Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

[social]

sherlock, if you are in form and you fail, it suggests that you're not good enough.

A player that:

a. averages over 50 in SL vs one of the world's greatest ever spinners in conditions tailor-made for that bowler; and

b. averaged over 100 in a series where the wickets were conducive enough to spin for Kumble to take 24 wickets in 3 tests

is not "good enough."

Ok and the tooth-fairy bowls leg spin.

 

[tooextracool]

A player that:

a. averages over 50 in SL vs one of the world's greatest ever spinners in conditions tailor-made for that bowler; and.

or in one series, again nothing brilliant

b. averaged over 100 in a series where the wickets were conducive enough to spin for Kumble to take 24 wickets in 3 tests

is not "good enough."

Ok and the tooth-fairy bowls leg spin.

rubbish, the only test in that series that was anywhere close to being a turner was sydney, and its not like ponting did anything of significance in that test

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

rubbish, the only test in that series that was anywhere close to being a turner was sydney, and its not like ponting did anything of significance in that test

This is absolutely and blatantly untrue, and you have claimed it so many times it is getting ridiculous. Sydney did NOT turn in that series, at all... not one bit. It was a dead flat pitch and had nothing in it for anybody. The only pitch in that series which turned much was Adelaide, which dusted up to a large degree on the 4th day and assisted Kumble and Tendulkar a great deal in Australia's second innings, even through Agarkar got most of the wickets in the end. It also turned a reasonable amount earlier on.

 

[social]

So, if one is to accept your line of reasoning, Dravid is not "good enough" to score runs against a McGrath led-attack as;

a. he has a relatively poor average in such circumstances;

b. he has only scored runs in such circumstances on feather-bed wickets against a tired attack; and

c. it is not an isolated occurrence.

Seems to me that such a conclusion could only be reached by using selective stats out of context, i.e. your line of reasoning is nonsense.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So, if one is to accept your line of reasoning, Dravid is not "good enough" to score runs against a McGrath led-attack as;

a. he has a relatively poor average in such circumstances;

b. he has only scored runs in such circumstances on feather-bed wickets against a tired attack; and

c. it is not an isolated occurrence.

Seems to me that such a conclusion could only be reached by using selective stats out of context, i.e. your line of reasoning is nonsense.

Indeed. Dravid's record against Australia with McGrath:
10 tests
18 innings
597 runs
35.18 average
1 century
2 fifties

Take out the 180, which is undoubtedly some sort of anomaly similar to Ponting's first series in Sri Lanka, and his average is a mere 26.06.

 

[Top_Cat]

[Take out the 180, which is undoubtedly some sort of anomaly similar to Ponting's first series in Sri Lanka, and his average is a mere 26.06.

Dear GOD, DROP HIM! I personally don't see how he could POSSIBLY be considered a great of the modern game with this information coming to light.

 

[Jnr.]

spinners got him out twice. and averaging 33 doesnt say that he succeeded against spin either.

Of course, after being sawn off twice and getting another dicey decision in 6 innings...well, he's lost half the series.

 

[King_Ponting]

ummm TEC wtf are u on about. Ponting is a world class player and queistionably in the top 3 in the world as a btsman a t the moment. You dont get that high up the rankings if you're poor at playing spin. Just have a look at what Ponting did in the World Cup final in 2003 to the Indian bowling attack which was not on its home doctered pitches. Just another random stat. Husseys current international one day average..... I cant find it anywhere but i think that hes scored over 250 runs and has not been dismissed yet.

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't say unquestionably top 3 - but he's one of the top players around (although it took him a while to get used to captaincy)

 

[Jnr.]

Just another random stat. Husseys current international one day average..... I cant find it anywhere but i think that hes scored over 250 runs and has not been dismissed yet.

King P, Hussey has no ODI average. He's scored 114 runs from 116 balls without being dismissed.

 

[King_Ponting]

cheers jnr, yeh i was looking for husseys stats but i coudnt find them. pretty good strke rate as well as a decent average when he does get dismissed

 

[Dasa]

Just have a look at what Ponting did in the World Cup final in 2003 to the Indian bowling attack which was not on its home doctered pitches.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not so much the stats that are misleading most of the time, it's what people do with them. You can take any stat on its own without putting it into the context it originally evolved from and make it mean whatever you want really. It's simply a matter of quoting the stat, and anything surrounding it that actually supports what you want to say, leaving out everything that doesn't.

I almost understood a sentence there.....



Can u simplify what you said?

 

[honestbharani]

4*(McGrath)/'Fourtunate Foursome' = 0

Therefore,

0 = cricket as we know it.

Therefore,

Cricket as we know it does not exist.

U know, unless you are implying that the "Fortunate foursome" are equal to 0, that cannot happen.. Anything divided by itself will give 1, not 0....


Unless it is 0/0, which is infinity and still not fully proved yet.

 

[Top_Cat]

U know, unless you are implying that the "Fortunate foursome" are equal to 0, that cannot happen.. Anything divided by itself will give 1, not 0...

I knew this would happen. Sigh, your tepid mind just can't understand the maths behind 'Fully Sick-thematics'. Heard of it? I thought not. Anything divided by itself will equal 1, as you put it, but using Fully-Sick maths, the 'Killa' paradigm and the 'Omigod' Theorem, one can achieve Bobo-happiness.

Or to put it another way, I did chemistry at Uni; maths was for those patchouli-smelling, long-haired weirdo's with bad haircuts and no shoes (I guess they considered toejam to be anarchic *shrugs*). Chemists don't do maths (and with good reason as you can see above).

By the way, if 'Fourtunate Foursome' = 0, the problem would have to remain undefined, not equal zero.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I almost understood a sentence there.....



Can u simplify what you said?

Hmmm, ok.

Stats rule!............Some people attempting to use stats suck!

 

[SJS]

I knew this would happen. Sigh, your tepid mind just can't understand the maths behind 'Fully Sick-thematics'. Heard of it? I thought not. Anything divided by itself will equal 1, as you put it, but using Fully-Sick maths, the 'Killa' paradigm and the 'Omigod' Theorem, one can achieve Bobo-happiness.

Or to put it another way, I did chemistry at Uni; maths was for those patchouli-smelling, long-haired weirdo's with bad haircuts and no shoes (I guess they considered toejam to be anarchic *shrugs*). Chemists don't do maths (and with good reason as you can see above).

By the way, if 'Fourtunate Foursome' = 0, the problem would have to remain undefined, not equal zero.

 

[Steulen]

I knew this would happen. Sigh, your tepid mind just can't understand the maths behind 'Fully Sick-thematics'. Heard of it? I thought not. Anything divided by itself will equal 1, as you put it, but using Fully-Sick maths, the 'Killa' paradigm and the 'Omigod' Theorem, one can achieve Bobo-happiness.

Or to put it another way, I did chemistry at Uni; maths was for those patchouli-smelling, long-haired weirdo's with bad haircuts and no shoes (I guess they considered toejam to be anarchic *shrugs*). Chemists don't do maths (and with good reason as you can see above).

By the way, if 'Fourtunate Foursome' = 0, the problem would have to remain undefined, not equal zero.

Ahem...the solution would remain undefined, not the problem itself.

Or whatever.

 

[Top_Cat]

^^^^^

Reason No. 1813414156894 Why Top_Cat Should Stay the Hell Away From Mathematical Problems

 

[tooextracool]

This is absolutely and blatantly untrue, and you have claimed it so many times it is getting ridiculous. Sydney did NOT turn in that series, at all... not one bit. It was a dead flat pitch and had nothing in it for anybody. The only pitch in that series which turned much was Adelaide, which dusted up to a large degree on the 4th day and assisted Kumble and Tendulkar a great deal in Australia's second innings, even through Agarkar got most of the wickets in the end. It also turned a reasonable amount earlier on.

rubbish, sydney turned, it didnt turn as much as a subcontinental wicket but its glaringly obvious that it did turn. you dont go around taking figures of 8/141 unless it did. sydney turned, which is why india had karthik and kumble bowling nearly 2/3 of the overs.