PwC is no more

[marc71178]

Because the points-scoring methods change according to the supposed quality of opposition, which is assumed and often assumed incorrectly.

No, it is not assumed, it is calculated - based on an unchanging formula, without any bias.

Not to mention the fact that they take account of largely irrelevant matters such as the total runs scored

Oh yes, because clearly an innings of 120 coming in at 500-3 is easily the equal of an innings of 120 out 200.

 

[marc71178]

And people talk about them like they actually mean something big.

Erm, have you not read this thread then, they're the official world rankings, just like Tennis and Golf have their official rankings.

 

[Richard]

No, it is not assumed, it is calculated - based on an unchanging formula, without any bias.

Except you can't calculate it - no formula can accurately reflect the strength of a team, given that (especially in some cases - Pakistan) it changes from game to game.

Oh yes, because clearly an innings of 120 coming in at 500-3 is easily the equal of an innings of 120 out 200.

There are exceptional cases.
There's no reason why a 120 coming in at 200 for 2 can't be every bit as good as one coming in at 120 for 3.

 

[Richard]

Erm, have you not read this thread then, they're the official world rankings, just like Tennis and Golf have their official rankings.

And tennis and golf being individual sports, it's a bit more sensical - not that even there it's possible to do with any real certainty.
In cricket having a ranking for individual players is totally impossible to do with accuracy because there are so many more variables.

 

[marc71178]

Except you can't calculate it - no formula can accurately reflect the strength of a team, given that (especially in some cases - Pakistan) it changes from game to game.

Yes, and as does the rating of the team.

 

[Richard]

So which is used? The one before the game which was clearly totally unreflective of how they played? Or the updated one (which probably changed very, very little) which is updated after the things which it influences have taken place?

 

[marc71178]

The actual difference between the 2 is not that great as 1 match swings are not big.

For what it's worth the pre-match ratings are used to give an idea of the current ability of the attack, based on other performances.

It is entirely consistent, and completely without any sort of personal point of view.

 

[Richard]

Yes but instead it is based on often incorrect assumptions about the strength of the attack.
Of course, no mention can be given to the conditions without some sort of personal opinion coming into it - yet these are far more significant than the team score.

 

[marc71178]

The conditions are more significant that the score?

The conditions contribute to the score and the overall match scenario so they are factored in.

And how are these assumptions incorrect when they've been consistently calculated based on recent performances?

 

[Richard]

Because recent performances fluctuate one hell of a lot - teams can be ****-poor one day and pretty good the next - happens all the time.
The match scores do not by any stretch of the imagination invariably reflect the conditions, you just need to have watched recent Headingley Tests to have seen that - or the recent Wanderers game.

 

[marc71178]

Or maybe they don't fit what you think the conditions should produce.

 

[Richard]

No, they don't.
It happens.
Not like I've been alone.
You just had to listen to Mark Butcher, for instance, last year at Headingley, when he spoke in an almost puzzled tone about how many runs had been scored there in recent years.

 

[marc71178]

Maybe it's the myth that outweighs the actual conditions?

For one who so often claims we shouldn't be afraid to challenge old beliefs, its funny how you are then afraid to when it suits you.

 

[Richard]

Afraid to what? Challenge the belief that Headingley might have eased for batting despite not appearing to?
You look at the Headingley Test-matches of 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, and you tell me batting was easier than the 2-day game in 2000.
The difference was mainly in the fact that in one game you had Ambrose, Walsh, Gough, Caddick, Cork and White bowling at the top of their game; in the other four you had McGrath, Harmison and Kallis - basically no-one else, amounting to less than one decent bowler per game.
So therefore it might be assumed that the conditions were easier than they actually were.

 

[marc71178]

Gough, Caddick at a push.

Cork and White, erm no.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Gough, Caddick at a push.

Cork and White, erm no.

Loathe as I am to agree with Richard, Corky bowled bloody well that game.

Made quite brilliant 33no in 2nd innings to stear us home too, besides the point as that may be.

 

[Richard]

I was talking about Headingley, not Lord's.
Cork took 12-33-3 in that match, swinging and seaming the ball round corners.
White, if anything, was even more impressive with 14.4-57-5 - a bit expensive, but he was often edged for boundaries to the unguarded third-man.
Quite clearly far better than most bowlers who've played there in recent years.

 

[Richard]

Loathe as I am to agree with Richard

Why?
Is there some Brumby code that disallows it?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why?
Is there some Brumby code that disallows it?

Nah, just instinct!

 

[Richard]

A poor instinct, some people have.