SJS50 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 SJS' date=' you are here too ![/quote'] Are you here often. But of course you are, look at that post count :) Anyone else from CW here ?
Tapioca Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I occasionally visit CW and read the threads in the first page, but not much beyond that ... You can once made a nice quote in CW about why stats is popular. You had it as the signature too for a while. What was it ?
SJS50 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 SJS, fully agree. At times people who delve too heavily into the math lose the ability to really enjoy aspects of the game. BTW, there is also a hilarious (and similar) thread here by the Outsider about whether Agarkar is better than Akram. :--D I went to that thread and posted my ten mile long thesis os Agarkar on it. :)
SJS50 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I occasionally visit CW and read the threads in the first page, but not much beyond that ... You can once made a nice quote in CW about why stats is popular. You had it as the signature too for a while. What was it ? Isn't it as my signature here too ? It isn't a quote by the way. I, yours truly, wrote that :)
CSK Fan Posted March 31, 2010 Author Posted March 31, 2010 3. Cricket is not a sport like where one player is contesting directly against another and here I do not consider one batsman facing one bowler. In athletics, in tennis, in golf etc players are displaying the same skills at the same time under same conditions. Its easier to compare them. Team games are different and cricket with its many variables is very different. Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear Hear hear :hatsoff:. I would like to add more to the point i have quoted in your reply.There was an opinion going around that Sachin was an inferior batsmen to others because he preffered to see off good bowlers and attack the not so good ones (a point not yet proven, mind you). But even if such was the case, the rules of cricket very well permit it. The best players in any sports have been those who have used the rules to their maximum advantage. David used a sling to defeat Goliath because he had unlimited options to taken on the giant and he used the one most advantageous to him, instead of blindly challenging his enemy. So reducing cricket to one on ones and batsman against batsman, bowlers against batsmen and contribution in team victories, etc is meaningless. We dont compute sporting icons using numbers. Thats what computers do. And they are way better than us. You will know a great player when you see one, no matter what anyone else says. Even if he is performing badly in the match you catch him in, you can still tell the difference between genius and above average players. Its when you try to make sense of data which you have no experience in handling in the first place and you are not capable of taking on all the different permutations and combinations, that you jump for joy in finding something which eluded all the experts of the game. At that point its better to question whether those experienced in the field are the ones wrong or are the amaeuters trying to jump above their reach who are making a fool of themselves
Chandan Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Someone commented elsewhere about my use of stats in an article on Sehwag. Its strange that this came up. In that topic I was discussing Sehwag's phenomenal strike rate without a corresponding drop in his batting average. If we are going to talk of rate of scoring how are we going to do it if not with figures. The terms themselves are quantitative. But if I have to argue that Sehwag is a better batsman than, say Viv Richards, I wont be using stats to prove that point (if I did believe this was the case) even though Sehwag's figures in Tests in this regard appear better. Where is that article you're talking about? Can you give me the link, please? I want to read it.
Dhondy Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 The waffle brigade are trying to take over the world. Soon, ICF will resemble the UK- lots of people doing degrees in philosophy, media studies and suchlike, but none left to do engineering or the technical sciences. Waffle waffle...
vvvslaxman Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I am more worried about utterly biased fanboyish opinions . :cantstop:
Lurker Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 a certain bored programmer with time to kill and a addiction to cricket wanted to know more about the general skill levels fitness and things like that during DGB's times without having to rely on taking "Experts" opinion at face value. So this guy gets on to SG to figure out how many 40 somethings played during those times ... SG promptly spit out a list of 38 guys ... fastforward to the jet age and the last time a 40yr old set foot on a pitch to play a test match was back in 2003. Now armed with that stat and some common sense ( the older we get the slower our reflexes and overall skill level) he makes a post on a cricket forum in a post concerning DGB and his times ... and the thread predictably goes quiet. That itself is open to discussion. Fitness does not equate to skill in cricket (it might very well be one of the few sports that is this way). Increasingly fitness levels have become better over the past 25 years or so, so why have the fast bowler fitness levels tanked at the same time? Ian Chappell had an article the other day where he mentioned how Moms should not have their babies become fast bowler for that reason. The people who played over 40 were mostly batsmen and in most cases they were good enough. Graham Gooch retired when he was 40 plus, so did Alec Stewart and both of them were performing very well. Heck if Sachin plays for a few more years I would see a big turnaround in his "fans" thought about why playing cricket over 40 is no biggie. xxxx
vvvslaxman Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 That itself is open to discussion. Fitness does not equate to skill in cricket (it might very well be one of the few sports that is this way). Increasingly fitness levels have become better over the past 25 years or so, so why have the fast bowler fitness levels tanked at the same time? Ian Chappell had an article the other day where he mentioned how Moms should not have their babies become fast bowler for that reason. The people who played over 40 were mostly batsmen and in most cases they were good enough. Graham Gooch retired when he was 40 plus, so did Alec Stewart and both of them were performing very well. Heck if Sachin plays for a few more years I would see a big turnaround in his "fans" thought about why playing cricket over 40 is no biggie. xxxx Munaf Patel despite being in the mid 20 moves much slower and less fitter than 36 year old Gibbs.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 The people who played over 40 were mostly batsmen and in most cases they were good enough. Graham Gooch retired when he was 40 plus, so did Alec Stewart and both of them were performing very well. Heck if Sachin plays for a few more years I would see a big turnaround in his "fans" thought about why playing cricket over 40 is no biggie. xxxx To add to the above, Imran won a World Cup at the age of 40, Boycott and Bob Taylor, being a wicket keeper, played into their 40s. Heck Simpson came out of retirement at the age of 42 have a pretty good comeback.
vvvslaxman Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I gotta check how many catches dropped by Nehra, Praveen, Ishant combined in recent times. Ofcourse Pakistan created some sort of record in dropping catches. Ruthless modern game :hysterical: .
vvvslaxman Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 To add to the above' date=' Imran won a World Cup at the age of 40, Boycott and Bob Taylor, being a wicket keeper, played into their 40s. Heck Simpson came out of retirement at the age of 42 have a pretty good comeback.[/quote'] Hayden and Gilly much more supremely fit than these Nohit sharms, Yuvraj singhs. I know Duleep Mendis looked like sack of potato when he was 25. :cantstop:
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 So, 45 cricketers played beyond the age of 38 from 1970 to 2000 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=38;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax1=01+Jan+2000;spanmin1=01+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Only 5 have played since then : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=38;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Mar+2010;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting I guess the likes of Gavaskar, Richards, Kapil must have been crap players
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now