Good Fast Bowlers and their Impact on batsmans Run making ability

[Rajiv]

Rajiv.. lol don't take it seriously. It is just a debate. Anything goes. Nothing more. Just showing how contradictory and one eyed Boss is.

He maybe contradictory but I would never buy the sachin running over the other end to ignore phaaast bowling

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

who said they have been used . Cant do it for both so havent done it . Clear ?

So just do them for matches featuring those particular bowlers. Ball by ball stats don't make much sense anyways, as a batsman is scoring against a team not playing in the backyard with another player.

thats what you asked for. your own reasoning was that him avging 100 as opposed to 50 was what affected the bowling avges to suffer.

Yeah, but in counter you took off all Tendulkar's runs! :hysterical:

a 2 point differnce over 7 time more sample size is not significant ?

No. And even so, it's not a 2 point difference. From you previous post,

30s+40s (Without DGBs 3500 Runs ) = 31.2 90s = 29.45 00s = 32.02

After combining 90s and 00s you came up with :

Combined avg for 90s+00s = 30.07

That number cannot be right because the result will be weighted towards 00s and not 90s average given more runs were scored in 00s. You will get something around 30.4 by eyeballing. You can confirm the result if you want.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I dont understand how this can be done say DGB made 100runs in a inngs where 5 bowlers were used do I deduct the 20 runs each from the bowling analysis of these bowlers ?

Simple. Compare the averages of the bowlers when they bowled with Bradman in the opposing team with their averages when they were not playing against a Bradman opposition.

Because you went by avgs remember and you wanted to bring DGB's avg down to SRTs level ... are you saying I should have removed the runs corresponding to a avg of 5.56 above 50 (55.56 - 50 = 5.56) instead of the entire 55.56 ?

Huh? If my intention of removing the 50 average from Bradman was to bring it down to Tendulkar level, how does it help if you then bring Tendulkar down to level 0? :wall:

Yeah you are right made a mistake but the point is SRTs heydays were in the 90s and that sample size alone is nearly 2.5 x that of DGBs times.

More sophistry! Why don't you just pick out Tendulkar's innings greater than 100 and compare them with Bradman's less than 50 instead of trying to come up with these convoluted, but nonsensical cherry picked numbers.

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - if the Bradman vs Tendulkar is what is on your mind then why not complete that exercise we talked about? I think that would be far more fulfilling and at the end we might surprise a lot of people here as well. Who knows?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

It will take tons and tons of time .. because quite a lot of it is very vey subjective. Plus we dont have ball-by-ball data. Moreover I know its not going to make an iota of difference to any of the Bradman bhakts here who are so thoroughly brainwashed into believing that bowler who avgs in the low 20s is just as good as a bowler who avgs in the 30s.

It is more sensible than believing batsmen who avge in the mid 50s is better than batsmen who avges in the high 90s :cantstop:

[thevortex]

It will take tons and tons of time .. because quite a lot of it is very vey subjective. Plus we dont have ball-by-ball data. Moreover I know its not going to make an iota of difference to any of the Bradman bhakts here who are so thoroughly brainwashed into believing that bowler who avgs in the low 20s is just as good as a bowler who avgs in the 30s.

Yes it will take tons of time. And a what-if situation has to be subjective. If not it would become truth! I still think that is a better way to approach this problem than these polls. Just my 2 rupees.