• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Red Hill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Am I highlighting their stats (which Streak absolutely owns in the 3rd innings by the way - easily the best) or am I highlighting when they bowled and how often?
 
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
TheJediBrah said:
. . .



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.
Click to expand...
If my theory is not in dispute. Stop arguing. And accept it.
 
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Red Hill you seem like a good bloke. Read back through the thread and get upto speed with what's going on.

Even JediBrah is conceding my theory is right.


Even StarFighter concedes that I can keep proving it.

So focus on what's going on. What is the common link between these bowlers, not what differentiates them. That is the next thread.
 
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
TheJediBrah said:
No one's arguing about your "theory" that 5 + 4 = 9. It's common sense. Everyone knows that.

Your conclusions regarding the net effect on wpm is evidently wrong
Click to expand...
You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

If my theory which is the conclusion of my argument, they're one in the same, is correct; then wpm is impacted both ways.

You just seem so blinded comparing Hadlee to McGrath that you've forgotten about every single other bowler! Not everyone played for Australia (the greatest cricketing historical nation on earth)!
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mr Miyagi said:
You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

If my theory which is the my conclusion of my argument, they're one in the same, is correct; then wpm is impacted both ways.
Click to expand...
They're clearly not

Your "theory" that "second innings denial effect" exists is one of many factors that affects wpm. And is obvious.

You're insistence that the one factor is the only one that matters, or is decisive, is evidently wrong.

The fact that a factor exists, doesn't mean that it's meaningful or decisive.
 
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
TheJediBrah said:
They're clearly not

Your "theory" that "second innings denial effect" exists is one of many factors that affects wpm. And is obvious.

You're insistence that the one factor is the only one that matters, or is decisive, is evidently wrong.

The fact that a factor exists, doesn't mean that it's meaningful or decisive.
Click to expand...
I don't insist that one factor matters.

I insist that two factors matter.

Bowling and batting.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're so blinded by bowling between mCGrath and Hadlee that you fail to accept batting between Streak and Broad/Anderson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let alone Hadlee and Murali who you discount from wpm because HE'S A SPINNER?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Does he bowl? Does he take wickets? Heck most spinners take less wickets than seamers, so why does spin matter when the spinner is taking more??????????????????????
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mr Miyagi said:
I don't insist that one factor matters.

I insist that two factors matter.

Bowling and batting.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're so blinded by bowling that you fail to accept batting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Everyone accepted batting. It's not complicated. We know that the net result is that stronger team = lower wpm.

ftr it's not as simple as "bowling v batting", but let's just pretend it is, then they are not equivalent factors. The bowling factor (hypothetically) is evidently more influential.
 
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
TheJediBrah said:
Everyone accepted batting. It's not complicated. We know that the net result is that stronger team = lower wpm.

ftr it's not as simple as "bowling v batting", but let's just pretend it is, then they are not equivalent factors. The bowling factor (hypothetically) is evidently more influential.
Click to expand...
They are independent. The influence depends on the player in question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're so close, but you're not quite there. You still havn't separated them. Prolly because you're still focussing on McGrath vs Hadlee. You're obsessed with this. That's not the only comparison in the world.

The theory explains every [leading] bowler, not just Streak vs Anderson or McGrath vs Hadlee or Hadlee vs Murali or Warne vs Murali or Marshall vs Hadlee. Every single leading bowler.
 
Last edited:
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
TheJediBrah said:
. . .



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.
Click to expand...
That's a good analogy of just how far off base his thinking is.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Mr Miyagi said:
Red Hill you seem like a good bloke. Read back through the thread and get upto speed with what's going on.

Even JediBrah is conceding my theory is right.


Even StarFighter concedes that I can keep proving it.

So focus on what's going on. What is the common link between these bowlers, not what differentiates them. That is the next thread.
Click to expand...

So I literally CBF reading pages and pages of argument. Can you explain your theory to me in a succinct paragraph?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top