Quote:
|
Originally Posted by iadom
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And what about us finding a Shane Warne from somewhere? And if that was Australia "below par", it's a damn good job they weren't on top form!!
|
Warne is a once in a lifetime, if your lucky player, chances are that neither of us will ever see anyone as good, ever again. |
That I can well agree with.
Quote:
I don't think the Aussies were below par, I think that was their best shot, they are past their 'sell by date'.
To be honest, I don't think this Australian side have ever been a 'super' side.
The simple fact is that they have had 6 or 7 very good batsmen and 2 world class bowlers. This coincided with a period in which the rest of world cricket was at its lowest level in terms of real class for a very long time.
|
I see what you're saying and, yes, I can agree with it up to a point, the question is, now, though, whether England are actually a "super side" or they've just come along at the right time when the Aussies are on the decline.
Quote:
|
I am absolutely certain that if this current Australian side, even at its very best, came up against the West Indies sides of the mid to late 70's and early 80's they would get hammered.
|
Possibly, but there again, how much of that depended on a few devastating pace bowlers plus some good batsmen?
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gruff_rhodes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
 If you're an analyst, I'm astonished that you can make such a statement with (presumably) a straight face!!!
Stats don't lie, but there are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics which can be made to prove anything you want!!
It doesn't tell me anything of the sort and any analyst worth their salt shouldn't need me to point that out!
What about catches dropped (either whilst fielding or them being dropped whilst batting)? Run outs missed? Number of times the ball beat the bat? Number of "near misses" where the batsman just escaped being out eg nearly playing on? What about dodgy runs or bad calls where they were almost run out? What about sheer grit and determination, eg the Aussies needing to survive some incredibly hostile bowling with one wicket left to win the match? What about them simply not crumbling under pressure? |
I know more about analysis than you mate. |
I'm sure you do, mate.
That doesn't make my arguments invalid, nor the details above irrelevant.
Quote:
Lies and damned lies is ONLY true in certain circumstances. Those stats speak for themselves, no one has put a slant on them, they are facts. If you think those stats are made to prove a point, then....  And i'm astonished that someone who appears to think they know what they are talking about can't see simple facts. I am worth my salt, the government pays me lots of money for it. I don't need you to point anything out, especially someone who can't read basic stats.
|
Yes, the stats are facts, I don't deny that, nor would I.
However your statement that "no one has put a slant on them" is more than a little disingenuous because that's exactly what you *have* done by saying "it does tell you that you are wrong and the Australians didn't play better", which is by no means the case.
If a team loses, but has created dozens of chances (even if they muffed them all), would you say they have played "better" or "worse" than one that only created a few, but took full advantage of them?
It's not a simple question.
Quote:
|
Yeah lets display near run outs and near misses cos they would be really useful to tell who won a test match Near misses bare no relevance, even if they did we would probably win in that category too cos Australia could barely create any near misses let alone clear opportunities.
|
For someone who claims to be an analyst, I'm astonished that you can casually dismiss information like this as of "no relevance" and then when you go on to say even if they *were* relevant "we would probably win in that category too" (supposition not based on *facts*!!) my irony meter starts bleeping!
Quote:
|
Grit and determination would be another great stat, not.
|
If an analyst thinks that a team not falling apart under pressure is not relevant to the situation, I think he would need to get out into the real world a little more!
Quote:
Anyway i won't be revisiting this thread, i made my point. Learn to read stats mate, cya 
|
Ah, and now we have you "declaring victory" and claiming as a fact (when it's only an *opinion*!) that you have "made your point".
If our government are paying you a lot of money, I wonder if we're really getting value for it...!!
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bayonet
The most important stat of the lot is England 2 Australia 1 simplistic I know but that's what the record will show in 50 or 100 years from now.
|
Sorry, but I don't agree.
Which do you think will go down in history as one of the "greatest" series ever? The 1981 test series where England won against all the odds? The West Indies scoring a 5-0 whitewash over England? Or this test series just happened?
Whilst the Windies winning 5-0 was certainly very impressive, it wasn't really a great series, unlike the other two where there was a real challenge to both sides.