Sachin's centuries and India's defeats.

[akshayxyz]

Vaibhav, find something else to do in your free time man. Try getting laid.

In some virtual sense he seems to be getting laid in this thread itself, (gang-bang kindof), and seems to be enjoying it thoroughly ;), that should explain his high return rate.

[ghost]

sir' date=' you could take any 11.5 yr career-subset for any cricketer[b'] where he has scored 20 TONS, it should not show such low win %age for any such subset. In sachin's case, I have taken period since 1st Jan 2000 bcoz the quality, the competitiveness and the core of the team changed from around about that time (from the weak team that we used to have in the 90's). perhaps only a few would have realized till now. A few days back, read one of flamy's posts where he said smhow india doesnt win when sach scores a Ton. So, maybe people are slowly noticing it but aren't sure about the factors.

And vice versa ! You may have something there. The other day while watching the Wi-India match,when Tendulkar was dismissed early, a couple of my friends jumped up and at once declared that India would win the match ! Others laughed at them, but they were proved right later on ! So, more and more people are realizing this now..... you can quote stats to them till you are blue in the face, but you can't convince them !

[vaibhav_delhi]

In some virtual sense he seems to be getting laid in this thread itself' date=' (gang-bang kindof), and seems to be enjoying it thoroughly ;), that should explain his high return rate.[/quote'] whatever keeps you happy.:) I am just too addicted to your dumbness... :icflove:

[Cricket Tragic]

In sachin's case' date=' [b']I have taken period since 1st Jan 2000 bcoz the quality, the competitiveness and the core of the team changed from around about that time (from the weak team that we used to have in the 90's).

Applies to away tests but not in multination ODI tournaments. India won a LOT more tournaments in the 1990s than in the 2000s. In the 1990s, India won 11 tournaments but only won 3 in the 2000s. India won more tournaments in 1998 than in the whole of the 2000s combined! Tendulkar has been the major player in more than 90% of those wins with an average of over 100 in finals won with all his hundreds coming in winning finals.

[Cricket Tragic]

Unfortunately people here are not making that point in defense of Sachin ' date=' its pretty obvious that if there are two Batsmen A and B where A scored all his ten centuries against Windies and B scored all his ten centuries against Australia then B is definately going to have a lower match winning percentage compared to A .[/quote'] Exactly. That explains why Yuvraj has 3 hundreds vs Aus/SA and India have lost all 3 games.

[Cricket Tragic]

Too much analysis on SRT. Here is a stat on Sehwag that is another coincidence. When Sehwag plays a final, India end up losing the match but when he doesn't play, India win. Think back to the T20 final, CB series, Asia Cup and Compaq cup. Sehwag missed all those finals. When Sehwag has played, India have won only 1 final (Natwest) and lost 14. Hence, we can come to the conclusion that Sehwag's presence in the team affects the team mentally and he is a negative. Or we can call it a jinx.

[akshayxyz]

Vaibhav and other supporters of this corollary - "Sachin's 100 affects other team members' performance by 5%". If you are so convinced about then here are the minimal starting steps for you to continue proving it, scientifically/mathematically/statistically. Assuming - Sachin's 100 affects other team member's performance by "X%".** a) Take the sample the matches where he scored 100. b) Define expected "par performance" of each player.*** This number should not change when you re-iterate with different value of 'X'. c) Adjust the expected performance as per X% d) Calculate the Root mean square error between actual and calculated performances. **** e) Re-iterate (a-d) with different value of X. (ideally this should be intelligent guess based on previously recorded Root mean square error values). The X which leads to minimum RMSE should be your magic number, the amount by which Sachin's 100 affect other's performance. ***** Before you publish it to wider audience of qualified statisticians, be prepared to be laughed at again - as this is very small sample set and the process is too simplistic (bare minimum) for such a complex correlation problem. **If Sachin's 100 affects other member's performance by certain margin, then it must apply to all the matches - won or lost. So your final X *** ideally this is going to be a complex mathematical model (pitch/match conditions/state, player form etc.), but feel free to pick numbers from your dream world. (If you could do that, you would be king of betting world). **** You have to account for the cases where the individuals performed better than par performance, or did not get to perform at all ( because the match got over rather quickly). ***** Minimum RMSE does not necessarily mean it is low enough to be considered quality enough to establish the correlation.

[akshayxyz]

whatever keeps you happy.:) I am just too addicted to your dumbness... :icflove:

Your IQ certificate please, preferably signed by Bill Gates and a correlation between addiction and dumbness. Then we can talk about how much % of that addiction is due to my dumbness. :giggle:

[Sid]

Thread is still going on :woot: :aha:

[Bumper]

I think Vaibhav it totally right. After watching this game, I agree that had Sachin scored a 100, it would have hurt our chances of winning this one. Because he scored a 50, we have won this in a canter.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I think Vaibhav it totally right. After watching this game' date=' I agree that had Sachin scored a 100, it would have hurt our chances of winning this one. Because he scored a 50, we have won this in a canter.[/quote'] But see because Ponting scored a hundred, guys like White and Clarke became overconfident and were not able to score runs. I think it was a 15% effect.

[King Tendulkar]

I think Vaibhav it totally right. After watching this game' date=' I agree that had Sachin scored a 100, it would have hurt our chances of winning this one. Because he scored a 50, we have won this in a canter.[/quote']:hysterical:

[Karan114]

I think Vaibhav it totally right. After watching this game' date=' I agree that had Sachin scored a 100, it would have hurt our chances of winning this one. Because he scored a 50, we have won this in a canter.[/quote']

[Sachin=GOD]

I think Vaibhav it totally right. After watching this game' date=' I agree that had Sachin scored a 100, it would have hurt our chances of winning this one. Because he scored a 50, we have won this in a canter.[/quote']

[asterix]

:facepalm:

[Asim]

I hope he scores one in semi-final :winky:

[Raghav_12]

But see because Ponting scored a hundred' date=' guys like White and Clarke became overconfident and were not able to score runs. I think it was a 15% effect.[/quote'] I think ICC should make a rule outlawing scoring of centuries in all ODI's. Scoring century is becoming like match fixing where you know beforehand which team is going to win. Today also as soon as Ponting scored a century, it was very clear, taking into consideration Vaibhav_Delhi's dissertation on cause and effects of a century, that Australia is going to lose the match. Indians just had to turn up for their batting. These centuries are killing all interest in ODI matches.

[Anakin]

A dog scores 32K runs, and look at yourself vaibhav :giggle:

[vaibhav_delhi]

But see because Ponting scored a hundred' date=' guys like White and Clarke became overconfident and were not able to score runs. I think it was a 15% effect.[/quote']