Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[Mr Miyagi]

My dear friend;
If the answer is all of the above, then why did you insist so hard on splitting them in your analyses? It's not like a self-proclaimed flawless mind like yours to be so inconsistent

Especially as you did not bring up the declaration cushion factor as a major factor

Because all 4 innings matter

All 4 innings are significant

there are 4 innings

two first and two second

And you're more of my buddy than a friend. Mate even. Sonny perhaps. But not a dear friend. No offence.

I know that I don't like you enough to be a dearest friend :P

 

[Starfighter]

Because all 4 innings matter

All 4 innings are significant

there are 4 innings

two first and two second

And you're more of my buddy than a friend. Mate even. Not a dear friend. No offence.

Well then my buddy, since you agree that all for innings are significant then would it not be the best to consider all four innings together ?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Well then my buddy, since you agree that all for innings are significant then would it not be the best to consider all four innings together ?

No.

Because if someone bowls more in the 4th than the first or second, it will have an impact due to pitch or whatever else is going on :P

All 4 innings are different. Some are at the start of a match. Some are at the end.

Have you followed test cricket long?

 

[Starfighter]

No.

Because if someone bowls more in the 4th than the first or second, it will have an impact due to pitch or whatever else is going on :P

All 4 innings are different. Some are at the start of a match. Some are at the end.

Have you followed test cricket long?

Have you?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Have you?

No. I only watch the IPL and BKSS. But I am good with theory and logic.

I can't wait for the hundred. 120 balls in T20 was just beyond my attention span.

 

[TheJediBrah]

HEATH STREAK 3.3 wpm

It goes both WAYSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Heath Streak is not even close to the same bowler Hadlee and McGrath were statistically. His average was at least 5 runs higher. That's the major factor why is wpm is so much lower Using him as example shows you have no idea what you are talking about. And using him as an example again despite this being explained to you multiple times shows you are completely oblivious to education.

Just because it goes both ways doesn't mean both directions are the same magnitude. Do I need to bring out my 10 steps forward 50 steps back analogy again? All you've been doing is focus on the 10 steps forward and insisting that it means we must be 10 steps ahead of where we were and ignoring the 50 steps back and the fact that we already know that we're 40 steps back, because we already know the outcome.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Heath Streak is not even close to the same bowler Hadlee and McGrath were statistically. His average was at least 5 runs higher. That's the major factor why is wpm is so much lower Using him as example shows you have no idea what you are talking about. And using him as an example again despite this being explained to you multiple times shows you are completely oblivious to education.

Just because it goes both ways doesn't mean both directions are the same magnitude. Do I need to bring out my 10 steps forward 50 steps back analogy again? All you've been doing is focus on the 10 steps forward and insisting that it means we must be 10 steps ahead of where we were and ignoring the 50 steps back and the fact that we already know that we're 40 steps back, because we already know the outcome.

I asked you about Streak to Broad and Anderson.

Now:

Streak bowls
1st match innings 30 813.0 27.1 overs avg
2nd match innings 35 921.2 26.32 overs avg
3rd match innings 21 327.2 16 overs avg
4th match innings 24 198.1 8 overs avg

What is going on here?

Either explain it. Or don't. But don't waste my time. You cannot beat facts and logic.



Take Hadlee -

he bowls on average 29 overs in the first innings per game;
he bowls on average 29 overs in the second innings per game;
he bowls on average 22 overs in the third innings per game;
and just 8.8 overs in the fourth.

Ave 42 per game

He career averages a wicket every 8 overs. So is this significant to his wpm?

That is significant.

Marshall
bowls 20 overs on average in the first
bowls 21 overs on average in the second
bowls 19 overs on average in the third
bowls 14.7 overs on average in the fourth

Ave 36 per game

The effect can be seen, but at a far reduced rate.

McGrath
bowls 22.4 overs in the first
bowls 23.3 overs in the second
bowls 17.7 in the third
bowls 15.8 in the fourth

Ave 39 overs per game

Murali

bowls 33.3 overs in the first
bowls 34 overs in the second
bowls 31 overs in the third
bowls 24 overs in the fourth

ave 55

Streak
Bowls 27 in 1st
Bowls 26 in 2nd
Bowls 16 in 3rd
Bowls 8.25 in 4th

ave 35 overs per game

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your entire argument is that if Hadlee played in a stronger team, that he would get to bowl more in the 4th innings, and hence have a higher wpm. That's your theory.

The statistical reality shows us that if he was in a stronger team (eg. McGrath's Australia), regardless of the likelihood that he would bowl more in the 4th innings, he would have a lower wpm because he would bowl less in the match in both innings combined.

The statistical reality shows us that your theory is not correct.

Be happy that you've shown that your "second innings denial effect" exists, don't become so obsessed with trying to prove that it means something that we know it doesn't. It's just weird.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your entire argument is that if Hadlee played in a stronger team, that he would get to bowl more in the 4th innings, and hence have a higher wpm. That's your theory.

The statistical reality shows us that if he was in a stronger team (eg. McGrath's Australia), regardless of the likelihood that he would bowl more in the 4th innings, he would have a lower wpm because he would bowl less in the match in both innings combined.

The statistical reality shows us that your theory is not correct.

Be happy that you've shown that your "second innings denial effect" exists, don't become so obsessed with trying to prove that it means something that we know it doesn't. It's just weird.

Dude you've agreed with my theory. Now you diagree. You're all over the place.

You're still conflating batting strength with bowling strength as team strength, which is a fallacy and erroneous. Batting is independent to bowling.

I'm sorry that I told you that you got it earlier.

Maybe you didn't as evidenced now.

Clue: would Streak bowl more 4th innings overs playing for Australia or England?

Ave E/R S/R


McGrath:

1st match innings 22.92 2.58 53.1
2nd match innings 21.20 2.49 50.9
3rd match innings 22.57 2.52 53.6
4th match innings 19.49 2.34 49.8

18% of his overs are 4th innings. This is literally at SK Warne levels in the 4th.

Hadlee:

1st match innings 22.17 2.69 49.3
2nd match innings 23.98 2.61 55.0
3rd match innings 23.00 2.59 53.1
4th match innings 15.62 2.37 39.4

6% of his overs are 4th innings

Streak:

1st match innings 30.88 2.62 70.6
2nd match innings 31.78 2.76 69.1
3rd match innings 18.38 2.35 46.7 *(this is interesting)
4th match innings 25.32 3.19 47.5

9% of his overs are 4th innings

Marshall

1st matching innings 24.41 2.89 50.5
2nd match innings 19.97 2.53 47.2
3rd match innings 19.63 2.69 43.7
4th match innings 17.65 2.33 45.2

11% of his overs are 4th innings

Shane Warne

1st match innings 27.63 2.83 58.3
2nd match innings 28.38 2.66 63.8
3rd match innings 22.67 2.51 54.1
4th match innings 23.14 2.62 52.9

18% of his overs are 4th innings.

Murali:

1st match innings 26.47 2.64 60.0
2nd match innings 21.39 2.30 55.7
3rd match innings 21.11 2.44 51.7
4th match innings 21.01 2.52 50.0

12% of his overs are 4th innings

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anderson 3.9 wpm (36 overs per game)
Broad 3.5 wpm (34 overs per game)
Streak 3.3 wpm (35 overs per game)

re. Streak v Broad/Anderson, well first of all I don't even think the strength of their respective teams was that much different. England had a lot of ups and downs during Broad and Anderson's career and were quite ordinary for a lot of it, and during Streak's career Zimbabwe were actually quite competitive and had some excellent players. This is shown as well by their relative overs per game, which are all pretty similar.

Your focusing too much on the assumption that "Zimbabwe = bad, England = good". Neither does it really even support your point, even if they were (which they're not) the differences aren't that significant.

I've told you this already multiple times, but the reason Marshall/McGrath v Hadlee is such a perfect example is because the differing strengths of the teams are so pronounced, and the bowlers are at such a similar level

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're still conflating batting strength with bowling strength as team strength, which is a fallacy and erroneous. Batting is independent to bowling.

You need to start trying to pay closer attention to what people are saying to you.

The discussion is about all round team strength.

You've been told over and over again that no one disagrees with, or cares about, your hypothetical "stronger batting only" scenario. No one disagrees with that. Do you understand? We are talking about general team strength in batting and bowling.

If that's not what you are arguing then you can stop arguing because no one cares or disagrees with you.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Anderson 3.9 wpm (36 overs per game)
Broad 3.5 wpm (34 overs per game)
Streak 3.3 wpm (35 overs per game)

re. Streak v Broad/Anderson, well first of all I don't even think the strength of their respective teams was that much different. England had a lot of ups and downs during Broad and Anderson's career and were quite ordinary for a lot of it, and during Streak's career Zimbabwe were actually quite competitive and had some excellent players. This is shown as well by their relative overs per game, which are all pretty similar.

Your focusing too much on the assumption that "Zimbabwe = bad, England = good". Neither does it really even support your point, even if they were (which they're not) the differences aren't that significant.

I've told you this already multiple times, but the reason Marshall/McGrath v Hadlee is such a perfect example is because the differing strengths of the teams are so pronounced, and the bowlers are at such a similar level

Zimbabwe vs England?

Oh please. Former #1's and Big 3 vs perennial bunnies. You're well past clutching at straws. You just went full Robert Downey Junior in Topic Thunder.

JediBrah - this is really simple. Either you agree with my theory batting strength affects second innings overs and that bowling strength effects competition for wickets with less overs in the first and second. Or you deny it.

If boiwling strength is significant then battting strength is significant. And if not, why not? Now I can show and demonstrate for every bowler that they are.

I don't care either way what you feel. Be logical. Deal with facts.

 

[Red]

Heath Streak.

Shall I carry on pasting?

I know that you get it now. But lets not rewrite history - there's plenty of posts against you not getting it before. So many.

You previously reduced team strength into one instead of separating batting strength from bowling strength and looking at them as independent variables. I repeat, I know that you get it now.

Heath Streak isn't a "great" bowler.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Heath Streak isn't a "great" bowler.

Who cares if he isn't in the ATG?

He was their best and leading bowler. And I can explain this for all best and leading bowlers.

Bowling average 28.14. Read the very very very first post :P

Draw the line in the sand whereever you want.

Streak. Vaas. Hadlee. McGrath. Boult. Hazlewood/Starc. Broad. Anderson.

 

[TheJediBrah]

JediBrah - this is really simple. Either you agree with my theory batting strength affects second innings overs and that bowling strength effects competition for wickets with less overs in the first and second. Or you deny it.

Everyone agrees with the theory. It's a ****ing obvious theory. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.

If boiwling strength is significant then battting strength is significant. And if not, why not? Now I can show and demonstrate for every bowler that they are.

10 steps forward, 50 steps back etc. etc.

I don't care either way what you feel. Be logical. Deal with facts.

You are the one who is literally trying to argue against statistical facts

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Everyone agrees with the theory. It's a ****ing obvious theory. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.



10 steps forward, 50 steps back etc. etc.



You are the one who is literally trying to argue against statistical facts

If you agree wtih the theory show it is 50 steps back. SHOW ME.

DO YOU FINALLY AND ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE THEORY?

Because if you do it goes both ways. BOTH WAYS.

 

[Red]

Who cares if he isn't in the ATG?

He was their best and leading bowler. And I can explain this for all best and leading bowlers.

Bowling average 28.14. Read the very very very first post :P

Draw the line in the sand whereever you want.

Streak. Vaas. Hadlee. McGrath. Boult. Hazlewood/Starc. Broad. Anderson.

You're continually lumping groups of stats together for Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Streak.

The first three are ATGs and *arguably* the three best ever.

Streak is no where near their league.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're continually lumping groups of stats together for Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Streak.

The first three are ATGs and *arguably* the three best ever.

Streak is no where near their league.

And why do you think this is relevant to when and how often they bowled when they were the best in their teams?

(you're actually going to be quite useful in proving my second point :P)

 

[Red]

And why do you think this is relevant to when and how often they bowled when they were the best in their teams?

Because you are highlighting their stats in when and how often they bowled when the first three are significantly better pace bowlers and Streak is significantly worse.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you agree wtih the theory show it is 50 steps back. SHOW ME.

DO YOU FINALLY AND ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE THEORY?

. . .

The stats are right there. You've been shown this dozens of times already.

3 bowlers with similar stats, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee. The 2 from stronger teams have lower wpm. It's not a coincidence. It's the facts. That's the proof that it's 50 steps back.

Trying to quantify every single potential factor affecting wpm that's related to team strength, even if possible, would be an exceedingly stupid, and pointless, waste of time. Because we already know the answer. We don't need to know every single factor that leads to it.

I'll throw another analogy at you.

We know the answer to an equation is 50.

5 + 4 + x + y + z + a + b = 50. Let's say that's our equation.

You're obsessing over 5+4 and you insist the answer to our equation must be 9, because 5 + 4 = 9, even though we know the answer to our equation is 50.

Everyone agrees with your "theory" that 4 + 5 = 9. It's not in dispute. But you're insisting that the answer to our equation (that we know is 50) is 9 as a result, because you're so obsessed with the one small factor that shows 4 + 5 = 9.