Aussie spin

[Son Of Coco]

Err, yes, that's what stats are about. You pick out the stats, then you form your ideas based on them.

There's no point in stats unless you use them.

Yes, I have, because I believe (and I'm most certainly not the only one) that I know better than I$C$C on the important matters of status of cricket matches. They don't - they routinely twist important traditions to suit their immidiate purposes.

Countless millions said the World XI match should never have been given Test status and even more have argued ever since Bangladesh's promotion that they haven't been Test class.

No, it's not, the past never ceases to be relevant. As I've said, talent-identification, Academies and coaches are no use without something to work with. And those who possess the skills of Warne and Benaud are rare indeed.

I don't touch vodka, I hate the stuff neat.

And what, incidentally, the hell has England's crapness got to do with anything?

No, no, no...that's what BAD stats are about.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've seen Hauritz and he's utterly rubbish (could tell that by the fact that he's played Aussie domestic cricket for ages and never done anything of note, even being dropped from his side last season).

I've never seen Cullen but seriously - aside from Ashley Mallett have Australia ever had a particularly good fingerspinner, even before WWII? His last 2 seasons suggest that is likely to continue.

I've seen White once or twice but, like Hauritz, he's played for a while now and never done anything of note with the ball, and despite not spinning it much he still seems to struggle to hit a length consistently.

I've never seen Casson but I've seen Chris Schofield and all indications are that the two are about equal.

You're assuming a degree of consistency in something that's inconsistent and not comparable.

 

[GIMH]

5-0

? dire.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's always a good one to use when bowlers aren't good enough to get wickets: "he takes wickets at the other end".

Unless you can take wickets in your own right, you aren't good enough.

Murali - fingerspin?

Fingerspin hasn't been revolutionised (Saqlain and Harbhajan, with their Doosra, were merely resurrecting an old art - Eripalli Prasanna bowled the same ball 30 years previously), it's just had a new trick well-publicised. And that new trick doesn't make the style into something that's somehow more bowlable than it was 10 years ago. Fingerspinners (Doosra-bowlers included) still need help from the pitch (as demonstrated by Saqlain and Harbhajan's records on helpful and unhelpful surfaces) and there are no more regular fingerspin-friendly pitches in Australia now than there were in 1954.

So therefore it's pretty logical to deduce that Cullen's unlikely to have much of a career.

Murali is fingerspin. The focus has been falsely directed at his wrist cause it's flexible, he's still fingerspin.

 

[GIMH]

Murali is fingerspin. The focus has been falsely directed at his wrist cause it's flexible, he's still fingerspin.

This debate's been done to death here in recent months, largely because of Fletcher labelling Panesar the world's best fingerspinner.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This debate's been done to death here in recent months, largely because of Fletcher labelling Panesar the world's best fingerspinner.

I must have missed it...there's no debate as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Matt79]

it's pretty basic fact that those with Warne's talent are rare.

Yep still got your mastery of the bleedingly obvious then. That would be why members of this board have contributed to a 50 page tribute thread to him, why many of us have him in our all time XIs ahead of people like Murali and O'Reilly, and why most of us are saying he'll be in large part irreplaceable in the foreseeable future. Obviously you don't read around much...

 

[Richard]

Yes, I do consider a bowler who can tie up one end with an economy rate of about 2 to be "good enough". He took his own share of wickets, but yes, if he was tieing an end up the batters could have taken it easier against the blokes up the other end. Meh whatever.

And as far as I'm concerned that's just an excuse to retain bowlers who aren't good enough. Test-cricket is about taking wickets for a decent number of runs yourself, not being perceived to take them for others.

Oh, and way to ignore half of the post......

Err, what gives you the idea I ignored it. I simply had nothing to reply to that part, so didn't quote it.

 

[Richard]

You're right, I've read countless descriptions of a previous game in the paper and not thought "What the hell are these people talking about, that sounds nothing like what actually happened!" The only way an article is a decent substitute for watching the game is if you have no idea about the game in the first place.

And I've read many articles and thought the opposite...

You don't write for a paper by any chance do you?

Nope.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you did.

I know you don't, because you sometimes seem to think I can't possibly be right on a single cricketing subject so therefore I must resent Shane Warne's skill.

 

[Richard]

No, no, no...that's what BAD stats are about.

Bad stats are about just looking at one banal number (like 30.67, MacGill's Test average) and not breaking it down to give it greater examination.

 

[Richard]

You're assuming a degree of consistency in something that's inconsistent and not comparable.

Which line of that post which you quoted in it's entirity, exactly, are you referring to?

 

[Richard]

Murali is fingerspin. The focus has been falsely directed at his wrist cause it's flexible, he's still fingerspin.

Murali is no more fingerspin than Warne or Chandrasekhar.

The focus has been correctly directed at his wrist because it's flexible. That's why he can bowl wristspin in such an unorthadox manner, a manner that no-one else without such a wrist will ever be able to.

 

[Richard]

Yep still got your mastery of the bleedingly obvious then. That would be why members of this board have contributed to a 50 page tribute thread to him, why many of us have him in our all time XIs ahead of people like Murali and O'Reilly, and why most of us are saying he'll be in large part irreplaceable in the foreseeable future. Obviously you don't read around much...

If I need to state the obvious, I'll state it.

If some people don't realise the obvious, it needs to be stated.

 

[Matt79]

Everyone realised it was obvious except you

 

[Richard]

Clearly someone didn't, because I was required to state that in the post I stated it in.

 

[Matt79]

It matters when you are equating the past era's to the current one. Australia now makes much better use of the talent that is there than it did in the past. In terms of your argument that is a very important distinction. We are now far more likely to keep talented players in the game and far more likely to get the best of those players, so therefore (if players numbers are the same etc) more likely of finding a quality spinner than we were after benaud retired and less likely to experience a 40 year spinner drought.

Players with Warne's talent are very rare, when the next player in that bracket comes along is a mystery (it may be a very long time or it may be tomorrow). Till then its about making the most of what we do have, some of whom could turn into good international players...

No amount of maximising of talent is likely to make Cameron White, Daniel Cullen, Nathan Hauritz or Beau Casson, for instance, into Test-class bowlers.

Without the talent to work with, it doesn't matter how sophisticated the development programs are - and it's pretty basic fact that those with Warne's talent are rare. Not neccessarily that it'll take 40 years for the next one, but probably quite a while (a decade at the very least).

Clearly someone didn't, because I was required to state that in the post I stated it in.

Actually I think they already had their head around that piece of searing insight.

 

[Richard]

And you cleverly picked two unrelated comments.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And I've read many articles and thought the opposite...

Nope.

I'm sure you have.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bad stats are about just looking at one banal number (like 30.67, MacGill's Test average) and not breaking it down to give it greater examination.

No, bad stats are about picking out numbers and then forming an opinion around isolated events. Stats should be used to either support or deny an idea you already have about something, not picked at random to only support your hypothesis.

It should be particularly obvious to most that founding an opinion on stats without actually watching the games is dangerous.Your random choices of one or two games here and there to prove a point are not a big enough sample size to make any conclusions about anyway.