Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[TheJediBrah]

You don't get it and you're now wasting my time.

You wish to deny the fact that is blatantly obvious that Hadlee bowled stuff all in the second innings as against the first.

Why you want to do this I do not know. And I do not care. But it is a fact. And you are trying so desperately to avoid it.

You may as well deny the Holocaust.

lol I'm literally just pointing out that the statistics prove your hypothesis wrong. I don't care about Hadlee's specific example. Statistics unambiguously show that for quality bowlers, playing in a weaker team leads to a higher wpm.

It's not an opinion, I'm not denying anything. It's hard data.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

lol I'm literally just pointing out that the statistics prove your hypothesis wrong. I don't care about Hadlee's specific example. Statistics unambiguously show that for quality bowlers, playing in a weaker team leads to a higher wpm.

It's not an opinion, I'm not denying anything. It's hard data.

But like Murali it potentially could be even higher like say at over 6? Consider yourself destroyed. Think about what he had, batsmen - lots of them, and a steady support hand in Vaas.

You have wasted my time enough. Please next time you don't see the problem with my logic, don't call my conclusion false, you're only embarassing yourself.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But it Murali could be even higher like say at over 6?

Yes, exactly. It's why I mentioned his example earlier.

Murali (weaker team) - 6wpm
Warne (stronger team) - 4.8wpm

Not as perfect an example as Hadlee/McGrath because Murali has a lower average (22 to 25 for Warne), but still clearly follows the statistical trend.

For great bowlers, playing in a weaker team = higher wpm

Consider yourself destroyed.

You have wasted my time enough. Please next time you don't see the problem with my logic, don't call my conclusion false, you're only embarassing yourself.

I don't understand why you're so upset. I'm willing to have a sensible discussion with you and I genuinely agreed with pretty much everything you said, except the conclusion, because it is proven statistically and unambiguously false.

Your reasoning is all sound, and well thought out. The only error was the assumption that those factors would translate into a higher wpm, in practice. They don't.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yes, exactly. It's why I mentioned his example earlier.

Murali (weaker team) - 6wpm
Warne (stronger team) - 4.8wpm

Not as perfect an example as Hadlee/McGrath because Murali has a lower average (22 to 25 for Warne), but still clearly follows the statistical trend.

For great bowlers, playing in a weaker team = higher wpm



I don't understand why you're so upset. I'm willing to have a sensible discussion with you and I genuinely agreed with pretty much everything you said, except the conclusion, because it is proven statistically and unambiguously false.

Your reasoning is all sound, and well thought out. The only error was the assumption that those factors would translate into a higher wpm, in practice. They don't.

Murali's 6 is higher than Hadlee's 5?

Yes or no?

Did Murali get a more proportionate share of second opposition innings (that is third or 4th match innings) bowling than Hadlee?

Yes or no?

I am not upset. You're just illogical or face saving or I do not know what. All while trying to deny a basic fact. Hadlee bowled stuff all in a second innings against opposition.

 

[Starfighter]

But like Murali it potentially could be even higher like say at over 6? Consider yourself destroyed. Think about what he had, batsmen - lots of them, and a steady support hand in Vaas.

You have wasted my time enough. Please next time you don't see the problem with my logic, don't call my conclusion false, you're only embarassing yourself.

No, you're embarrassing yourself with your singular inability to prove your point and then whingeing when others call you out on it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali's 6 is higher than Hadlee's 5?

Yes or no?

Yes, but surely you understand why I compared Murali & Warne to each other and McGrath & Hadlee and not Hadlee and Murali right?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No, you're embarrassing yourself with your singular inability to prove your point and then whingeing when others call you out on it.

I proved my point already. If you don't get it, that isn't my concern.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yes, but surely you understand why I compared Murali & Warne to each other and McGrath & Hadlee and not Hadlee and Murali right?

I actually don't care why you compared who to who. The comparisons are really only for your benefit as I able to think in the abstract.

I am telling you, NZC and Hadlee did not operate anywhere near potential. They just didn't win enough as they had weak batting and weak support bowlers. Put in the abstract, you want to impose limits of potential 20 wickets that just aren't that significant to a weaker team that averages 12 or 13. But you don't seem to grasp this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali's 6 is higher than Hadlee's 5?

Yes or no?

Did Murali get a more proportionate share of second opposition innings (that is third or 4th match innings) bowling than Hadlee?

Yes or no?

I am not upset. You're just illogical or face saving or I do not know what. All while trying to deny a basic fact. Hadlee bowled stuff all in a second innings against opposition.

You're still focusing on the reasoning behind your hypothesis, and treating it as data and results. That's not how scientific method works. It's like me synthesising a molecule designed to inhibit acetylcholine reuptake in the CNS and saying "this drug will cure dementia because my reasoning supports it". Doesn't work like that. You trial it. A lot. And gather data which tells you whether it works or not.

As it happens in this case we have data already, plenty of it, and it proves your hypothesis wrong.

I actually don't care why you compared who to who. The comparisons are really only for your benefit as I able to think in the abstract.

I am telling you, NZC and Hadlee did not operate anywhere near potential. They just didn't win enough as they had weak batting and weak support bowlers. Put in the abstract, you want to impose limits of potential 20 wickets that just aren't that significant to a weaker team that averages 12 or 13. But you don't seem to grasp this.

I keep telling you that I'm purely talking about the hypothesis that great bowlers player in weaker teams will lead to a higher wpm. I think it was a mistake bringing the specific example of Hadlee into it because you're clearly a patriotic person, which is good, but it's clouding your judgement and making you emotional.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're still focusing on the reasoning behind your hypothesis, and treating it as data and results. That's not how scientific method works. It's like me synthesising a molecule designed to inhibit acetylcholine reuptake in the CNS and saying "this drug will cure dementia because my reasoning supports it". Doesn't work like that. You trial it. A lot. And gather data which tells you whether it works or not.

As it happens in this case we have data already, plenty of it, and it proves your hypothesis wrong.

I don't know know nor care why you keep leaving the cricket discussion to discuss meds.

Hadlee bowled stuff all in the second innings compared to the first. Had he bowled more in the second just with stronger team mate batting, his wpm potential would have increased as NZ very rarely took 20 wickets per match.

End of.

If you truly think you have gotten the better of me logically, point to the error in my reasoning.

Stop telling me I am wrong, point to the specific fallacy.

Now I gave you several points in my original post - attack them all. I even brought up more stronger support bowlers.

But stop talking about drugs. It is off topic.

If you cannot attack my facts or my reasoning, there is no point attacking my conclusion.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It is more complex than that.


Fact 1 - if NZ had better batsmen solely, Hadlee's wpm potential increases by virtue of his bowling increasing in second innings. His second innings average is lower than his first, so this will likely reduce too.

Probable Argument - if NZ had better support bowlers, Hadlee's wpm may stay the same or decrease pending how many there were, as more games go into the second innings, but if it decreases (say 3 great support bowlers) his bowling average would likely reduce as bowling more balls to non set batsmen.

This is all based on known truths, you need runs on the board to make the opposition bat twice, and batsmen are most likely to get out when new.

Now you can take Hadlee's first and second innings split and compare it to McGrath and Lillee who had Punter and Waugh, Hayden, and Chappel and Chappel respectively - and it will reveal itself to you.

Or you can avoid the fact that their first and second innings splits are so vastly different. Over to you.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marshall's Windies and McGrath's Australia averaged 18 to 19 wickets per game and Hadlee's NZ about 12 maybe 13 at best. But to say NZ "lacked competition for wickets" is erroneous, cos there were wickets there to be taken, they just weren't. There was no competition as the wickets were so often not taken at all. That is why SK Warne's argument is fallacious.

Its not that hard Jedi - the points are laid about above.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know know nor care why you keep leaving the cricket discussion to discuss meds.

Hadlee bowled stuff all in the second innings compared to the first. Had he bowled more in the second just with stronger team mate batting, his wpm potential would have increased as NZ very rarely took 20 wickets per match.

End of.

If you truly think you have gotten the better of me logically, point to the error in my reasoning.

Stop telling me I am wrong, point to the specific fallacy.

Now I gave you several points in my original post - attack them all. I even brought up more stronger support bowlers.

But stop talking about drugs. It is off topic.

If you cannot attack my facts or my reasoning, there is no point attacking my conclusion.

I keep telling you that I don't disagree with any your reasoning. I've told you like 4 times. You need to listen.

I'm not "attacking" you conclusion. Your conclusion is self-evidently incorrect, the stats prove that. Sometimes things work our differently in practice that to how our reasoning predicts it will. It happens a lot actually. The "meds" discussion is an analogy. I thought it would help you understand the difference between a hypothesis, first principles and results.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I keep telling you that I don't disagree with any your reasoning. I've told you like 4 times. You need to listen.

I'm not "attacking" you conclusion. Your conclusion is self-evidently incorrect, the stats prove that. Sometimes things work our differently in practice that to how our reasoning predicts it will. It happens a lot actually. The "meds" discussion is an analogy. I thought it would help you understand the difference between a hypothesis, first principles and results.

That isn't how logic works. A conclusion is logically reasoned from the facts.

20 wpm is the max potential, Hadlee was at roughly 5. NZ say average 12 or 13, that gives him room for more before the limit of 20 is imposed. He bowled stuff all in the second innings as NZ so often failed to have enough runs on the board to make the opposition bat either a second time or for a reasonably long time (like chasing more than 100 to 150 to win).

So he could have potentially increased with more second innings bowling, yes or no?

And this is only one point. Perhaps it is potential that is throwing you. I do not know what part you're not getting if you get the reasoning but not the conclusion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That isn't how logic works. A conclusion is logically reasoned from the facts.

You're not scientifically inclined person are you? No, this is incorrect, and the cause for the disagreement in this thread. As I've explained several times already, not everything works in practice the way that logic predicts it should. I used the example of clinical trials to demonstrate this fact.

A conclusion is based on the resulting data of a hypothesis that is tested. The "logically reasoned facts" help us determine what our hypothesis should be, that's it.

 

[cnerd123]

Burgey and I tirelessly **** posting doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're clearly not scientifically inclined person are you? No, this is incorrect, and the cause for the disagreement in this thread. As I've explained several times already, not everything works in practice the way that logic predicts it should. I used the example of clinical trials to demonstrate this fact.

A conclusion is based on the resulting data of a hypothesis that is tested. The "logically reasoned facts" help us determine what our hypothesis should be, that's it.

Dude, focus on my logic and not me. Who I am or what I do is completely irrelevant. I am making no appeal to authority nor citing persuasiveness based on my qualifications.

You need to tackle logic.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dude, focus on my logic and not me. Who I am or what I do is completely irrelevant. I am making no appeal to authority nor citing persuasiveness based on my qualifications.

You need to tackle logic.

5th time now: I don't disagree with your logic.

 

[cnerd123]

He should have been very glad that he was white.

Anyway, that opens up a very interesting discussion. How good would traditional fingerspinners like Laker and Gibbs be today?

I'd actually like to discuss this but don't know if it would be worth it's own thread, given how few people on CW actually appreciate and enjoy finger spin.

But to me the biggest difference is that modern day finger spinners need to get a lot more revs on the ball and play with their flight and pace more, often at the expense of accuracy, consistency, and in some cases, a legal bowling action.

This is just due to bigger bats, flatter pitches, more aggressive batting mindsets/more defensive bowling mindsets, etc.

Older day finger spinners would still get a decent amount of assistance from the pitch, and if anything could bowl quicker and flatter and constantly attack a tight line outside off stump, with the occasional tossed up delivery as a variation. I don't think many of them attempt to really bowl it slowly and into the air with lots of revs in order to take wickets. This quickish, flatter spin would have been plenty dangerous. It's why they best offspinners used to be tall with big hands and high arm actions, bringing the ball down into the wicket, almost like medium paced offcutters. Now days this style of offspin is only useful in places like India (see: Jadeja), but in most conditions around the world you need to be more loopy and slow and drifty and get the ball to spit off the wicket when it lands. That's a lot harder to accomplish, but arguably a lot more aesthetically pleasing when done right.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

5th time now: I don't disagree with your logic.

If my facts are accurate, and logic is agreeable, then accept my conclusions.

And for the record, in science, when a hypothesis fails, there is a reason for it, and this makes initial logic or facts proven wrong. :P

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well then accept my conclusions.

Your conclusions are based purely on your hypothesis and have already been proved wrong with hard statistical data. Hypothesis =/= fact. But you clearly don't understand this so let's try a different route.

Why do you think McGrath has wpm of 4.5 and Hadlee has a wpm of 5 if playing in a weaker team leads to a higher wpm?