Raghav_12 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Not that it is necessary, but refer to posts I made only yesterday on another forum - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2733978-post220.html http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2733990-post226.html http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2734009-post231.html And another little piece of non-technical work I did an year ago - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html If you get to do similar kinda work in your job as you put in here, then you are into pretty interesting work. :two_thumbs_up: But put that work to better use :winky:
8ankitj Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 If you get to do similar kinda work in your job as you put in here, then you are into pretty interesting work. :two_thumbs_up: But put that work to better use :winky: Took me only an hour to do it (the geometric distribution thing that is) and all I sacrificed was some stupid tv shows. BTW, I am unable to reply to your PM because I am under 50 posts. Remind me again once I go over that mark and I will reply. Will like keep that conversation private.
Raghav_12 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Took me only an hour to do it (the geometric distribution thing that is) and all I sacrificed was some stupid tv shows. BTW, I am unable to reply to your PM because I am under 50 posts. Remind me again once I go over that mark and I will reply. Will like keep that conversation private. Oh you not reached 50 yet.. Looks like you don't post anywhere else other than Bradman threads.. :winky: Anyways..no probs. Reply once you are eligible to do so.
Tapioca Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 On Lindrum's second tour of England' date=' in late 1930, Donald Bradman and other members of the touring Australian cricket team, would sometimes attend Lindrum's matches at Thurston Hall, London. As an indication of the esteem in which Lindrum was held, the critic Neville Cardus referred to Bradman as "the Lindrum of cricket"[/quote'] To raise a minor point that is irrelevant to the original issue - Even though Lindrum is held in high esteem, from what I understand, Cardus did not call Bradman "Lindrum of cricket", but wrote that some critics are disparaging him by calling him "a Lindrum of cricket". In the context I think it meant a "mechanical scorer without much elegance". What Cardus wrote went something like
Malcolm Merlyn Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Good work Ankit. While stats can do a lot of things,you cant discount that Tendulkar played againist a varied and better attack than Bradman.Use of third umpires. The often repeated argument that Bradman was the best among his peers,we have very well seen that the no. of peers of SRT are many times more than that of Bradman by a huge no. Tendulkar played in a much more varied condition.For eg. since jan 2011 to dec 2011 Tendulkar will have played test matches in IND SA ENG and AUS within 12 months.Dravid in fact would have played in IND SA ENG WI AND AUS.So the amount of adjustment etc is far more than that what Bradman ever faced.
mishra Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I have been saying all along. Bradman did jumped into Tendulkar bandwagon. Did he never watched Inzi bat? What a opportunist. And some people think he should be called greatest... :headshake: I made up my mind long back based on below video......Watch after 2 mins QmUw9dDa1ys
tothepoint Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Not that it is necessary, but refer to posts I made only yesterday on another forum - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2733978-post220.html http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2733990-post226.html http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2734009-post231.html And another little piece of non-technical work I did an year ago - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html Ankit bhai aap to chupe rustam nikale :hatsoff:
tothepoint Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I have been saying all along. Bradman did jumped into Tendulkar bandwagon. Did he never watched Inzi bat? What a opportunist. And some people think he should be called greatest... :headshake: I made up my mind long back based on below video......Watch after 2 mins QmUw9dDa1ys :hysterical: Yeah,even Inzi is too good for Bradman. He used to bat like Bhajji.
mishra Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 :hysterical: Yeah' date='even Inzi is too good for Bradman. He used to bat like Bhajji.[/quote'] Readthe post 21.... Utalk has very perfectly defined the diffrence..... Why make fun of Inzi? And how making fun of Inzi will proove Bradman didnt jumpoed into Tendulkar Bandwagon? I presented a cleaner video for everyone to judge...
bajrang Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 ye JONSA braddman hai na ye ladka bilkul meri tarah khelta hai.
Ithyphallic Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Australians won't like it and will try to make every effort to reject this report or say that there's some flaw in this system.
Old guy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I can find at least one similarity' date=' after very last match for both of them; Bradman career avg was deoped from 100+ to 99.xx and Inzi career avg dropped from 50 to 49.xx[/quote'] :hysterical:
mishra Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I give up. Hey man... Anyone who have played cricket with red ball would agree with me that after certain pace level its not speed, but that swing whcih troubles you most. Atleast I find natural inswing bowlers way more difficult to face then any other ball.... A decent spinner make you feel as if he is toying with you.... In international cricket you will see that wicket taking deliveries are most of the time disguised one (Slower,doosara, or deceptive too much swing)..... IF anyone really has any honesty/cricketing brain, he will think that probability of wicket taking deliveries highly increases (if not doubles) due to bowlers bowling reverse swinging deliveries. Do you think people here opposing Bradman at certain point didnt thought that Bradman was greatest and were awed by his 100 average.. Problem with CA is its noobistic attitude that Bradman is greatest batsman to ever bat. Rest of the world cant produce someone like him.... We on the other hand has taken Ranaji/DuleepSinghji and play trophy...
desiladka321 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Who is this Tony shillinglaw? Why we have to worry about his study. I think Tony is paki pretending to be from England. Its possible. :hysterical: Anyway this Tony dude should mind his own binness . Inzi is only close to aalu not bradman
Vijay.Sharma Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Sharma Ji' date=' that's some great analysis. Would like to know which database you used to come up with these.[/quote']Statsguru. In statsguru filter just go to the start date and end date fields and enter those dates. And in the batting positions enter 1 to 6. I had this data taken out and stored in my excel file for my Virtuosos Analysis for those 20 players.
Tiger80 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Maybe because our cricket culture concentrated more on batsmen and spinners? Again it is not the population of people in the country we are talking about. It is the population of people playing the game at a competitive level. And that is just one factor. See Bangladesh has a huge population and are definitely more populated than SL and possibly they may have even more first class cricketers than SL but they are half as good. What SL has is a matured cricket culture and structure that produces good talent an pits them against the others such that the others also improve by playing against these fellows. Consider India's case...till about the late 90s just Mumbai won the Ranji Trophy. And in the few occasions that they didn't either Karnataka or Delhi would win it. Of course the other states had teams too but the talent pool was not great and they did not have great structures to groom cricketers. Moreover cricket being a costly sport only the richer people in those states would play it. But in the last decade lotsa poorer people are getting funds somehow or the other to take up the sport and even parents are encouraging them unlike before to chase their dreams. So we have players coming from small towns. See a brilliant kid may stand out in a class of 20 students and he may score like 85% whereas the rest score like 70-75%. Now suppose admissions were based on relative ranking...say top 5 percentile go thru. When the kid goes to a marquee college because he is in the top 5 percentile from his school. Let's say he continues to score 85% but now that he is with many others who score between 80-90% he might no longer be in the top 5 percentile. An example of a professional credential that I got in 2004 with American Society of Quality, ASQ was that they would have similar percentile based certifications. So there was no cut-off or passing mark as such. It was a relative score and if you were among the top 10 (or 20...not sure they didnt disclose) percentile then you would get thru. Till about the mid 90s only about 2000 people all over the world took the exam. By the time I tool the exam it went upto 30-40k. And these days its almost a lakh. So it is even more difficult to get thru these days. It's all relative to the competition - quantity of competition and quality of competition. Any popular skill that survives necessarily has more high quality practitioners as time goes by. There are more high quality pilots today than there were in 1940s. Someone who was exceptional in 1940 would have stood out more obviously than today because there are quite a few exceptional pilots today. Similarly there are more high quality commandos today than there were in say 1960s. The distance between the best and rest would have reduced because the general standards have improved. The same phenomenon exists in all human skills if that skill is a beneficial one to have (walking long distances is not a greatly necessary skill to possess today thats why we haven't improved over our ancestors but olympic walking is beneficial thats why new records are broken) Again if your argument is true then we should had seen some great players emerging in 2000s but the fact is we are still relying on Tendulkar and 90s brigade of Dravid and Laxman.Zaheer and Sehwag too made their debut in 2000-2001,so from past 10 years we have not seen any great debuting for India.The only 2 players that fixed their spot are Gambhir and Dhoni ..Also not even a single good quality spinner is produced in last 10 years,so where are the results of tough competetive cricket?
The Outsider Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Sharma Ji' date= that's some great analysis. Would like to know which database you used to come up with these. Also these number would help outsider in some analysis Outy was carrying on. Now he may recalculate things as we have real numbers in hand. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1733657&postcount=53 Thanks for further exposing your shallow and rudimentary understanding of statistics. :facepalm:
Raghav_12 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Thanks for further exposing your shallow and rudimentary understanding of statistics. :facepalm: Thanks for you comment. I know there is a lot that I have to learn in field of statistics.
The Outsider Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Thanks for you comment. I know there is a lot that I have to learn in field of statistics. Glad you've realized it - you might start from enrolling in some Stats 101 course at the nearest community college where you and your BossBhai can study together about some fundamental concepts before spouting garbage.
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