Pro Bradman v Pro Tendulkar Poll

[Gunner_Mania]

Who do you think will win the battle - the Pro Tendulkar fan club or the Pro Bradman fan club?

[Gunner_Mania]

Thank you for whoever moved it here:--D

[Rajiv]

Bossbhai, Kingtendulkar? Hmm, no offense to the latter but only one of them needs to be there ( in this one of a kind poll which doesn't prove anything )

[Guest Hiten.]

Outsider and lurker themselves think they'll lose, what wussies man :headshake:

[bhanu]

whiich one is bradman and whihc 1 is sachin? i want bradman :hitler:

[Gunner_Mania]

Outsider and lurker themselves think they'll lose' date=' what wussies man :headshake:[/quote'] Actually they voted for - I don't care, I am fed up. :fail:

[Sachinism]

^^ I think you may have missed the humour

[Gunner_Mania]

^ Me-->:fail:

[Guest Hiten.]

Actually they voted for - I don't care, I am fed up. :fail:

I usually do not quote the Mooners but your stupidity forced me to. Yeah that's all I have to say

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[graphic23]

ohhh geee .. thanks guys .. I will stick to trolling' date=' smilies and throwing out smart-alecky oneliners from now on .... should have known better.[/quote'] I think the response just shows that people dont find conviction in either argument, BB. For example, if the argument was say like Lara vs. Tendulkar or something, you'd find more partisanship - because people know Lara, have seen him play, the evidence is more concrete, and it simply reflects on the age of the forum, and how many people can take one side over the other with a lot of confidence.

[Ram]

Those live in the world of statistical databases and contextless number crunching, often end being so disconnected from reality that they couldnt possibly recognize it even if it were staring them in their face.

[Roshanrocks]

what is reality?

[Dhondy]

Thoroughly enjoyable debates, number crunching from people who are some of the best at it in the world. This is what makes ICF special. It's not mandatory to love cricket to crunch numbers. People do this on birth rates, immigration, climate change, bird populations and come up with amazing conclusions. Those people too have equally heated debates and vitriolic critics. You don't have to be a bird lover or a climate buff to participate, just a passion for numbers, and a scientific bent of mind. Boss, Shwetabh, Bumps, Teacup et al have created benchmarks that will be followed on discussion boards for many years to come. Consider this: if batsman A averages 36 v Bowler C in X number of Tests, how much would batsman B have to average against the same bowler, also in X Tests, for the difference to be considered statistically superior, so that the difference cannot be attributed to chance alone? A. 72 B. 55 C. 66 D. Depends on the value of X The answer is 55. You can work it out by using: a-b/Sq root (a+b)=X. If X>2, the difference is statistically significant, provided the players have faced roughly the same number of Tests against bowler C. The exact number of Tests, i.e. the denominator doesn't matter provided a reasonable number has been played. It'll work for all averages more than 20. This is science . You can pfaff for as long as you like but you can't refute this, because I can bring in a shed load of evidence to show you how it works. You can tell whether certain street corners are more accident prone, whether certain months bring more rainfall, whether a certain worker is more productive, whether a certain drug is better than another. OK? Now statistical agnostics, you can go and start your own wordy threads. We are not interested. And we are not ashamed of loving numbers. So there!

[thevortex]

Dhondy - the day your math completely explains esoteric pursuits such as sports and art is the day that we close down such forums as this. There will quite simply be nothing left to discuss.

[Dhondy]

Dhondy - the day your math completely explains esoteric pursuits such as sports and art is the day that we close down such forums as this. There will quite simply be nothing left to discuss.

That may be so, but it doesn't take away from the attractiveness of such analyses. In fact, I take it as acknowledgement that you have finally run out of arguments to support your advocacy of Sachin's pre-eminence among batsmen.:king:

[thevortex]

That may be so' date=' but it doesn't take away from the attractiveness of such analyses. In fact, I take it as acknowledgement that you have finally run out of arguments to support your advocacy of Sachin's pre-eminence among batsmen.:king:[/quote'] Not at all, Dhondy. I just think that numbers are thoroughly inadequate when it comes to grading or even understanding the essence of sports and sportsmen. I know we disagree. So lets leave it that.

[observer1]

Thoroughly enjoyable debates, number crunching from people who are some of the best at it in the world. This is what makes ICF special. Consider this: if batsman A averages 36 v Bowler C in X number of Tests, how much would batsman B have to average against the same bowler, also in X Tests, for the difference to be considered statistically superior, so that the difference cannot be attributed to chance alone? A. 72 B. 55 C. 66 D. Depends on the value of X The answer is 55. You can work it out by using: a-b/Sq root (a+b)=X. If X>2, the difference is statistically significant, provided the players have faced roughly the same number of Tests against bowler C. The exact number of Tests, i.e. the denominator doesn't matter provided a reasonable number has been played. It'll work for all averages more than 20. This is science . You can pfaff for as long as you like but you can't refute this,

From an unintelligent viewpoint: what is the 'reasonable number' that you define for X? 5, 10, 20? Would it depend on the whatsit thingy - normal distribution etc etc?

[thevortex]

And you know what they say about attractiveness lying in the eye of the beholder. To me numbers are far from attractive. What happens on the field - now that is attractive. The game is the dog. The numbers are its tail. You decide which one you want to follow - the dog or its tail. No offense meant.

[Dhondy]

From an unintelligent viewpoint: what is the 'reasonable number' that you define for X? 5, 10, 20? Would it depend on the whatsit thingy - normal distribution etc etc?

The denominator really doesn't matter. This particular test can be applied to just one Test match, if you like, to see who's statistically better- but that would not be sensible for the context it's been applied to. Hence, whatever's reasonable- 5 Tests for batsman v bowler, 10 for batsman v team? The only requirement for this test is that there should be at least 20 events- i.e runs, wickets... or side effects, deaths, cures, etc if you change the context to something else.