Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[greg]

Ofcourse it matters how you are doing it. If you dont know the process, you cannot justify your thinking and thus it will be prone to holes - such as the ones i am exposing. Even E=MC^2 had to be explained by theorems and logic , not just coz a Swiss patent clerk strolled up to the podium and said 'it doesnt matter how i am doing it, i am just doing it'.

Lol. Even E=MC^2 had to be explained. Glad someone realised that! Pales into insignificance with deciding how good this England cricket team is though

 

[marc71178]

england's standard deviation is significantly greater than other teams over the past 2 years because so many of their wins are against minnows

A total of 2 Tests out of 6 Series - what a significant number.

 

[marc71178]

yes you are right..it is subjective..and thats why you cannot knock peoples opinions when they say there is a BIG gap between England and India.

But you have to also see that what happened 4-5 years ago has very little relevance to what happens currently.

The one thing that C_C conveniently neglects in all this is that India's record over this time that apparantly makes them so good is:


53 games, 22 wins and 15 losses.

Included in this is 8 wins and a loss from 10 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it 14 wins and 14 losses in 43.

 

[marc71178]

You forget- you are comparing one team who's core has been together for the last 7-8 years to another who's core has been together for the past couple.

And you're ignoring the fact that just because it's the same players as 7 or 8 years ago, they're not playing anywhere near as well.

 

[marc71178]

if England doesnt have an established track record, it is too bloody soon to be rating them so highly

No, much better to equate them with a team that's playing far worse (just because that team did once play well together, albeit far too long ago to be relevant to the current world order)

England's claim to fame so far = score about half its victories against minnows ( btw, no other team has played as many minnows as England in the same period) over a 2 years sunshine and presto! they are oh so much better!

Except, they've only played 1 minnow in the last 6 series - far from half of their games.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, England are a better team than India but due to its much shorter excellence span and playing far more minnows in the same timeframe, it is slightly ahead of India, not much.

Matches from 3 or 4 years ago are irrelevant in the current climate.

And as for far more:

India's last 6 series are: Zim (A), Pak (A), SA (H), Pak (H), Ban (A), Aus (H)

So that's 2 series against minnow compared to 1 - no matter what system you're looking at, 2 is more than 1.

 

[marc71178]

There is every releavance to how a team is playing now with a team that has been together for the past 4-5 years, since it gives the sample space for the SAME TEAM for an extended period of time.

No, it doesn't, because you're living off past "glories" (although the figures I've provided for the last 5 years hardly show the glories that you're referring to.

I guess logic doesnt really work on this site.

Do you even understand what logic is?

 

[marc71178]

Not really jaw-dropping at all. First team to beat Australia outside the subcontinent in a dozen years is about as relevant as saying they are the first team to lose in Sri Lanka since the world cup.

You what?

 

[marc71178]

FACT : India has a more established track record than England

Last 5 years:

India - 53 games, 22 wins and 15 losses.

Included in this is 8 wins and a loss from 10 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it a 14 wins and 14 losses in 43.

England:

66 games, 32 wins and 18 losses.

Included in this is 6 wins from 6 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it a 26 wins and 18 losses in 60.


Far more proven there then (!)

 

[Neil Pickup]

A team is a sum of its players. If you really are a physicist, you should know that. All this talk of ' sum is more than the total or less' is just psuedo-science bullshyte that wouldnt hold up in any scientific journal.
Again, you should know that.
And you should know that a statistical inference ( which is what it is - no different in principle than a gallup poll - where the sample points- be it opinions or scorecards- are used to form a conclusion) is heavily dependent on the width of its sample field.
Again, that is not quantum vaccum fluctuation, this is common logic!

Please don't use "shyte" and suchlike to bypass the filter.

 

[Ikki]

#1 - Australia
#2 - England
#3 - India

Such are the current rankings. Any reasoning, whether it be scientific or guesswork is flawed because no such entity can predict the future outcomes of any team.

Swervy - I agree, England are playing very good cricket and are on their way to a very long haul as Test champions.

C_C - I agree also, they need more matches to be considered a cut above anyone under #2.

However no one can deny or affirm what is right. England are on a streak and has yet to be beaten. Let's start doubting them as soon as they are outplayed and beat. You can't dismiss the success of a team at the start of such a streak. Otherwise it could take a long time before anyone is validated as a good cricketing team or player.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I don't think anyone is saying England are #1, or that they are "great", just that they are getting nearer the Aussies and in so doing are pulling away from the rest.

 

[C_C]

Last 5 years:

India - 53 games, 22 wins and 15 losses.

Included in this is 8 wins and a loss from 10 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it a 14 wins and 14 losses in 43.

England:

66 games, 32 wins and 18 losses.

Included in this is 6 wins from 6 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it a 26 wins and 18 losses in 60.


Far more proven there then (!)

And didnt you talk, 2 days ago, about the english team being only 2 years old or so ?
Do you even follow your own arguments ?

 

[C_C]

No, it doesn't, because you're living off past "glories" (although the figures I've provided for the last 5 years hardly show the glories that you're referring to.



Do you even understand what logic is?

1. If an established sample space = living off past glories, then english record = living off minnows

2. I am an electronics engineer. Kapische ?

 

[C_C]

A total of 2 Tests out of 6 Series - what a significant number.

a total of 10 out of 6 series.
Whatever you or your lackeys think, West Indies of the past 5 years is a minnow akin to any minnow before it.

 

[C_C]

The one thing that C_C conveniently neglects in all this is that India's record over this time that apparantly makes them so good is:


53 games, 22 wins and 15 losses.

Included in this is 8 wins and a loss from 10 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it 14 wins and 14 losses in 43.

and minus WI makes them ???

 

[Barney Rubble]

And didnt you talk, 2 days ago, about the english team being only 2 years old or so ?
Do you even follow your own arguments ?

Do you? You can't claim that India's "track record" makes them a better team than England, despite England's better recent results, and then go on to say that the results England achieved outside the last two years don't mean anything.

 

[Barney Rubble]

a total of 10 out of 6 series.
Whatever you or your lackeys think, West Indies of the past 5 years is a minnow akin to any minnow before it.

Yes, because Gayle, Sarwan, Lara and Chanderpaul are no better than Charles Coventry, Habibul Bashar, Tushar Imran and Brendan Taylor, are they?

 

[C_C]

Yes, because Gayle, Sarwan, Lara and Chanderpaul are no better than Charles Coventry, Habibul Bashar, Tushar Imran and Brendan Taylor, are they?

Because the team overall is no better than NZ pre late70s, India pre late 50s, SL pre early 90s, etc.
lara + chanderpaul + highschool kids = minnows. Their record over the past 5 years or so justifies that!

 

[C_C]

Do you? You can't claim that India's "track record" makes them a better team than England, despite England's better recent results, and then go on to say that the results England achieved outside the last two years don't mean anything.

England's achievements outside 2 years dont mean much- their team was vastly different. India's wasnt. Therefore India's performance before 2 years have a lot to do with establishing how good this IND team is, not for England. it is rather simple.