Cricket : The General Cricket Thread

[iadom]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry? Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that I know nothing about cricket?

Those of us that know better are well aware that you are an expert on the sound of willow against leather.

I can do no better than to quote Ricky Ponting, "It would be nice if we could find a Flintoff from somewhere. We have been beaten by a better team and we were below par, They deserve to win the Ashes. They deserve this result and they have been the better side".

It was very close, but then it would not have been the exciting spectacle it was had either side taken a hammering.

Jim ( cricket fan since 1958 )

Originally Posted by iadom

Those of us that know better are well aware that you are an expert on the sound of willow against leather.

I can do no better than to quote Ricky Ponting, "It would be nice if we could find a Flintoff from somewhere. We have been beaten by a better team and we were below par, They deserve to win the Ashes. They deserve this result and they have been the better side".

It was very close, but then it would not have been the exciting spectacle it was had either side taken a hammering.

Jim ( cricket fan since 1958 )

So are you saying that because by a stoke of luck England played better than Australia this series they will always be good?

I still stand by what I said, well dont to England for beating Australia, but Australia will destroy them next chance they get.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

So are you saying that because by a stoke of luck England played better than Australia this series they will always be good?

I still stand by what I said, well dont to England for beating Australia, but Australia will destroy them next chance they get.

I don't think so - England have got a young, settled, strong team that have been playing together well, and can only get better. Australia, whilst obviously world class, are older... the team may change in the next 16 months or so. It takes a while to get a good team gelled (sp?). England now have that and will be the stronger of the two teams next time they meet IMO.

[TigaSefi]

hehe, destroy them ? it took us 5 years to make this team, even Duncan Fletcher didn't expect it to happen so early. We'll be around for a while yet. Australia Ashes next Winter will be good. I might even fly over for a month to watch one or two games.

[iadom]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

So are you saying that because by a stoke of luck England played better than Australia this series they will always be good?

I still stand by what I said, well dont to England for beating Australia, but Australia will destroy them next chance they get.

Cannot see anywhere that I said England had a stroke of luck ??? As a famous golfer once said, "the more I practice, the luckier I get" ( Palmer or Nicklaus I think)
They prepared and built up to this series for several years, remember the nucleus of this team has in recent times beaten Sri Lanka, Pakistan, South Africa & the West Indies in their own backyards. This is a team that is going places, it still has one or two weak spots but it is definately on the up whilst the Aussies have only one way to go with this current side. I think they missed a trick by omitting Andrew Symonds from the test team, along with the likes of Brad Hodges he could have had a huge impact on the tests. One other thing to think about, Shaune Tait looked very raw and wild, yet he was the leading wicket taker in inter state cricket in Australia last year, doesn't say a lot for the rest of the Aussie batsmen does it. Take Warne out of this side (40) wickets and you have a side that is going to struggle for quite a while.

[gazzae]

lol how ****ed is Flintoff

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry? Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that I know nothing about cricket?

Simply because I'm not so blindly jingoistic that I can forgive the lamentable performances of certain English players?

eg Pieterson may have done well with the bat, but if he'd held a few more catches in earlier matches we could have had this properly sewn up already.

Yeh, you are like, so right, i think we should drop Pieterson for being England's highest scoring batsman. Dropping 6 catches pales into comparison when playing a final innings like he did. That's why you know nothing about cricket, because players themselves and people in the game who know far more than you don't voice the sam opinions as yours.

If certain players were lementable then what does that say about the Ausies, i'm an analyst and stats NEVER lie, we were the better team, fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...es/default.stm

This link supports my case. It doesn't say every player was brilliant, but it does tell you that you are wrong and the Australians didn't play better, fact.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by iadom

Those of us that know better are well aware that you are an expert on the sound of willow against leather.

Personally I'd prefer the sound of leather against Willow, but alas Miss Hannigan is already spoken for

I can do no better than to quote Ricky Ponting, "It would be nice if we could find a Flintoff from somewhere. We have been beaten by a better team and we were below par, They deserve to win the Ashes. They deserve this result and they have been the better side".

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!!

I had to smile at this

[Graham]

Originally Posted by gruff_rhodes

Yeh, you are like, so right, i think we should drop Pieterson for being England's highest scoring batsman.

Oh gods, here we go...

Where did I say anything about "Dropping Pieterson"? Oh, I didn't.

Dropping 6 catches pales into comparison when playing a final innings like he did.

Nonsense. If that's your argument we might as well go the way of American Football and have two entirely different teams, one to bat and one to field (although in some of the matches, I think we *did* have that, judging by how they played!)

That's why you know nothing about cricket, because players themselves and people in the game who know far more than you don't voice the sam opinions as yours.

<Sigh> Just because I don't agree with someone does *NOT* mean that I "know nothing" about a subject

And if you'd been listening to TMS all the way through, you'd have noticed that there were *plenty* of different opinions being expressed by various commentators (Australian and English)!

If certain players were lementable then what does that say about the Ausies, i'm an analyst and stats NEVER lie, we were the better team, fact.

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!!

This link supports my case. It doesn't say every player was brilliant, but it does tell you that you are wrong and the Australians didn't play better, fact.

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?

All of these are just *some* of the factors that make up a cricket match that need to be considered to get a real picture of what happened, rather than just the "bare bones" of the batting and bowling averages!

[iadom]

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.

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. Try to name really 'World Class' players over the past fifteen years. The West Indies have Brian Lara, India, Sachin Tendulkar, Sri Lanka have Murali ( but a lot of knowledgable people think that he is a chucker ). Pakistan had Wasim & Wakar, but they were on the way down a long time ago. N.Zealand have only ever had Richard Hadlee in the past, who could definately be deemed World Class, South Africa have had Alan Donald, possibly Shaune Pollock and maybe Lance Kluseiner [sp] for a short period, ( no coincidence that they pushed the Aussies more than anyone else). So you see there has been a dearth of real talent in depth for a long, long time.
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.
Note, no English players in my list. but that doesn't include the present team.

Originally Posted by iadom

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.
team.

Agreed !!

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh gods, here we go...

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. 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.

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. Grit and determination would be another great stat, not. Anyway i won't be revisiting this thread, i made my point. Learn to read stats mate, cya

[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.

Talking about Pietersen dropping catches the Aussies dropped him 3 times yesterday including a sitter by the brilliant Mr Warne.

The Matt Hayden catch was harder but Gilchrist stuck a glove in ( the deflection spotted by Rod Marsh, not a bad keeper himself I remember)

This is what makes this game so fascinating, may be boring to some but I find horse racing boring. But the skill and guts required to ride in The Grand National are amazing and you wouldn't get me on a horse jumping those fences for love or money.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by iadom

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.

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.

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?
__________________

Originally Posted by gruff_rhodes

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.

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.

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!

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!

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...!!
__________________

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.