Troll Dump thread

[ANTiLAG]

you will eventually learn, like everyone else here, that worshiping stats will only cause you grief as they are not stats as distinct from raw data which is not properly analysed

and comparing stats from different eras is just ridiculous

You will eventually learn that an average, be it strike rate of runs scored per balls or wickets taken per deliveries bowled over all matches, econ rate of all runs conceded incl wides and no balls per 6 legitimate deliveries over all matches, or runs scored per dismissal, is very much a statistic and not raw data. You should learn this when you get to the year 6 cirriculum.

 

[Twatface Magee]

Hi,

 

[Twatface Magee]

my name

 

[Twatface Magee]

is Antilag

 

[Twatface Magee]

Edit

 

[Twizzle]

You will eventually learn that an average, be it strike rate of runs scored per balls or wickets taken per deliveries bowled over all matches, econ rate of all runs conceded incl wides and no balls per 6 legitimate deliveries over all matches, or runs scored per dismissal, is very much a statistic and not raw data. You should learn this when you get to the year 6 cirriculum.

and if you knew anything about cricket or even played it as distinct from fantasy cricket, you would know that raw data needs to be broken up into categories so it can be analysed

for example our great statistician Locky reckons Clarke was better at 5 than he was at 4 or 3 because that what statsguru told him his opinion should be but what it didn't tell him was:

first or second innings ?
what was the pitch like, batting or bowlers pitch ?
bouncy itch or low and flat ?
green or dead ?
home or away ?
who were all the bowlers he faced ?
the might of the SL pace attack, or Saffas
pace or spin ?
left arm or right arm ?
opening bowlers, change bowlers or hacks ?
off spin or leg spin ?
where were the opposition rated at the time ?

they are just a few off the to of my head which may give some useful data as distinct from analysed data, or what you would call stats

edit: sorry, forgot to mention, your turn

 

[Twatface Magee]

Antilag has clearly never played any form of cricket in his life.

 

[ANTiLAG]

and if you knew anything about cricket or even played it as distinct from fantasy cricket, you would know that raw data needs to be broken up into categories so it can be analysed

for example our great statistician Locky reckons Clarke was better at 5 than he was at 4 or 3 because that what statsguru told him his opinion should be but what it didn't tell him was:

first or second innings ?
what was the pitch like, batting or bowlers pitch ?
bouncy itch or low and flat ?
green or dead ?
home or away ?
who were all the bowlers he faced ?
the might of the SL pace attack, or Saffas
pace or spin ?
left arm or right arm ?
opening bowlers, change bowlers or hacks ?
off spin or leg spin ?
where were the opposition rated at the time ?

they are just a few off the to of my head which may give some useful data as distinct from analysed data, or what you would call stats

edit: sorry, forgot to mention, your turn

Good thing that over 232 matches that a lot of these things start to average out. For instance, in Bevan's 232 matches, Australia batted first 120 times, and 112 times batting second.

Nice try sweetheart, but I enjoy breaking player stats down.

 

[Front-Rower]

SR of 74. Pathetic.

11 Michael Bevans batting = 222/4 on average

Good luck defending that.

Myth.

That is why he was dropped.

You're arguing against the former Australians selectors. I'm irrelevant.

4/222 was a winning score in the mid 90's.

Try again.

 

[Twatface Magee]

Doesn't get stats either...

 

[El Diablo]

doesn't get that he doesn't get it too

 

[hineyrulz]

4/222 was a winning score in the mid 90's.

Try again.

He can't his head around it, he never did answer me when the two best ODI openers of the 80's only had strike rates in the 60's. Didn't suit his argument even though anything over 200 was normally a winning score for the windies.

 

[ANTiLAG]

4/222 was a winning score in the mid 90's.

Try again.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_strike_rate;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;spanmax2=31+Dec+2005;spanmin2=01+Jan+1995;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

1995-2005 - Bevan is at the bottom of the page. Fancy that.

Mythical Bevan. Far below his team mates. Far far below his team mates. Why was he dropped?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=1;class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=runs_per_over;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Run rates for 1995-2005

Zimbabwe are averaging a SR score of 224 per 50 overs.

Tell me more about 222/4 being a winning score? Playing Bangladesh?

Both Innings:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=1;class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;orderby=runs_per_over;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

224/4 is not a "winning" score in Bevan's era. It could be defended on occasison- then as it can now. But its not a "winning score". Australia was 2 wins per 1 loss with a Strike Rate score of 261.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=1;class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=runs_per_over;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;result=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Above is first innings matches won and average SR. Australia was 5.49 and India 5.55.

Again 222/4 is not a winning score. New Zealand is pulling 260 - and is the lowest ranked to have achieved 50 wins. Yes NZ had lowsy bowlers, but this is about Bevan contributing with the bat, not how magnificent Warne and Glen McGrath were with the ball.

Chasing averages. All above 222/4:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=2;class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=2;orderby=runs_per_over;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;result=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

And finally combined:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;orderby=runs_per_over;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;result=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Adam Gilchrist did far more with the bat to aid Australian victories than Bevan - depsite his "lower" batting average not reflecting this.

Matches Lost:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;orderby=runs_per_over;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;result=2;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Australia averaged 4.68 runs per over in losses. That is a SR score of 234. And 25 runs per wicket.

Weak NZ averaged 222.5 at 4.45 runs per over and an average partnership of 22.75 in its losses

So tell me more about how great Bevan is, and I reply - he was dropped for a reason. He played some famous innings, no denying that. But a SR of 74 in his time period, in his era, let alone today's era, was not "best batsman in Australia let alone world" material.

Bat first and lost:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=1;class=2;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;orderby=runs_per_over;result=2;size=25;spanmax1=31+Dec+2005;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

AUstralia average 4.66 runs per over in a SR score of 233 batting first and losing.

So I don't know where "224 is a winning score" comes from. Maybe "winning score" has different definitions for different people.

 

[chigurh]

Is there a stat on how many games Australia lost when Bevan was not out?

 

[El Diablo]

I'm irrelevant.

smartest thing you've ever posted

 

[TheParraboy]

He can't his head around it, he never did answer me when the two best ODI openers of the 80's only had strike rates in the 60's. Didn't suit his argument even though anything over 200 was normally a winning score for the windies.

Larry Gomes had a S/R of under 55.00, played over 80 ODIs in the dominant WIs sides

Wouldn't swap him for the world when they were in deep shit with 3-4 down with plenty of ovr left (similar to Bevan)

 

[chigurh]

Bevan averaged 50 because he scored a heap of runs and took it upon himself to be there at the end of the innings. He also timed a run chase better than almost anyone, and would bat as slowly as possible whilst keeping in touch with the required run rate to minimise the chance of getting out.

All time great without a doubt.

 

[Twizzle]

Cherry picking stats to suit an argument is never very convincing.

 

[JJ]

Cherry picking stats to suit an argument is never very convincing.

Yeah, why do you keep doing it?

 

[ANTiLAG]

Larry Gomes had a S/R of under 55.00, played over 80 ODIs in the dominant WIs sides

Wouldn't swap him for the world when they were in deep shit with 3-4 down with plenty of ovr left (similar to Bevan)

Well you just went full genius.

One innings in a world cup against Australia - and suddenly they wouldn't swap Gomes' wicket for Viv having another bat?

Heck, Lloyd batting at 5 and 6 meant they had less to fear than Gomes being there in my opinion.

Seeing Gomes only passed 50 7 times in his career: I'll past links to all scorecards to reveal what crap this is.

1: His only century: a 1985 Sri Lanka (awarded test status in 1983)

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65386.html

Clive Lloyd got 54* off 29 balls there.

2: The one match that supports your argument:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65070.html

Good to see Baccus get 47 there, his average is 26 at a SR of 66

3: Desmond Haynes century:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64260.html

4: Gomes top scores with 56* off 80 in a chase made easy by a run out Baccuss (20 off 12) and Clive Lloyd (38 off 28) getting the run rate required down at the end:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65332.html

5: The Gordon Greenidge show:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65075.html

6: The Vivian Richards show:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65089.html

7: The Viv show again:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64978.html

One match supports your arugment, you can try and claim the match where Baccuss and Lloyd have strike at over 100 to get the win by 8 balls where Gomes is 56* off 80 - some people may even believe you - other wouldn't.

At best that is 2 good match winnings innings when the Windies were in "trouble" and a tone against an easy beat Sri Lanka in 1985. I call it one match winnings over 50 in where team in trouble - he was in trouble without Lloyd and Baccus in the other.

Personally, I expect more from a batsman with 80 matches, let alone if he is going to be a myth.

Did he have more opportunities? Well he played in a further 18 losses where his SR was 50 and his average 11. Batting between 3 and 6 - he had plenty of opportunities to shine and he did not.