Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[TheJediBrah]

The problem is there's no jobs for it around here and spending a lot of time on a mine site is not appealing to me, having already done some. I'm be more attracted to the research or exploration/field side but that's much harder to get into. Either do a PhD, which I'm not sure I could handle, or 'needs x years experience' sort of stuff. And there's one or two other things I wish to do in life that might be hard to fit in there. And I keep thinking about that all the time.

Assuming it's a 3 year course, you've got plenty of time decide. People who study science often go into other degrees as well if they change their mind. Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Physio etc.

I wouldn't be able to handle a PhD or full-time work in research either. I've done the bare minimum and found it horrible. But if it's something you enjoy doing then it makes it worthwhile.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think Cook's average has been lower because he's been not as good. For example George Headley rocked in a very weak team.

You were right the first time. Team matters more than 1 star in the batting. Look to team batting average to average out Grant and Andy Flower or Headley with Constatine or whichever numpties batted with him. :P

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Assuming it's a 3 year course, you've got plenty of time decide. People who study science often go into other degrees as well if they change their mind. Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Physio etc.

I wouldn't be able to handle a PhD or full-time work in research either. I've done the bare minimum and found it horrible. But if it's something you enjoy doing then it makes it worthwhile.

Medicine is a health scicene first if not first equal with disgruntled law students. Dentistry, Pharmacy and Physio are typically fall outs. :P

Trust me. There are many times I wish I had chosen med instead of law. Med is not biology, and certainly not math or science like physics. Like Law, it is a programme. The numbers may be more fierce, but the jobs are far more comparative. The Health Sci degree only matters in the first year it shares with med. After that, students are gambling on a second chance against optometry, dentistry or pharmacy.

I have been friends with many doctors who studied with me. I know many lawyers who then went to med. I know many who did not get into med even in Ire or Aus. I get the programme.

The difference between med and law is meritocracy post admission. Lives matter more than bringing in clients. Which is a sad indictment on lawyers.

 

[Burgey]

Stahp

The theory sucks

This whole thread sucks. Just stahp

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Stahp

The theory sucks

This whole thread sucks. Just stahp

Booo

 

[TheJediBrah]

Medicine is a health scicene first if not first equal with disgruntled law students.

Trust me. There are many times I wish I had chosen med instead of law. Med is not biology, and certainly not math or science like physics. Like Law, it is a programme. The Health Sci degree only matters in the first year it shares with med. After that, students are gambling on a second chance against optometry, dentistry or pharmacy.

I have been firends with many doctors who studied with me. I know many lawyers who tehn went to med. I know many who did not get into med even in Ire or Aus. I get the programme.

Nah if you've completed a degree then getting into med here is all about your grades, your GAMSAT (aptitude test thingy) and interview. There are plenty of courses these days that don't even accept undergrads, eg. Melbourne. "Melbourne model" --> copying US college scheme of forcing everyone who wants to do a major degree to spend 7+ years at Uni to scrape all the cash they can from them.

Absolute scam

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Nah if you've completed a degree then getting into med here is all about your grades, your GAMSAT (aptitude test thingy) and interview. There are plenty of courses these days that don't even accept undergrads, eg. Melbourne. "Melbourne model" --> copying US college scheme of forcing everyone who wants to do a major degree to spend 7+ years at Uni to scrape all the cash they can from them.

Absolute scam

I wouldn't know brah. All my dumb doctor friends went to med school in Aus and Ireland when they didn't get into NZ. :P

I know Ireland and Aus is more lax than NZ regardless of rankings. I won't draw any further conclusions.

As for law, I'll happily take on Harvard/OxBridge, let alone Sydney, Melbourne let alone ANU :P

But my classmates went to Harvard and OxBridge, so I know where I stand already when and where I beat their asses :P

 

[Starfighter]

Assuming it's a 3 year course, you've got plenty of time decide. People who study science often go into other degrees as well if they change their mind. Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Physio etc.

I wouldn't be able to handle a PhD or full-time work in research either. I've done the bare minimum and found it horrible. But if it's something you enjoy doing then it makes it worthwhile.

Yeah, I dunno, I just don't want to think about it. I feel like I'm always going to be out of reach of the one or two personal things I desire (aside from friends, some of them would be nice too), and it really sucks when you can't clear that out of your head. There's one place I'd really like because it would both fit my job and personal aims but apparently it's a very long shot. I know that you need a job and can't live your life around certain things but I'd like to be happier, I don't think I've been happy for a long time now.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah, I dunno, I just don't want to think about it. I feel like I'm always going to be out of reach of the one or two personal things I have on my mind, and it really sucks when you can't clear that out of your head. There's one place I'd really like because it would both fit my job and personal aims but apparently it's a very long shot.

Aim for the one place if reasonable.

And if not. Have a secondary plan.

But forensics is not a bad end goal. #seriously #candidly #I mean it

 

[Mr Miyagi]

If you don't believe me, ask Burgey.

Burgey have you ever wished that you were the expert witness instead of the lawyer in a case?

 

[Spark]

guys when you three are literally the only people bothering to post in the thread it might be a sign that you all need to cool your jets a little

 

[vcs]

The problem is there's no jobs for it around here and spending a lot of time on a mine site is not appealing to me, having already done some. I'm be more attracted to the research or exploration/field side but that's much harder to get into. Either do a PhD, which I'm not sure I could handle, or 'needs x years experience' sort of stuff. And there's one or two other things I wish to do in life that might be hard to fit in there. And I keep thinking about that all the time.

Gnske is also doing research in geology, I think

 

[trundler]

Why the **** does this have more hits than my thread!

 

[Victor Ian]

Miyagi, why don't you just create a test and see if what you say is true and significant.

Get a baseline for bowling wickets per match. simple cricinfo search - statstically determine what number constitutes strong bowling
get a baseline for batting runs per match. simple cricinfo search - statstically determine what number constitutes strong batting

Then work out the same for weak batting into wpi 1&2 vs 3&4 and weak bowling wpi 1&2 vs 3&4.

Use your statistically savy to determine if it's significant and win.

You could have done all of that with much less effort than spend all the time you have here peddling the same vague evasive theory.

 

[Engle]

A. When a team has MANY RUNS on board, it INCREASES it’s bowlers WPM.
Is this significant ? It does have some weight, but not very significant

B. When a team has MANY GOOD BOWLERS, it DECREASES it’s bowlers WPM.
Is this significant ? Yes it is. At the very least, more significant than point A above.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Miyagi, why don't you just create a test and see if what you say is true and significant.

Get a baseline for bowling wickets per match. simple cricinfo search - statstically determine what number constitutes strong bowling
get a baseline for batting runs per match. simple cricinfo search - statstically determine what number constitutes strong batting

Then work out the same for weak batting into wpi 1&2 vs 3&4 and weak bowling wpi 1&2 vs 3&4.

Use your statistically savy to determine if it's significant and win.

You could have done all of that with much less effort than spend all the time you have here peddling the same vague evasive theory.

Because I don't need to know if it's significant. :P I know that it is. I have proven that it is. I understand it. I've already answered this.

I want to discuss pack bowling and bowling more overs i the 4th innings. Both of which are far more interesting to me than wpm. :P

This is first base to me. I want to slide into home already.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

A. When a team has MANY RUNS on board, it INCREASES it’s bowlers WPM.
Is this significant ? It does have some weight, but not very significant

B. When a team has MANY GOOD BOWLERS, it DECREASES it’s bowlers WPM.
Is this significant ? Yes it is. At the very least, more significant than point A above.

No. Significance is an independent variable dependant on every player averaging less than 20 wickets per match.

So which is having more of an effect? That is a better question.

Compare Streak to McGrath, is different from Hadlee to Murali. :P

There are two discrete factors.

20 wpm in the absolute limit. Anything less is limited. So what causes the majority of it?

Set a benchmark ;P

Lets talks about how Warne and McGrath benefited from bowling a very high, the highest in fact, of 18% 4th innings overs already.

 

[Dan]

Oh ffs.