Elephant in the room

[zen]

That is very deep analysis indeed. Btw - did you get time to look up the meaning of 'arbitrary'? one last attempt - people here have no issues with your personal choices. It is just the ridiculous basis you keep coming up with, that makes people bang their head on the wall. And I sincerely admire depth of your skills on that front.

^Again missing the point ..... trademark of the comedy brigade :winky:

[Jersey #10]

I think it proves a lot when you have to selectively combine the power of many players from their peak performances to even come close to arguing against Sachin alone. You can combine the best times of Viv + Lara + Sehwag + Ponting + 100 others and still lose an argument against Sachin.

[Jersey #10]

^Again missing the point ..... trademark of the comedy brigade :winky:

That's if you make a valid point :hehe: you don't know yourself what you are talking about! :haha::haha::haha:

[zen]

I think it proves a lot when you have to selectively combine the power of many players from their peak performances to even come close to arguing against Sachin alone. You can combine the best times of Viv + Lara + Sehwag + Ponting + 100 others and still lose an argument against Sachin in the dillusional world of fanatics

corrected the above :--D

[Jersey #10]

incorrected the above :--D

still missing the point and ignoring the argument? btw, corrected the above :--D

[Jersey #10]

1. But then how do you compare Sachin's 22 years of work vs someone's 8 years work? Based on 4th grade math? Give a scientific reasoning why one that played for 8 years would have lasted for 22 years and played at the same average and strike rate. How do you prove this? 2. what understanding are you talking about? Why should have Sachin retired after the WC? give me one reason. Just to give you a starting point for the reasoning, he scored 475 runs, the only second highest run scorer in the world cup 3. You didn't answer my question. How is it like asking who Ram was after the Ramayan?

This rett This !

[The Outsider]

Glancing through this thread : 1. rett has made some absolutely ridiculous arguments(runs/test - WTF is that )! Or claiming Tendulkar slows down when reaching 100s and then shying away when presented with facts etc. etc. 2. However, there are a couple of points to be made about longevity. a. Comparing number of tests Tendulkar lasted for compared to someone like Gavaskar, Richards, Sobers, or Bradman is ridiculous for the simple fact that in those days there just wasn't this much test cricket being played. All these batsmen had very long careers of around 15-20 years in which they played almost all their countries' tests barring injuries. Can't fault them for not playing more when more just weren't played. b. It does make sense to bring the longevity argument amongst contemporaries - if Tendulkar and Dravid are still good enough to be scoring centuries at the age of 38+ and in Tendulkar's case for having sustained test level calibre for 22 years, definitely they should receive credit for that. But, even so one needs to be careful in the sense that even amongst contemporaries some countries play test cricket more than others. For example, Waugh played 168 tests in an 18 year career despite being dropped for a number of tests on a couple of occasions. Regarding the topic, I don't think there is any elephant in the room. Outside the room - amongst the media, fans etc. yes and they are trying to see an elephant where there is probably not a mouse. This is not the first major landmark Tendulkar is approaching and he has never let the team down in the past. There is no reason why he would do so now. As a fantasy aside - if Tendulkar had retired after the Oval test, would have made for a great story to tell your grandchildren. Bradman got bowled at the Oval just short of achieving an average of 100, and Tendulkar fell just short of achieving 100 centuries at the same venue by getting out in the 90s. Moreover, one would spice it up with anecdotes like the time where he let Karthik hit the winning runs and stayed not out in the 90s just like Bradman's stories are spiced up with old accounts about how some runs from his bat were awarded as leg byes.

[Jersey #10]

in before rett calls outsider a dillusional fanatic.

[akshayxyz]

^ That, perhaps, he wouldn't say. But - surely one more addition to people lacking understanding the depth of runs/test.

[zen]

I do rate Outsider highly esp. after knowing that he is a prof. I think he is cool for a prof and maybe someone I would prefered to be taught by if I were in school .... therefore, I will make an attempt to explain runs per test (though many might not agree with it) :--D

[Sachinism]

1. Not arbitrary as on cricinfo you can select the last decade and it calculates back from today .... If you want to put in different dates go ahead and do it 2. Perfo against top 5 bowling sides :--D I have heard the blanket statement you make on forums a lot. In fact have been hearing since a decade in a variety of context. Rarely, do the person making those statement realize or make an effort to understand what's presented. And this has been a main problem with posters from subcontinent. They just make blanket statements w/o even knowing what's on the table because they probably saw someone else make that statement :hysterical: That's the fun part about debating with those in subcontinent :p

A certain closed thread would have loved this post :cantstop:

[ganeshran]

Runs/test ignores both the not outs of a player and disregards the innings he has actually batted. The measure is skewed towards players who have more innings per match. It makes no sense at all.

[Jersey #10]

Where and what do you teach (assuming you teach as a prof.) outsider? always wondered this

[Jersey #10]

Runs/test ignores both the not outs of a player and disregards the innings he has actually batted. The measure is skewed towards players who have more innings per match. It makes no sense at all.

u u u dilusional fanatic! you are wrong, it's not biased if Sachin's losing b/c that's the only way it's possible :haha: in before I am called the "dillusional fanatic" for the fourth time in this thread bring it on Ratatouille

[The Outsider]

I do rate Outsider highly esp. after knowing that he is a prof. I think he is cool for a prof and maybe someone I would prefered to be taught by if I were in school .... therefore' date=' I will make an attempt to explain runs per test (though many might not agree with it) :--D[/quote'] It's a misnomer - I never was a professor and the whole thing came about because I mentioned I was doing my post doctoral research. Personally, I dislike being associated with that reference because of it's misrepresentation but after trying to correct it a few times I gave up instead of derailing every other thread where I post. So rett, that my respect would have gone down because I am not a professor care to explain the logic behind runs/test?

[ganeshran]

Cricketers arranged by their innings per match. Notice Trescothik who has a higher innings /match count (1.88) has a runs/match of 77. However players like Hammond and Barrington who have superlative averages of 58 only have a runs/match of 83-85 because their innings/match is around 1.6. A difference of 15 points in average was reduced to 6 points after calculating the skewed measure. Its because players who get more chances to bat per match have higher values. This could be because their team is bats twice more often than other teams, or their batting positions are such that they are guaranteed to bat every time the team gets in. One more reason for deviations from the average is the ignoring of not outs. No code has to be inserted here.

[Jersey #10]

^The analysis can also be skewed if the batting position allowed a player to play more overs in the matches where the 4th inning was not concluded. runs/innings or runs/tests is the most horrendous way to compare two players.

[CSK Fan]

Some really nice posts in the last page saving this thread

[zen]

The question is why did I use runs per test to forecast and not averages, which is what many use. Obviously, I am not really convinced by avgerages to be able to forecast runs scored. Why not averages? - Usually inflated due to not outs - does not depict the conditions encountered, the team strength properly For example, let's take two venues: durban and ahmedabad and assume that player A plays most of his games at Durban, player B plays most of his game at A'bad. Assuming both the players have the same skills, who do you think is likely to avg more? On the other hand, if I take a test as an enviornment one is presented it and try to take the result achieved from that would that help better. Probably, yes, but how? Let's first understand the envoirnment: Conditions: At Durban: bowlers would be on top. What does that mean? The chances of a team getting bowled out are more. Which means that the player will get to play 2 innings. He has to be prepared for that. At A'bad: batsman would be on the top. The chances of getting a huge score are high with a declaration on cards. How does a player go in to this game? I guess, prepared to bat once, get a big score. Try to put the opposition under pressue. And ofc, if you are batting 2nd, try to bat as much as you can (assuming the other team has a good first inning score) Team strength: Let's assume player A's team has a weak batting line up, Player B's team has a strong batting line up How does player A condition himself? He is prepared to do more hard work. Usually comes in earlier than he should and thus more chances of facing fresh bowlers. Because his team is weak, more often he will have to be streched out. How does playeB condition himself? He knows he has to score big in the opportunity he gets. At times, he is walking in after a good start and milking the bowling. Sometimes, he comes in at 200/2 and smashes the tired bowlers to get an unbeated 100 as well A few more examples: Player A scores 55 and 35 at Durban, avg 45 Player B scores 70 and 10* at A'bad, avg 80 Both have scored 80 runs in the game in the enviornment that they are presented with. Player A scored 80 runs in tougher condtions. Player B scored a 70 in a score of 450/7 dec and probably batted a little in a draw to end up with a 10 not out Let's say a guy avg 50 and has rpt of 80. In the next 10 tests, would you bet (if you had to on the option given to you) on him scoring 1000 runs (based on his avg) in the next 10 tests based on his avg or 800 runs based on rpt. To me him scoring at 80 rpt looks more likely .... These are just a few examples. By taking runs per tests, lets call it rpt, I am attempting to capture "the enviornment". The more tests, you play, rpt captures even more diversity. Is rpt 'fool-proof'? well, nothing is. So I am not claiming it is a perfect system. Only that it captures better the essense of what I am trying do, i.e. mainly forecast I am only explaining rpt, not opening it up for discussion or someone telling me whether I should use it or not.

[zen]

So rett, that my respect would have gone down because I am not a professor care to explain the logic behind runs/test?

I was fooled :hitler: rpt explained in the post above