is better than his Test record. In this instance, this is what counts.
You're not going to get any blood out of this stone, I'm afraid. The basic fact of the matter is, you tried to use Willis as an example of an anomaly in a trend, when in fact he fits the trend like most people.

 

[Cactus]

What?? What the hell u on about?? You have to get through me first!

what am i on about???
the fact that he can't do field placements for crap along with the fact that he can't field himself, the last time i saw him score a decent amount of runs was too long ago and he has one of the best sides in the world and yet he can't harness themm well enough to win!....that's what i'm on about!....so quite frankly this entire anti ganguy club is about the best club i've heard of in a while.
that's what i'm on about!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

So in other words, we have to take Willis as a success on number of wickets, but you don't have to take McGrath or Lee because you're changing the rules.

Yet you slagged Waqar off for being uneconomical when he took his wickets at 23 last season...

What has that to do with anything? Did any part of my post mention economy-rates? In any case I didn't slag him off, I simply said I was disappointed he hadn't taken the opportunity to improve his economy-rates, and had in fact made them worse.
Yes, in the case of older players we to have to take skill on averages (not number of wickets, I've already said that - averages are more important than wickets) much more than those we can analyse in detail.
However, given that our analysis does indicate that Willis was a multi-skilled bowler who could get batsmen out in many ways, it is safer to assume that the average tells an accurate story as it does with the like of Donald and Ambrose. With Lee and McGrath, we know otherwise.

 

[Swervy]

However, given that our analysis does indicate that Willis was a multi-skilled bowler who could get batsmen out in many ways, it is safer to assume that the average tells an accurate story as it does with the like of Donald and Ambrose. With Lee and McGrath, we know otherwise.

Rubbish...Willis probably at his peak a few mph slower and didnt swing the ball around like Lee does(but was more accurate)...but was a few mph faster than McGrath but maybe not so accurate.

You cannot pick and choose which figures are more of a better indication of a bowlers skill levels.

I know that averages arent everything,but they do indicate how successful a bowler has been, and when it comes down to it that is the ONLY thing that matters. You are saying that Lee and McGrath, two leading players in the worlds most successful team (probably the most dominant team since the WI's of the late 70's/early 80's or possib. since the 48 Aussies) dont deserve the wickets they have taken. can I ask,who on the Australian team has deserved the wickets then??????

 

[marc71178]

However, given that our analysis does indicate that Willis was a multi-skilled bowler who could get batsmen out in many ways, it is safer to assume that the average tells an accurate story as it does with the like of Donald and Ambrose. With Lee and McGrath, we know otherwise.

So the average only tells us how good a player is if you decided beforehand that that player is indeed good, and in other cases it cannot be trusted?

 

[Richard]

Rubbish...Willis probably at his peak a few mph slower and didnt swing the ball around like Lee does(but was more accurate)...but was a few mph faster than McGrath but maybe not so accurate.

You cannot pick and choose which figures are more of a better indication of a bowlers skill levels.

I know that averages arent everything,but they do indicate how successful a bowler has been, and when it comes down to it that is the ONLY thing that matters. You are saying that Lee and McGrath, two leading players in the worlds most successful team (probably the most dominant team since the WI's of the late 70's/early 80's or possib. since the 48 Aussies) dont deserve the wickets they have taken. can I ask,who on the Australian team has deserved the wickets then??????

McGrath and Gillespie certainly do on seaming wickets.
Other than that, two words:
"Bowling Shane!"
No, I can't pick and choose - I can only analyse where I can analyse, and guess educatedly where I can't. Which is precisely what I have done.

 

[Richard]

So the average only tells us how good a player is if you decided beforehand that that player is indeed good, and in other cases it cannot be trusted?

Strike the beforehand and you're getting there.

 

[Swervy]

thats right...you do appear to guess (whether educatedly or not might be up for debate) quite a lot.

You appear to guess that Warwickshires supporters were unjustified in their thoughts about Willis not playing to his potential for his county (you werent even born when Willis was playing first class cricket, how on this planet do you know what people were thinking...you have dismissed that idea solely down to the fact that you probably havent read it in the last couple of months worth of Wisden Cricketer magazine)...you appear to guess that Laker was as good as Croft and Giles these days(an assumption which is quite frankly laughable, you dont have any evidence to back that up,you dismissed what i said about what old test cricketers said about his bowling as exaggeration), you appear to have guessed that a lot of McGraths wickets have been undeserved (although I seem to remember you saying you havent really seen that much of him playing anyway, so how do you make such a judgement)

You may well analyse but i would question your data interpretation skills , you choose the statistics that will apply in order to fit your way of thinking....which as any statistitian will tell you is not how to use statistics.

 

[Richard]

You appear to guess that Warwickshires supporters were unjustified in their thoughts about Willis not playing to his potential for his county (you werent even born when Willis was playing first class cricket, how on this planet do you know what people were thinking...you have dismissed that idea solely down to the fact that you probably havent read it in the last couple of months worth of Wisden Cricketer magazine)

I never said they weren't thinking it - I said they weren't justified in thinking it. And I didn't guess, I looked at the facts and found it to be untrue.

you appear to guess that Laker was as good as Croft and Giles these days(an assumption which is quite frankly laughable, you dont have any evidence to back that up,you dismissed what i said about what old test cricketers said about his bowling as exaggeration)

I dismissed it because it obviously was. No-one makes the ball "fizz" as it goes down the wicket, even MacGill, and I highly doubt it's possible to spin it more than he does.
I don't guess that Laker, Croft and Giles were approximately equal, I make an educated observation, using the evidence that I have stated several times. Your summary dismissal of this evidence amounts to zero; instead, basing on statistics, you simply insist "it's laughable", expecting this to get you through because plenty of others also haven't thought the situation through, including many so-called "experts" of renown.

you appear to have guessed that a lot of McGraths wickets have been undeserved (although I seem to remember you saying you havent really seen that much of him playing anyway, so how do you make such a judgement)

No, I've guessed that the period prior to the one I've seen (almost all of 2000\01 onwards) is likely to be no different to that which I have. And in that which I have, I observe that McGrath hardly ever bowls wicket-taking deliveries on wickets that don't offer seam or uneven bounce.

You may well analyse but i would question your data interpretation skills , you choose the statistics that will apply in order to fit your way of thinking

No, I base my way of thinking on the statistics I have found. Sometimes I also use observations about the statistics, relative to their worth.

 

[marc71178]

Strike the beforehand and you're getting there.

So the average only tells us how good a player is if you decided that that player is indeed good, and in other cases it cannot be trusted?


That says a lot...

 

[marc71178]

I never said they weren't thinking it - I said they weren't justified in thinking it. And I didn't guess, I looked at the facts and found it to be untrue.

What the facts that show that once he became an England regular his figures for Warwickshire were not as good as when he played for England?

How are they not justified?

 

[Richard]

Because there was negligable difference.

 

[marc71178]

An interesting definition of negligable there...

 

[Prince EWS]

I dont see what Bob WIllis, Warwickshire, England and Graeme Hick have to do with Yuvraj Singh.........

Anyway, theres no way in the world Chopra should be dropped! Hes a great player. I rate him a better opener than Hayden.

And there is always the option of getting Dravid to keep in tests, and although I think its a bad idea, I was shocked no-one eve mentioned it.

But really, I dont think there is any need to put Yuvraj Singh in the test side for India. Their batting is just fine. I dont even think its in the slectors minds at all. He didnt even make the test SQUAD against Australia.

 

[deeps]

I dont see what Bob WIllis, Warwickshire, England and Graeme Hick have to do with Yuvraj Singh.........

me neithet

Anyway, theres no way in the world Chopra should be dropped! Hes a great player. I rate him a better opener than Hayden.

um, a TAD bit biased! i agree he is EXTREMELY important 2 the team, and should NOT get dropped (ganguly should b the next batsman they drop), but 2 say better then hayden?

I dont even think its in the slectors minds at all. He didnt even make the test SQUAD against Australia.

and yet he made his test debut in the series just before? in the FINAL test of the seris b4 if i remember correctly

 

[Prince EWS]

me neithet



um, a TAD bit biased! i agree he is EXTREMELY important 2 the team, and should NOT get dropped (ganguly should b the next batsman they drop), but 2 say better then hayden?




and yet he made his test debut in the series just before? in the FINAL test of the seris b4 if i remember correctly

So you're calling me biased towards Indian players despite the fact that I live in Australia. :rolleyes:

And yes, it was the last test against new Zealand that Yuvraj made hsi debut. But all it shows is that they werent commiteed to taking him a whole tour incase he played like tripe! They obviously dont have confidence in him as a test player.

 

[Cactus]

I dont see what Bob WIllis, Warwickshire, England and Graeme Hick have to do with Yuvraj Singh.........

Anyway, theres no way in the world Chopra should be dropped! Hes a great player. I rate him a better opener than Hayden.

And there is always the option of getting Dravid to keep in tests, and although I think its a bad idea, I was shocked no-one eve mentioned it.

But really, I dont think there is any need to put Yuvraj Singh in the test side for India. Their batting is just fine. I dont even think its in the slectors minds at all. He didnt even make the test SQUAD against Australia.

i agree that yuvraj isn't needed in the test side but saying that Chopra is better than hayden??!!!!
i'm from the subcontinent so it's not like i'm trying to defend hayden out of pure patriotism but hayden has a much higher average and scores larger amount of runs more quicker then chopra could ever dream of!

by the way if u live in Baulkham hills (sydney) i actually live in Cherrybrook! (small world)

 

[Prince EWS]

I didnt say Chopra was better than Hayden. I said Chopra was a better opener than Hayden. I wouldnt open with Hayden if my life depended on it, despite his reults. I believe he is killing the opening position. He is too arogrant for my liking.

And yes it is a very small world indeed.