Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[TheJediBrah]

India are going to wipe the floor with England. The poms won't stand a chance.

 

[cnerd123]

For all that, Cevnoing is certainly not as dire as all the Gambhiring which goes on in match threads, and which will no doubt kick off properly once India starts the test matches against England soon.

**** we're going to get absolutely wrecked by the team that lost to Pakistan aren't we

 

[TheJediBrah]

India are going to wipe the floor with England. The poms won't stand a chance.

**** I did that backwards. How do I get India to win?

never been the best Gambhirer

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No balls cannot account for a significant change in batting average. The thread started with the description of the change as 'really', which excludes small movements.

An increase of runouts, which is what you said, cannot account for the movement in batting average up. Only the exact opposite of what you stated can do this.

Apologies for not reading the thread properly.

Try again, less no balls and wides as a proprotion of team totals scored, means a bowler can give more runs to the batsmen and increase their averages, while keep the bowler's average constant.

Now, you now want to discuss significant and weighting, I already said that I thought run outs were lower than they are (that is my factual error). But it is all mathematically possible.

I may also be wrong on no balls and wides decreasing proportionately (but lets be honest, teams like WI were awful back in the day, discipline has improved globally), I don't care. I made an observation that I think that batting averages could have increased in the face of bowling average being more or less constant. I am right. That makes me happy.

I already conceded several time to several people in this thread that I thought run outs were lower in proportion than they are. I have already conceded that I thought third umpire had more of an effect on increasing them than just the 1990s. But I didn't care about run outs. I still don't.

There was never a mathematical impossibility. There may be factual errors. I don't know everything. And I never said that I do. But my possible observation was proved correct.

So, you can attack me on a factual error being wrong till you're blue in the face (and there may be more after this error). But mathematical impossibility? No.

It was surprising result for you and many more people I am sure. I get that. My observation that I thought possible was proven to be true despite flying in the face of "common sense". My happiness does not need to be at your expense.

 

[jimmy101]

**** this deserves it's own thread, doesn't it.

What an achievement.

Gotta be one of the finest efforts we've ever seen. There was hardly a dry eye in the house when the mighty record was surpassed.

 

[Burgey]

Jeez there are some dud cricketers carrying him around in that pic aren't there?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yusuf Pathan would fit in perfectly with John1990's #batdeep #Strikerate ATG XI formula. You could pick him as your main spinner alongside Afridi. Calling him a dud when he's a potential ATG player is just wrong. It's mathematically impossible.

 

[cnerd123]

Gotta be one of the finest efforts we've ever seen. There was hardly a dry eye in the house when the mighty record was surpassed.

It wasn't easy. I had to read through a lot of posts to get there. WW, Blocky, Mr Miyagi, Burgey. And all that zooming in from my phone, all the hours spent trawling through dire off-topic threads to find that occasional Bijed or How_zat gem that was worth my like

The tours have always been my most prolific place for like giving. Lots of fantastic banter, observation and memes emerge in those. I think there have been times where I have liked every single post on a page (at 40 ppp!). Those were the good days.

And then you get days like today, where it's been draining and soul sapping, but I've slugged through it to give guys like TJB and Starfighter the support they need to fight the good fight

All in all it's been a great time. I'd just like to thank everyone involved for being such fantastic posters, and for making this achievement possible. I'm so happy to have crossed this record. Here's to the next 34,347 likes.

 

[jimmy101]

Wonderful acceptance speech. Pure class.

 

[srbhkshk]

I may also be wrong on no balls and wides decreasing proportionately (but lets be honest, teams like WI were awful back in the day, discipline has improved globally), I don't care. I made an observation that I think that batting averages could have increased in the face of bowling average being more or less constant. I am right. That makes me happy.

Dude, literally all of the extra increase in Batting averages is because of the lower run-out % - which you are dismissing as non-factor. Once you adjust for that both batting and bowling averages are up by 6% each from 80s.

 

[Bolo]

Try again, less no balls and wides as a proprotion of team totals scored, means a bowler can give more runs to the batsmen and increase their averages, while keep the bowler's average constant.

Now, you now want to discuss significant and weighting, I already said that I thought run outs were lower than they are (that is my factual error). But it is all mathematically possible.

I may also be wrong on no balls and wides decreasing proportionately (but lets be honest, teams like WI were awful back in the day), I don't care. I made an observation that I think that batting averages could have increased in the face of bowling average being more or less constant. I am right. That makes me happy.

I already conceded several time to several people in this thread that I thought run outs were lower in proportion than they are. I have already conceded that I thought third umpire had more of an effect on increasing them than just the 1990s. But I didn't care about run outs. I still don't.

There was never a mathematical impossibility. There may be factual errors. I don't know everything. And I never said that I do. But my possible observation was proved correct.

So, you can attack me on a factual error being wrong till you're blue in the face (and there may be more after this error). But mathematical impossibility? No.

Your factual error created a mathematical impossibly. To accept the fact is to recognise the impossibility. They can't be treated independently.

You can't possibly believe a change in the number of extras will lead to a significant (as mentioned) change?

 

[Daemon]

Took you less than 9 years too. Sachin what a hack.

 

[cnerd123]

Your factual error created a mathematical impossibly. To accept the fact is to recognise the impossibility. They can't be treated independently.

You can't possibly believe a change in the number of extras will lead to a significant (as mentioned) change?

He's going to make you dig up the numbers to prove that extras haven't risen enough to account for the change.

And then he'll say "oh I made a bad bet" and laugh it off

 

[TheJediBrah]

He's going to make you dig up the numbers to prove that extras haven't risen enough to account for the change.

And then he'll say "oh I made a bad bet" and laugh it off

That would be a masterful bit of trolling

 

[srbhkshk]

Just to put some numbers -

% Change in bowling average since 80s - 6.4%
% Change in batting average since 80s - 11.6% (Adjusting for the lower rate of run-outs - 6.3%)
% Change in top 7 batting average since 80s - 13.8% (Adjusting for the lower rate of run-outs - 8.4%)

As Bolo said, it's really the top order batting which has benefited more - although just by numbers even that is rather small.

 

[Bolo]

He's going to make you dig up the numbers to prove that extras haven't risen enough to account for the change.

And then he'll say "oh I made a bad bet" and laugh it off

The possibility of me having to dig them up to win this debate had occurred occurred to me and been dismissed with extreme prejudice. Actually, I will preemptively give my response to to any reply to that question that is not a set of stats from his side: 'okay'.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just to put some numbers -

% Change in bowling average since 80s - 6.4%
% Change in batting average since 80s - 11.6% (Adjusting for the lower rate of run-outs - 6.3%)
% Change in top 7 batting average since 80s - 13.8% (Adjusting for the lower rate of run-outs - 8.4%)

As Bolo said, it's really the top order batting which has benefited more - although just by numbers even that is rather small.

So another interesting stat to take away from that, is that tail-enders averages must have dropped, relatively speaking. I wonder if they've actually gotten worse or just throw their wickets away at the death more

 

[Bolo]

So another interesting stat to take away from that, is that tail-enders averages must have dropped, relatively speaking. I wonder if they've actually gotten worse or just throw their wickets away at the death more

I think they constitute a higher percentage of wickets that fall as a result of an increase in bowling strike rate- we could see the balance shift even if we don't see the actual batting average of tailenders shift.

 

[srbhkshk]

So another interesting stat to take away from that, is that tail-enders averages must have dropped, relatively speaking. I wonder if they've actually gotten worse or just throw their wickets away at the death more

Haven't really gotten worse - but haven't kept up with the top order (10.3% & 5.1%).

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think they constitute a higher percentage of wickets that fall as a result of an increase in bowling strike rate- we could see the balance shift even if we don't see the actual batting average of tailenders shift.

ah of course