All Rounders do not exist.

[IndianRenegade]

2 minutes ago, Khota said:

Someone needs to use analytics to figure out if his 30 runs are more valuable or a specialist 5th bowler who can cause an opposition collapse.

Firstly, that is beside the point. It has nothing to with whether all rounders exists. By definition a specialist batsmen or bowler is supposed to do better than an all rounder. Whether you go in with a all rounder or specialist bowler is up-to the condition and team dynamics. It doesn’t prove all rounders don’t exist. 

 

 

Now coming to data analytics the claim that all those great Aussie/WI/SA/even Indian teams that has had allrounders hadn’t done their analytics is laughable.

 

Also cricket is not just data analytics, if so every team should be equal to every other team. Generally being a better bowler than Pandya doesn’t mean you are a good fit for the overs he is going to bowl. Many seamers do well with the new ball, but unfortunately you can only have so many overs with the new ball. 

 

Today, because of the rules and pitches Cricket is mostly a batsman’s game. A decade ago 300 was considered a winning  total, it is just a par score now. So you need that extra 30 - 40 runs, because it doesn’t matter how good a bowler you are. They are going to pick one (like bhuvi got hit yesterday) and hit him. Remember batsmen have some skills too, being better bowler than Pandya doesn’t mean you will not get hit. The extra 30 - 40 runs need to be hit. That puts pressure of the batsmen, if not for the 30 - 40 runs they can see off your good bowlers and pick on your weaker ones. So the 30 - 40 runs do matter more than a specialist bowler with today’s pitches, power plays, & 2 new balls.

[Khota]

6 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

Firstly, that is beside the point. It has nothing to with whether all rounders exists. By definition a specialist batsmen or bowler is supposed to do better than an all rounder. Whether you go in with a all rounder or specialist bowler is up-to the condition and team dynamics. It doesn’t prove all rounders don’t exist. 

 

 

Now coming to data analytics the claim that all those great Aussie/WI/SA/even Indian teams that has had allrounders hadn’t done their analytics is laughable.

 

Also cricket is not just data analytics, if so every team should be equal to every other team. Generally being a better bowler than Pandya doesn’t mean you are a good fit for the overs he is going to bowl. Many seamers do well with the new ball, but unfortunately you can only have so many overs with the new ball. 

 

Today, because of the rules and pitches Cricket is mostly a batsman’s game. A decade ago 300 was considered a winning  total, it is just a par score now. So you need that extra 30 - 40 runs, because it doesn’t matter how good a bowler you are. They are going to pick one (like bhuvi got hit yesterday) and hit him. Remember batsmen have some skills too, being better bowler than Pandya doesn’t mean you will not get hit. The extra 30 - 40 runs need to be hit. That puts pressure of the batsmen, if not for the 30 - 40 runs they can see off your good bowlers and pick on your weaker ones. So the 30 - 40 runs do matter more than a specialist bowler with today’s pitches, power plays, & 2 new balls.

So you admit a specialist by definition is better and we agree.

Now if you are the so called 5th bowler and you may be acting like a pressure relief valve. If your batting cannot be counted upon either than I dont know what role you have performed.

Whether you have value to a team or not is not for me to decide. That is the role of Analytics. Let some algorithm figure it out that an allrounder is needd or not. Odds are they wont need it as other sports have proven that.

300 is still a good score if you have 5 Bumrahs bowling or close enough. Though I have to agree it is a batsman game. To attract more crowd you need a six not an lbw.

[IndianRenegade]

21 minutes ago, Khota said:

Let me answer the question for you as you are being argumentative.

Body can handle two skillsets but at that level cannot excel at both.

At that level you are not supposed to be good. You have to excel.

Wrong. There have been dozens of players with good batting and bowling stats that disprove your claim. Now are their stats the “best”? No. But are they good? Hell yes.

 

secondly, you didn’t answer my question. Claiming something to be true isn’t an answer, you cited no kinesiologist or nothing from that science. But just your argument, that’s being argumentative. Asking for evidence isn’t “argumentative”.

[Khota]

7 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

Wrong. There have been dozens of players with good batting and bowling stats that disprove your claim. Now are their stats the “best”? No. But are they good? Hell yes.

 

secondly, you didn’t answer my question. Claiming something to be true isn’t an answer, you cited no kinesiologist or nothing from that science. But just your argument, that’s being argumentative. Asking for evidence isn’t “argumentative”.

Gets back to what I said a person running 100m cannot do 800m. Good at batting and good at bowling is not enough. You have to be great and that is the argument.

[IndianRenegade]

16 minutes ago, Khota said:

So you admit a specialist by definition is better and we agree.

We don't agree. your claim is allrounders don't exist. Not that specialists are supposed to be better than all rounders. Unless you have changed your position. Have you?

16 minutes ago, Khota said:

Now if you are the so called 5th bowler and you may be acting like a pressure relief valve. If your batting cannot be counted upon either than I dont know what role you have performed.

Pandya's batting can't be counted upon to do what? He can be counted for quick fire 30 - 40. Thats what is required when he comes to bat, around the end of the innings.

16 minutes ago, Khota said:

Whether you have value to a team or not is not for me to decide. That is the role of Analytics. Let some algorithm figure it out that an allrounder is needd or not. Odds are they wont need it as other sports have proven that.

then don't decide. Indian team has analytics & they have decided he is of value. 

16 minutes ago, Khota said:

300 is still a good score if you have 5 Bumrahs bowling or close enough. Though I have to agree it is a batsman game. To attract more crowd you need a six not an lbw.

No team has 5 bumrah's or 5 close to him, nor does it have 5 kohli's or close to him. If any team had them they would gladly play them instead of even a performing all rounder. please show 1 bumrah or kohli sitting in bench of any team in place of a non performing all rounder.

[IndianRenegade]

53 minutes ago, Khota said:

Gets back to what I said a person running 100m cannot do 800m. Good at batting and good at bowling is not enough. You have to be great and that is the argument.

as stated already you don't even know to do analogies. if every member of the team is should be great, even the great WI and Aussie teams that dominated cricket wouldn't qualify. 

[Khota]

25 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

We don't agree. your claim is allrounders don't exist. Not that specialists are supposed to be better than all rounders. Unless you have changed your position. Have you?

Pandya's batting can't be counted upon to do what? He can be counted for quick fire 30 - 40. Thats what is required when he comes to bat, around the end of the innings.

then don't decide. Indian team has analytics & they have decided he is of value. 

No team has 5 bumrah's or 5 close to him, nor does it have 5 kohli's or close to him. If any team had them they would gladly play them instead of even a performing all rounder. please show 1 bumrah or kohli sitting in bench of any team in place of a non performing all rounder.

I have no need to change position as it is based on science.

 

I know he was quickfire last time but atleast 30 or 40 shy of what you have.

 

They have barely introduced analytics. Also show me the results of that analysis to believe what you are saying otherwise it is all hot air.

 

You dont need 5 Bumrahs but you do need 5 specialist otherwise show me the analysis which proves a part time is doing the job.

[Khota]

27 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

as stated already you don't even know to do analogies. if every member of the team is should be great, even the great WI and Aussie teams that dominated cricket wouldn't qualify. 

I know my analogy. I have simplified so that you can understand it.

 

Let me rephrase it: Do you know any two sport athlete. (There are some but rare)

[IndianRenegade]

 

this is going to be my last response as you are just arguing "The rabbit that I caught only has three legs"

1 hour ago, Khota said:

I have no need to change position as it is based on science.

 

I know he was quickfire last time but atleast 30 or 40 shy of what you have.

 

They have barely introduced analytics. Also show me the results of that analysis to believe what you are saying otherwise it is all hot air.

 

 

your inability to read simple english is astounding. your claim "all rounder do not exist",  my claim "specialists are supposed to be better than all rounders in the thing they are specialists in" both aren't the same, this is obvious even to a 5th grader with knowledge of cricket. it takes a special kind of "The rabbit that I caught only has three legs" attitude to think both are same.

 

What science? you haven't cited a single scientific paper or expert in the field. you just think this is what science says an you assert it as fact. you sir, are a charlatan. 

 

1 hour ago, Khota said:

They have barely introduced analytics. Also show me the results of that analysis to believe what you are saying otherwise it is all hot air.

 

this is royal coming from you, I have been asking since the first post to show which kinesiologist or scientific literature states "allrounders can't exist"? just crickets from you. But you demand that I produce confidential data analytics which was presented to selectors, which team/individual sport publishes data analytics they did on themselves? All I know is data analytics was provided and Hardik is in the team which obviously means the team decided he was valuable. is this what the analytics said or didn't say? neither of us can say that with 100% certainty. 

 

1 hour ago, Khota said:

You dont need 5 Bumrahs but you do need 5 specialist otherwise show me the analysis which proves a part time is doing the job.

you are the one who claimed 5 bumrah's or someone close to bumrah could win matches. When I shred that argument, you change positions that you just need specialists. I have already handled that argument, but you are clearly unable to read.

 

Cricket isn't just data analytics, if it was just data analytics then all teams will be almost equal. 

 

Also you are the one claiming "all rounder don't exists", the burden of proof lies with someone making the claim, thats logic 101. Also the analysis is right before your eyes, India is the table topper playing with the all rounder. Name one team that doesn't play an all rounder? you claim to know more about team selection than all the cricket teams of the world combined, without even a shred of evidence.

Edited July 7, 2019 by IndianRenegade

[IndianRenegade]

49 minutes ago, Khota said:

I know my analogy. I have simplified so that you can understand it.

 

Let me rephrase it: Do you know any two sport athlete. (There are some but rare)

OMFG, bowling and batting are part of cricket. not two different sports :(

 

various posters have listed a number of all rounders, you keep ignoring as if these people don't exist.

[IndianRenegade]

56 minutes ago, Khota said:

 

I know he was quickfire last time but atleast 30 or 40 shy of what you have.

 

 

are you this dumb? Kohli has never scored a duck? Bumrah has never gone for runs without wickets? by your logic we should drop them the moment this happens?

 

you know the thing called "Avg" its also part of data analytics. you keep proving that you know nothing about cricket or data analytics. do you have any formal training in data analytics? data integration and analysis is my day time job. 

[Khota]

21 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

 

this is going to be my last response as you are just arguing "The rabbit that I caught only has three legs"

your inability to read simple english is astounding. your claim "all rounder do not exist",  my claim "specialists are supposed to be better than all rounders in the thing they are specialists in" both aren't the same, this is obvious even to a 5th grader with knowledge of cricket. it takes a special kind of "The rabbit that I caught only has three legs" attitude to think both are same.

 

What science? you haven't cited a single scientific paper or expert in the field. you just think this is what science says an you assert it as fact. you sir, are a charlatan. 

 

 

this is royal coming from you, I have been asking since the first post to show which kinesiologist or scientific literature states "allrounders can't exist"? just crickets from you. But you demand that I produce confidential data analytics which was presented to selectors, which team/individual sport publishes data analytics they did on themselves? All I know is data analytics was provided and Hardik is in the team which obviously means the team decided he was valuable. is this what the analytics said or didn't say? neither of us can say that with 100% certainty. 

 

you are the one who claimed 5 bumrah's or someone close to bumrah could win matches. When I shred that argument, you change positions that you just need specialists. I have already handled that argument, but you are clearly unable to read.

 

Cricket isn't just data analytics, if it was just data analytics then all teams will be almost equal. 

 

Also you are the one claiming "all rounder don't exists", the burden of proof lies with someone making the claim, thats logic 101. Also the analysis is right before your eyes, India is the table topper playing with the all rounder. Name one team that doesn't play an all rounder? you claim to know more about team selection than all the cricket teams of the world combined, without even a shred of evidence.

Let me put it politely. You are stupid.

 

What was the analytics that was presented to selectors? Is it the same that had shankar in the team? Is it the same that has Aged Dhoni is the first wkt kpr. So whoever they paid to do the analytics has a learning curve.

 

What shows your ignorance and lack of understanding is that just because a team uses analytics they would all be the same. Analytics is a tool to optimize. It will not equalize all teams.

 

India is on top of table because of multiple reasons. Pandya is not the cause of it.

[Khota]

22 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

OMFG, bowling and batting are part of cricket. not two different sports :(

 

various posters have listed a number of all rounders, you keep ignoring as if these people don't exist.

Batting and bowling are two different actions all together.

 

For batting you need hand eye coordination You dont need that for bowling to that extent.

 

For batting you need 20/12 preferably 20/8 eyesight. For bowling you dont.

 

Even it is the same game but the skill set is different.

 

I can fill 10 more pages but I will stop here.

 

 

[Khota]

24 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

are you this dumb? Kohli has never scored a duck? Bumrah has never gone for runs without wickets? by your logic we should drop them the moment this happens?

 

you know the thing called "Avg" its also part of data analytics. you keep proving that you know nothing about cricket or data analytics. do you have any formal training in data analytics? data integration and analysis is my day time job. 

You really need to find some other line of work as you dont seem so good at it.

[IndianRenegade]

7 minutes ago, Khota said:

Let me put it politely. You are stupid.

 

What was the analytics that was presented to selectors? Is it the same that had shankar in the team? Is it the same that has Aged Dhoni is the first wkt kpr. So whoever they paid to do the analytics has a learning curve.

 

What shows your ignorance and lack of understanding is that just because a team uses analytics they would all be the same. Analytics is a tool to optimize. It will not equalize all teams.

 

India is on top of table because of multiple reasons. Pandya is not the cause of it.

dumb illiterate. it takes a special kind of idiot to read 

"Cricket isn't just data analytics, if it was just data analytics then all teams will be almost equal." and take away "What shows your ignorance and lack of understanding is that just because a team uses analytics they would all be the same. Analytics is a tool to optimize. It will not equalize all teams."

 

don't teach data analytics to someone who does it for his day job.

 

also conman, start quoting the science you have claiming from since for ever. you won't, because you don't know sh*t about it. 

[IndianRenegade]

39 minutes ago, Khota said:

Batting and bowling are two different actions all together.

 

For batting you need hand eye coordination You dont need that for bowling to that extent.

 

For batting you need 20/12 preferably 20/8 eyesight. For bowling you dont.

 

Even it is the same game but the skill set is different.

 

I can fill 10 more pages but I will stop here.

 

 

dumb idiot, show science that people can't be good at two skills. also explain all the great all rounders in cricket since forever.

Edited July 7, 2019 by IndianRenegade

[philcric]

 

[IndianRenegade]

37 minutes ago, Khota said:

You really need to find some other line of work as you dont seem so good at it.

My employer will make that decision. Not a blind illiterate who will ignore all the great all rounders cricket has produced. if you look at data with bias no amount of data analytics can give you a correct answer.

Edited July 7, 2019 by IndianRenegade

[zen]

<AR does not exist mode on>

 

Can someone sleep and be active at the same time? If not, it shows AR do not exist. 

 

In football, can a player be a striker and also a defender? If not, ARs do not exist. 

 

Can you write with both your left and right hands? If not, .... 

 

Can you stand on your hands and eat using your feet? If not, .... 

 

Can birds fly and walk at the same time? If not, ....

 

<AR does not exist mode off> 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by zen

[philcric]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

<AR does not exist mode on>

 

Can someone sleep and be active at the same time? If not, it shows AR do not exist. 

 

In football can a player be a striker and also defender? If not, ARs do not exist. 

 

Can you write with both your left and right hands? If not, .... 

 

Can you stand on your hands and eat using your feet? If not, .... 

 

Can birds fly and walk at the same time? If not, ....

 

<AR does not exist mode off> 

 

 

Show me the analytics.