Indian pitches: a veritable graveyard for bowlers!

[Holysmoke]

I'm doing ECE from one of America's top 5 schools for ECE. I wouldnt agree with CC. EE is by no means "THE MOST stats-heavy field taught in universities outside of actually majoring in statistics". Thats a load of BS

[Bongosamaj]

I'm doing ECE from one of America's top 5 schools for ECE. I wouldnt agree with CC. EE is by no means "THE MOST stats-heavy field taught in universities outside of actually majoring in statistics". Thats a load of BS

If you are doing 3rd or 4th year EE, then i call you a liar. Almost every course from 3rd year onwards is heavy on statistical analysis and the entire field of communications is based on statistical analysis.

[kabira]

isn't it more on probability and stochastic theories...that some heavy heavy stats..which cannot be used in cricket..

[Bongosamaj]

isn't it more on probability and stochastic theories...that some heavy heavy stats..which cannot be used in cricket..

Yes it is and yes it cannot be used in cricket- because cricket is NOT a statistician's delight as someone claimed, it infact is too generalized for any meaningful statistical extrapolations.

[kabira]

>because cricket is NOT a statistician's delight as someone claimed :haha: fire all statisticians....Bossbhai, we don't need your services anymore.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kabira]

Bossbhai, find stats for most RBIs in baseball...now that would be statistician's delight... leave us and go to americanbaseballfans.com

[Bongosamaj]

Do career Bowling Averages make sense according to you or you consider them tripe as well ?

Depending on how finely you might want to argue it, it is tripe too. You cannot argue a Lara vs Tendulkar in Tests or hadlee vs McGrath in tests purely on the basis of statistical analysis, since stats DO NOT FIT the picture well with cricket.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kabira]

its official now Bradman's 99.94 means $hit.....

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

Iam going to use it find out the top n bowlers .... lets say I want to weed out the Sami's from the Marshall's .. can I use it .. or do I have to sit thru about 100 odd videos of Maco ' date='Sami and whoever to form an opinion ?[/quote'] You can use it in a Sami vs Marshall case or a Bradman vs rest case, since the gap between the two comparatives are SO HUGE that even a very rough & generalized picture ( that is ALL that statistics can do) is good enough to make it clear who is better than whom. But in closer cases, like Lara vs Sachin or McGrath vs Hadlee, etc, statistical analysis is USELESS. My entire point is, statistics are only a very rough & generalized idea and the rest IS OPINION. If you want to compare Tendulkar to lara, then statistics DO NOT SERVE ANY MEANIGFUL PURPOSE- those two are too close to each other for such a rough & generalized tool (statistics in cricket) to work. That is where OPINION comes in.

[kumble_rocks]

its official now Bradman's 99.94 means .....

:hysterical::hysterical:

[Lurker]

Yes it is and yes it cannot be used in cricket- because cricket is NOT a statistician's delight as someone claimed' date=' it infact is too generalized for any meaningful statistical extrapolations.[/quote'] Right on. Cricket statistics is a tool for cricket-illiterate. There is a ton of work going into churning statistics and I greatly appreciate it but since when did numbers capture a sport?? Yuvraj will end up in cricket books as the man who hit six sixes but how will that ever compare to Kapil Dev's 4 sixes? Statistically the former is miles ahead but only a true cricket connoisseur shall realize what happened the day when Kapil single-handedly pulled India out of follow-on. No I am not putting down Yuvi's effort but just saying how stats can prove nothing really. The only way to compare players is to know about them more, read about them watch them in action, read peer comments etc. Alternatively you can start crunching numbers and think of yourself as a cricket expert. Yeah sure. xxx

[yoda]

If you are doing 3rd or 4th year EE, then i call you a liar. Almost every course from 3rd year onwards is heavy on statistical analysis and the entire field of communications is based on statistical analysis.

Are you still on drugs? :D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kabira]

>Statistically the former is miles ahead but only a true cricket connoisseur shall realize what happened the day when Kapil single-handedly pulled India out of follow-on. totally wrong..Statistically Kapil is higher than Yuvi's sixes..Yuvi hit in 20/20 cricket where this kind of cricket is normal. and kapil did it in test match ...looking at different parameters...Kapil's 4 sixes in row is statistically greater than Yuvi's

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

If the popular opinion is that India = Flat tracks shouldnt the stats give enough indicators to that effect .

Not necessarily. As i said, statistics and cricket are a very rough fit. For what stats give indication & for what it does not is purely a case-by-case basis analysis, not a generalized idea at all.

Isnt that what i wanted to do as well ?

Err no...Indian pitches vs Pakistani pitches in the 80s for eg, are FAR FAR closer a deal than Sami-Marshall. That you tried to take stats as gospel in such a close figure & take it as a credible guage alone speaks volumes about your lack of statistical knowledge or understanding. PS: I am still waiting for your comment on logical analysis of YOUR OWN dataset. You claimed that according to your data, AUS,PAK and WI were easier to bat on than India through the 80s-2000+ period. I proved that your statement is only 33.33% accurate, since it is FALSE in the case of PAk-WI. Your stats also show the picture that India has been ONE OF THE EASIEST places to bat in the last 30 years. Is there going to be an acknowledgement of that fact or not ?