all-round ability

[weldone]

Aha. The clouds disappear.

In that case do us a favour will you please.? Stick to commenting on contemporary players only instead of comparing them with those for which you have been denied the data.

I said ranking batsmen of different era is possible but that needs 'time'....If I had enough time and incentive (for example, if cricket statistics was my profession, or if I had my research paper to be prepared on this subject) I would've surely done that...

 

[SJS]

I said ranking batsmen of different era is possible but that needs 'time'....If I had enough time and incentive (for example, if cricket statistics was my profession, or if I had my research paper to be prepared on this subject) I would've surely done that...

Thank you

 

[weldone]

BTW, I presume you have seen most of the contemporary players. I wonder why you would trust mere stats more than the evidence of your eyes ?

Stats give you perspective...Stats make you remember things...If no stat was available on any player, I'm sure most of the members here (not all though) would have said Atherton was a better batsman than Kallis, and Trumper was as good as Bradman....

 

[weldone]

Thank you

welcome ..

 

[weldone]

I saw it live do I still need to see the recording?.

Were you happy with what happened in that match?...If you were, our discussion ends here and I agree that stats are waste...

 

[weldone]

Even when two teams are on the same point and you are allowing only one to go semi-final (or quarter-final or final) based on something called 'net run rate', what are you depending on? - STATISTICS

 

[weldone]

Dont take all these comments personally weldone, I am just pulling your legs.

No, I'm not...In fact I'm happy to see that you are replying and trying to put your words logically...Much better than someone who can't discuss with logical points and resort to other means (quite often throwing dull sarcastic comments)

 

[SJS]

Were you happy with what happened in that match?...If you were, our discussion ends here and I agree that stats are waste...

I dont think we were talking of who was happy with that result and who wasn't, we were discussing whether without Duckworth and Lewis cricket would survive/be worthwhile/meaningful since "for running the game"..they (D & L) are "necessary". The answer should be obvious to most....I would think so. I thought they (D & L) were an 'alternative' rather than 'necessary'. I am afraid the two terms do not appear synonymous to me.

Similarly using statistics to compare players is also an altrnative to discussing the players merits, techniques etc etc. Which is correct and whether one can be correct, and complete, by itself is , to put it mildly, a somewhat doubtful argument. But then I know only so little about what stats can do.

Thanks for your time weldone.

 

[weldone]

I dont think we were talking of who was happy with that result and who wasn't, we were discussing whether without Duckworth and Lewis cricket would survive/be worthwhile/meaningful since "for running the game"..they (D & L) are "necessary". The answer should be obvious to most....I would think so. I thought they (D & L) were an 'alternative' rather than 'necessary'. I am afraid the two terms do not appear synonymous to me.

If you are talking about those ODI matches which are not rain/light affected and are played for full 100 overs, then yes I agree D & L is not 'necessary' ...

Similarly, if you are talking about those ODI or 20-20 tournaments where two or more teams don't end on same points, then yes I agree net run rate is not 'necessary' ...

 

[weldone]

Similarly using statistics to compare players is also an altrnative to discussing the players merits, techniques etc etc. Which is correct and whether one can be correct, and complete, by itself is , to put it mildly, a somewhat doubtful argument. But then I know only so little about what stats can do.

No you can't unless you have seen almost all matches played by them...How can I judge someone like Atherton whom I've seen playing only in 10 test matches...I can form opinion about him from those 10 matches that I've seen...There's chance that my opinion might be correct, but there's greater chance that it'll be incorrect...

The case is even worse in case of someone you haven't seen playing (say Bradman)...You can of course read about him in books and know that he was a great batsman...But does that give you very clear perspective of how good he was? (unless there are some figures in the book )

 

[SJS]

I am tired.

 

[weldone]

I am tired.

Even I am ... We'll discuss with something more concrete next time... some other day...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am tired.

Statistics show it's a fine line between being tiredness and boredom.

 

[SJS]

Statistics show it's a fine line between being tiredness and boredom.

 

[Ikki]

weldone, could you please do the same analysis for Bradman? Thanks.

 

[weldone]

weldone, could you please do the same analysis for Bradman? Thanks.

Bradman didn't take 150 career wickets, as it was part of the elligibility criteria...

 

[Ikki]

Bradman didn't take 150 career wickets, as it was part of the elligibility criteria...

Well, could you do it anyway? If possible, thanks.

 

[weldone]

Well, could you do it anyway? If possible, thanks.

No, with too few data points any statistical analysis becomes faulty (That's why for example it's not prudent to comment about Barry Richard's or Vijay Merchant's test batting from the small data available)...In fact, I am currently thinking of another way for ranking al-rounders...