Let me elucidate this for you, Hadlee averaged roughly 42 overs per game. On average, at 2 to 1 split, he bowled 28 first innings overs and 14 second innings overs. Coupled with this is the fact that Hadlee did in fact bowl more in wins than losses. Murali bowls 55 overs a game, do either seem anywhere near maxed to you, on average?Once again you stumble around in the dark. The fact that Murali is a spin bowler and is capable of bowling more overs than Hadlee is more important.
Thankyou Bolo. Appreciate your postMiyagi- your position is logically self evident. I don't think you need to justify it any more. I think everyone understands by now that you are correct in that this will impact his ability to take wickets.
And i don't think you are disputing the fact that the weakness of the bowling around him will increase his chance to take wickets.
What is in question is the relative advantage offered by each. The fact that his higher wpm is a function of bowling more rather than strike rate suggests that the weakness of his bowling attack had a greater impact than the weakness of his batting team. If you disagree, argue the relative merits of the positions.
Nice point by the way. Interesting seeing something beyond the truisms of cricket knowledge.
Scary how accurate that isHere's a recap of this thread, people.
MM: "**** YOUR STATS, THIS HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO FAR REMOVED FROM REALITY TRUMPS EVERY STATISTICAL TREND WE'VE SEEN."
Everyone else: "Don't think that's quite how that works."
MM: "GET ON MY LEVEL, YOU NEANDERTHAL!"
It's not really though. The stats back up quite convincingly that stronger team = lower wpm. Whether or not this is the case is not in question (well, it shouldn't be), the interesting discussion arises in trying to identify what those factors are and quantifying, when possible, the effect of each.Miyagi- your position is logically self evident. I don't think you need to justify it any more. I think everyone understands by now that you are correct in that this will impact his ability to take wickets.
And i don't think you are disputing the fact that the weakness of the bowling around him will increase his chance to take wickets.
What is in question is the relative advantage offered by each. The fact that his higher wpm is a function of bowling more rather than strike rate suggests that the weakness of his bowling attack had a greater impact than the weakness of his batting team. If you disagree, argue the relative merits of the positions.
Nice point by the way. Interesting seeing something beyond the truisms of cricket knowledge.
Boo, Hadlee was a ***** who couldn't handle getting carted in the 2nd innings.Let me elucidate this for you, Hadlee averaged roughly 42 overs per game. On average, at 2 to 1 split, he bowled 28 first innings overs and 14 second innings overs. Coupled with this is the fact that Hadlee did in fact bowl more in wins than losses. Murali bowls 55 overs a game, do either seem anywhere near maxed to you, on average?
TJB, I have been very polite with you despite you using words like "crazy" and "moronic".Scary how accurate that is
I really think you honestly believe thatTJB, I have been very polite with you despite you using words like "crazy" and "moronic".
Being polite is more than just not swearing. It involves treating others considerately and respectfully. You haven't done that.TJB, I have been very polite with you despite you using words like "crazy" and "moronic".
Agreed. Taking 5 per match with these type of stats puts him on the next level and is a large part of why I rate him above almost all the other greats. I think though that in spite of the argument you have made he did have more opportunity to take wickets, and what elevates him to the next level is how well he rose to the opportunity.Thankyou Bolo. Appreciate your post
In fact - quite the opposite to your fear, I argue the weakness of the bowling around him hurts his average and SR, but I suspect that you can see this already :P
Well if I havn't, I can honestly say that I demonstrated far more respect than I received byBeing polite is more than just not swearing. It involves treating others considerately and respectfully. You haven't done that.
If you point out that neither did I, well I never claimed to be polite.
Well, I argue he did have more opportunity than some ultimately suffered, but he pays this price elsewhere, and yet had much less opportunity than he could have with better batting :PAgreed. Taking 5 per match with these type of stats puts him on the next level and is a large part of why I rate him above almost all the other greats. I think though that in spite of the argument you have made he did have more opportunity to take wickets, and what elevates him to the next level is how well he rose to the opportunity.
This is fair. Middle Eastern food here is non existentWas the sort of Lebanese feast you’d only dream of in Hong Kong.
Agreed, and I don't think you and Starfighter have any disagreement here as you are phrasing it here other than getting entangled in a debate.Well, I argue he did have more opportunity than some ultimately suffered, but he pays this price elsewhere, and yet had much less opportunity than he could have with better batting :P
No one ever disagreed with any of Mr Miyagi's logic or reasoning. This was explained to him repeatedly. The issue was his assumption that his reasoning for his premise led to a conclusion that is statistically proven to be false from the get go.Agreed, and I don't think you and Starfighter have any disagreement here as you are phrasing it here other than getting entangled in a debate.
I actually didn't mind him testing my view. He was rigorous and wanted to get into details. And he asked some good questions. But it stands up.Agreed, and I don't think you and Starfighter have any disagreement here as you are phrasing it here other than getting entangled in a debate.
TJB, please elaborate on this. What is proven to be false?No one ever disagreed with any of Mr Miyagi's logic or reasoning. This was explained to him repeatedly. The issue was his assumption that his reasoning for his premise let to a conclusion that is statistically proven to be false from the get go.
It doesn't stand up in the real world. I'm sorry to say but TBJ has nailed it. You simply haven't made the leap from hypothetical to real.I actually didn't mind him testing my view. He was rigorous and wanted to get into details. And he asked some good questions. But it stands up.
Details please of which part doesn't stand up?It doesn't stand up in the real world. I'm sorry to say but TBJ has nailed it. You simply haven't made the leap from hypothetical to real.