ICF All Time XI: Spinner

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

You are a dead man .... not only did you mek the big kahuna as a friggin drinks man but you left out Hero Hawaldar and to add insult to injury you picked Imran instead. You are sooo friggin dead :hysterical: Great team BTW :hatsoff:

See that's the difference between others and you. You must have noticed that nobody took it to heart unlike you who would have fumed and frothed at the mouth if Tendulkar had been picked as the 12th man :giggle: I am sure you would have gone on an online jihad and would have brought up records & stats of players from Trumper era till now while claimin how poor likes of Trumper, Hobbs, Bradman etc. were :haha:

[Crookbond]

I want Arthur Mold :hitler:

[India-KXIP fan]

See that's the difference between others and you. You must have noticed that nobody took it to heart unlike you who would have fumed and frothed at the mouth if Tendulkar had been picked as the 12th man :giggle: I am sure you would have gone on an online jihad and would have brought up records & stats of players from Trumper era till now while claimin how poor likes of Trumper' date=' Hobbs, Bradman etc. were :haha:[/quote'] His style is different to other posters. No big deal. and lold at "claims", they are facts.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Khalpat]

If you look a few posts above someone did actually suggest SRT for 12th man ... but its going to be hard for you to find that post where Iam supposedy fuming at that poster.

It was me BB, you can fume on me no issues. I have already been termed as bhakth without any reason just because I was saying the truth and praising the greatest batsman of the planet. Now you can call me hater and then I will be true secular getting criticized by both camp. Any ways in my team, Lurker pointed out that Chadra is misfit as twelfth man, rightly so because he cannot field if situation arises and worst thing for a team is to have Chandra as a fielder in middle not as a bowler so I said we can have any one from these players as twelfth player if needed: Warne Sobers Sachin The reason being rest of all players are specialist at their position, I cannot have Gavaskar or Akram or Marshal as Twelfth man because there is no replacement in the team for their position or specialization but for Warne we have Chadra, for Sobers any middle order batsman, for Sachin we have Viv Richards.

[Crookbond]

See that's the difference between others and you. You must have noticed that nobody took it to heart unlike you who would have fumed and frothed at the mouth if Tendulkar had been picked as the 12th man :giggle: I am sure you would have gone on an online jihad and would have brought up records & stats of players from Trumper era till now while claimin how poor likes of Trumper' date=' Hobbs, Bradman etc. were :haha:[/quote'] Don't you see the HD video which I posted? Those are facts - rest others are idiots. I get banned on multiple forums and I am labelled a jihadi. But you know what - the others are wrong but I am not. The problem is the world not me. :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

^ So who are these idiots who rate Larwood, Bowes etc over Amby , Walsh, Waz, McGra, Steyn, Donald etc ? I mean right here on this forum the greatest Bradman worshipper could not force himself to nominate one single bowler - fast or spin - from the Bradman era who bowled to Bradman in a Test match in his World XI and then he and all his chelas wonder why I dont agree with them on the Bradman topic. But I wonder what you would have said if you had any answers to the many questions I have asked ... sample this : Me : Batting avg in the 90s is lesser than the batting avg in 30s and 40sYou : It still means that batting was harder in the 30s and 40s. Me : Why ? You : Because I told you so and even my 1st year stat student would know why Me : Well I don't. Pls tell me why. You : Silence Yup you are right and the world is wrong ... Cant argue with proper facts and reasoning but the world better Respect your nonsensical and baseless opinion ehh ? :nice:

Even if the batting average in 90s is lower than the batting average in 30s & 40s, was the difference that huge that it would allow someone to average 100 while others had tough time averaging even high 40s? Since you have done the "analysis" on batting averages per era can you enlighten us what was the difference between the averages in 90s compared to 30s & 40s. I am assuming the difference wouldn't be more than maybe 1 or 2 points. Now can you elaborate based on this difference why Bradman was able to average nearly a 100 when in the histoy of the game nobody has come close to within 30% of his average, which is a huge huge difference. There are some stats/players which simply defy belief and you can only tip your hat to those individuals or records. Pity that in your love for SRT you can't see what Bradman was able to achieve which IMO will not be surpassed.

[Crookbond]

Even if the batting average in 90s is lower than the batting average in 30s & 40s' date=' [b']was the difference that huge that it would allow someone to average 100 while others had tough time averaging even high 40s? Since you have done the "analysis" on batting averages per era can you enlighten us what was the difference between the averages in 90s compared to 30s & 40s. I am assuming the difference wouldn't be more than maybe 1 or 2 points. Now can you elaborate based on this difference why Bradman was able to average nearly a 100 when in the histoy of the game nobody has come close to within 30% of his average, which is a huge huge difference. There are some stats/players which simply defy belief and you can only tip your hat to those individuals or records. Pity that in your love for SRT you can't see what Bradman was able to achieve which IMO will not be surpassed.

U_G, That analysis itself is flawed and one who works in "statistics" can easily weave the magic. Just go back and read the post and you will die out laughing. Basically ICF Statguru has calculated the "Average number of runs scored across decades" using a per wicket formula. Since, "statguru" wanted to wield his stat magic (and I know a thing or two in statistic) - I asked him tow fundamental questions [1] Your assumption that the data you compare is a Normal Distribution and you're taking an average (which is the "mean"). Why? You're comparing temporal data and when one compares temporal data we don't use Normal Distribution, we use another one. [2] When you compare distributions you just don't compare one parameter. A distribution has various parameters/characteristics which you compare all these parameters not just one. So, lets say you are comparing normal distribution(s) you will compare both the mean and the variance of the distributions if you are comparing points across the normal distributions and not just mean to base your conclusion. I also included a graph to drive the point but that was ignored. Co-incidentally, even without mathematical expertise you've hit the nail on the head. Bradman was a case of 6-sigma and there was a gulf of difference between him and the rest. Those that point out to mere statistics will always do so out of vitriol. Anyways, I didn't pursue that discussion because there was no point when someone calls Bradman piss poor, Larwood a Trundler and neither do I have the energy. Then if you refute the tone becomes agressive in nature and when you counter back you're accused of creating a slanging match with Ravi Shastri like phrases. However, one comment here and there and there's a fire under the a-s-s of the fan boys.

[Ultimate_Game]

U_G, That analysis itself is flawed and one who works in "statistics" can easily weave the magic. Just go back and read the post and you will die out laughing. Basically ICF Statguru has calculated the "Average number of runs scored across decades" using a per wicket formula. Since, "statguru" wanted to wield his stat magic (and I know a thing or two in statistic) - I asked him tow fundamental questions [1] Your assumption that the data you compare is a Normal Distribution and you're taking an average (which is the "mean"). Why? You're comparing temporal data and when one compares temporal data we don't use Normal Distribution, we use another one. [2] When you compare distributions you just don't compare one parameter. A distribution has various parameters/characteristics which you compare all these parameters not just one. So, lets say you are comparing normal distribution(s) you will compare both the mean and the variance of the distributions if you are comparing points across the normal distributions and not just mean to base your conclusion. I also included a graph to drive the point but that was ignored. Co-incidentally, even without mathematical expertise you've hit the nail on the head. Bradman was a case of 6-sigma and there was a gulf of difference between him and the rest. Those that point out to mere statistics will always do so out of vitriol. Anyways, I didn't pursue that discussion because there was no point when someone calls Bradman piss poor, Larwood a Trundler and neither do I have the energy. Then if you refute the tone becomes agressive in nature and when you counter back you're accused of creating a slanging match with Ravi Shastri like phrases. However, one comment here and there and there's a fire under the a-s-s of the fan boys.

There are plenty of flaws in the argument. I was simply stating that even if we give BB the benefit of doubt even then his argument falls flat as even with the batting average in 90s being slightly higher than in the 30s & 40s it still doesn't tell why someone in 30s & 40s could average a 100. If everyone in that era was averaging 70s & 80s and Bradman averaged 100 there would still be a case for runs being cheap in that era but the difference between Bradman & his closest competitor was as huge as ever. The main point is that if someone performs at such a peak that nobody in the history of the game is able to get even within 70% of his achievement(s), then that person is special and would be regarded as the best ever in whichever sport we take. Just because he's not Indian or he trumps an Indian (Tendulkar) doesn't mean his feat is any less. Forget Bradman, these days Tendulkar would actually find it tough to beat Kallis. Kallis has 41 Test 100s, averages 57+, is an excellent fielder and on top of that a pretty good bowler with as many wkts as Zaheer :omg:

[Crookbond]

There are plenty of flaws in the argument. I was simply stating that even if we give BB the benefit of doubt even then his argument falls flat as even with the batting average in 90s being slightly higher than in the 30s & 40s it still doesn't tell why someone in 30s & 40s could average a 100. If everyone in that era was averaging 70s & 80s and Bradman averaged 100 there would still be a case for runs being cheap in that era but the difference between Bradman & his closest competitor was as huge as ever. The main point is that if someone performs at such a peak that nobody in the history of the game is able to get even within 70% of his achievement(s), then that person is special and would be regarded as the best ever in whichever sport we take. Just because he's not Indian or he trumps an Indian (Tendulkar) doesn't mean his feat is any less. Forget Bradman, these days Tendulkar would actually find it tough to beat Kallis. Kallis has 41 Test 100s, averages 57+, is an excellent fielder and on top of that a pretty good bowler with as many wkts as Zaheer :omg:

Which will essentially be the conclusion if you do a scientific empirical analysis else it will just remain a dilettantish effort. Btw - the fun part of the statistic is that there isn't much of a difference between batting averages in the 70s versus the 2000s. #KThxBossBhai

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Can you show me where I make that assumption in that thread ? here is the thread : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1936522 and here is the post that still awaits your response : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1936522&postcount=223 @U_G the topic that lead to that side discussion was the claim by Marut that batting was difficult in Bradmans time .... In due course we will get to your theory which essentially states that : Since Bradman >>> his Peers and Since his Peers >= Modern day batsmen ( on bat avg ) hence Bradman > Modern day bastmen. Just promise to conduct the discussion honestly i.e if you are interested in a proper discussion. (Unlikely that you are interested in such a discussion but hey whats one more try )

BB - You calculated the "average" which is the mean of the normal distribution. So, you are definitely assuming that the data is IID and Normally distributed. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Yes you are wrong. Because I have no control over what kind of distribution my data fits into. The data is what it is and is the entire full set. This is why I gave you those very simplistic scenarios to work with. Pls tell me why the batting avg is misleading and realize that if you do come up with a statistical reason you would have found a better way to quantify batting that none of the professional stattos couldnt.

You asked for a serious discussion, however, you continue to post in a manner which is inciting (at least to me). I will refrain from making any comments on this matter.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[cameron_black]

nothing to do here. move this thread to the nerd talk section.

[thongale]

Yes you are wrong. Because I have no control over what kind of distribution my data fits into. The data is what it is and is the entire full set. This is why I gave you those very simplistic scenarios to work with. Pls tell me why the batting avg is misleading .

When you calculate mean, you automatically assume that it is a gaussian distribution. Central tendency of non-gaussian or highly skewed distributions are better described by median as it is not affrected by outliers.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --