Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[Mr Miyagi]

All theory, no practice from you. It checks out logically, but that doesn't mean it would actually happen.

Actually it did happen. This is based on results.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Errr - there's 20 possible wickets per match dude.

You want the mcc laws of cricket as proof? Or the games NZ failed to take 20 wickets. I will paste them for you if you need.

You're still talking about your irrelevant "reasoning". It's all you've been doing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh so now its a certainty that Hadlee could have potentially taken more wickets per match with better batting team mates? Cos that's what is being proved here.

That was my point all along!

So you accept that for a great bowler, generally speaking, playing in a weaker team = higher wpm?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Maybe he isn't as good as you think he is?

Well I could change it balls bowled from wickets taken if you like :P

 

[TheJediBrah]

All theory, no practice from you. It checks out logically, but that doesn't mean it would actually happen.

I ate a yellow icy pole the other day. It was cold.

The sun is also yellow. It must be cold too. I have reasoning so it must be true! All other evidence and facts don't matter because of my reasoning!

science

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're still talking about your irrelevant "reasoning". It's all you've been doing.

Again with bare assertions.

If you want to attack my logic, be specific. Give details.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Again with bare assertions.

If you want to attack my logic, be specific. Give details.

6th time: No one's arguing with your logic.

You really don't listen

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're still talking about your irrelevant "reasoning". It's all you've been doing.

Again with bare assertions.

If you want to attack my logic, be specific. Give details.

6th time: No one's arguing with your logic.

You really don't listen

Determining relevance is a logical exercise TJB.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If the "logic" you're referring to is the assertion that the factor you keep insisting is proof of your conclusion, then yes, that's clearly false. As per statistical data.

No one's arguing with the "logic" that you've used to come up with why you think your factor could influence your conclusion. The error is the assumption that your factor is your conclusion and that no other factors matter.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

If the "logic" you're referring to is the assertion that the factor you keep insisting is proof of your conclusion, then yes, that's clearly false. As per statistical data.

No one's arguing with the "logic" that you've used to come up with why you think your factor could influence your conclusion. The error is the assumption that your factor is your conclusion and that no other factors matter.

What? Details already.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What? Details already.

Your conclusion is statistically, unambiguously false. There is no need for "details".

I know you want "reasoning" to counter your own but that's not how this works. We have the conclusive data. Any reasoning any of us come up with is purely speculative, and irrelevant because we already know the conclusion.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

So you accept that for a great bowler, generally speaking, playing in a weaker team = higher wpm?

But why? Don't you want to know why? And don't you want to understand the nuance? If NZ was #2 for the 1980's why is Hadlee taking less wickets per game than Murali if they have noone else to compete for them with?

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from Marshall at 4.6 if there is sufficient batting (and with Greendige, Hayne, Richards and Richardson there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

What factor limiting wpm potential effecting Warne and Marshall, do not effect Murali and Hadlee. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your conclusion is statistically, unambiguously false. There is no need for "details".

I know you want "reasoning" to counter your own but that's not how this works. We have the conclusive data. Any reasoning any of us come up with is purely speculative, and irrelevant because we already know the conclusion.

So you have no details - just more assertions?

 

[TheJediBrah]

But why? Don't you want to know why? And don't you want to understand the nuance?

Sure, it can be an interesting discussion. That's not what this argument has been about though. You've been consistently denying the hard data and repeatedly positing your irrelevant reasoning despite me telling you repeatedly that no one is arguing with it.

I don't think it's that complicated though ftr. Sticking with the McGrath/Hadlee example. McGrath had higher competition or wickets because the other bowlers were better. Hadlee has less competition, and this (and possibly other factors) more than made up for any loss he suffered from not getting to bowl as much in 2nd innings' because his batsman sucked.

So you have no details - just more assertions?

Hard statistical fact is all the detail that matters

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Sure, it can be an interesting discussion. That's not what this argument has been about though. You've been consistently denying the hard data and repeatedly positing your irrelevant reasoning despite me telling you repeatedly that no one is arguing with it.

I don't think it's that complicated though ftr. Sticking with the McGrath/Hadlee example. McGrath had higher competition or wickets because the other bowlers were better. Hadlee has less competition, and this (and possibly other factors) more than made up for any loss he suffered from not getting to bowl as much in 2nd innings' because his batsman sucked.



Hard statistical fact is all the detail that matters

This is illogical. And I will tell you why.

Competition for wickets impacts a limit of 20 wickets per match. If less than 20 wickets are taken, the limiting effect of competition for wickets has not been realised.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is illogical. And I will tell you why.

Competition for wickets impacts a limit of 20 wickets per match. If less than 20 wickets are taken, the limiting effect of competition for wickets has not been realised.

lol dude you're still doing it. You're picking your one little factor that you think influences the result and deciding that it is the result, when we already know the result and that's not it. It's crazy.

It's not "illogical". It's proven by the data. Arguing against the hard data is just moronic.

 

[Starfighter]

lol dude you're still doing it. You're picking your one little factor that you think influences the result and deciding that it is the result, when we already know the result and that's not it. It's crazy.

It's not "illogical". It's proven by the data. Arguing against the hard data is just moronic.

I think he's suffering from circular reasoning.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think he's suffering from circular reasoning.

Please elaborate (with details).

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think he's suffering from circular reasoning.

Spot on

 

[Mr Miyagi]

lol dude you're still doing it. You're picking your one little factor that you think influences the result and deciding that it is the result, when we already know the result and that's not it. It's crazy.

It's not "illogical". It's proven by the data. Arguing against the hard data is just moronic.

Details please.