|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
Paddles you're on a losing battle, you're using common sense and logic, that won't win here. Here is the overall performances of the world's opening bowlers in the last 2 1/2 years, including the recent Ashes, that have played 10 or more tests (you'll have to teach me how to post the table) http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=2;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingNot a single Australian bowler in the top 10, Starc 4th last and Hazlewood 2nd last, with Broad in between them (probably why some say Broad is a great bowler as it makes out our bowlers are better than what they are). As I've been trying to point out here, is those one off tests where good bowling has occurred ultimately only mean something when you follow them up with other consistent performances otherwise you end up with a 30 average. It's like banging your head against a brick wall, doesn't make a lot of sense but makes more sense than some of the arguments put up here. I see 4 Indian bowlers ahead of Starc, 3 SA bowlers, 2 NZ, 2 WI, and 2 Pakistan so their 2 opening bowlers are better than our best opening bowler in Starc Strike rates for these frontline bowlers http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=2;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingStarc has moved up but Hazlewood now dead last. When I look at all the bowlers posiitons 1-4 (37 bowlers world wide) you now see Cummins come in at 9th but the others have all dropped down as the No 3 and 4 bowlers come in, so other world teams have No 3 and No 4 bowlers better than our opening bowlers. (I see 5 Indian, 3 English, 3 SA, 3 Pakistan, 3 WI, 2 NZ all better than our 2nd best Starc). There are 15 bowlers with averages of 24 or under, which is indicative of how poor world batsmen are presently. A 30 average when others are bowling at 24 or under which amounts to potentially a difference of 60 runs per innings or 120 per test, is not something the world's batsmen can afford when they are all struggling. Thankfully we have Smith who is so far ahead of the rest of the world, he is covering this deficiency and adding a few runs additional, but ultimately we still lose. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=4;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingAnd when I look at SR http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=4;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingCummins maintains his position so he is World Class but Starc you would say is average but look at Hazlewood, thank God for the all-rounders, it would be completely embarrassing. Anyone that claims Australia is "the best in the world" is either stupid or arrogant, as both qualities ignore the obvious. You cannot claim someone is the best unless they have been consistent over a period of time which is certainly not the case with Australia, one off series or even test match doesn't make someone the best. For Australia to continue with their current attack then they really have to develop the best batting line up in the world to move up the world rankings, batting on an even keel with the rest of the world is not winning matches and we will remain around the 5th position. As for "Australia bowling on batting friendly wickets" doesn't hold much water when Cummins has an overall average of 21.45 and in Australia averages 20.88, good bowlers can bowl in any conditions. Cummins has an average of 30 bowling in the subcontinent, so I would say it is easier to take wickets as a pace bowler in Australia than Asia, so why are so many Indian bowlers ranked so high? Bumrah averaged 17 on our "Batsmen friendly wickets" last season. He would love to play half his games in Australia. Poor bowlers use that argument as an excuse, Cummins may not make the team if he had to play for India in India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHere you go Paddles. So you don't feel left out. :)
The irony is that it happened against Pakistan, past masters of (ahem) "reverse swing". It's not a recent nor likely to be an isolated phenomena restricted to any particular team or something teams wait until they are losing to try. It's been happening in Aus domestic cricket for awhile. We've had coaches done for ball tampering! Not that it can't happen without tampering, but really how much of this spectacular "reverse swing" has ever been solely down to the bowler, and how much to "ball preparation"? By the way, what are your views on openly and blatantly "chucking"? That cheating? [quote] Take one bottle top. Cut into quarters. Apply tape, leaving sharp point exposed. Hide in pocket. Gouge cricket ball when required. It seems brazen, incongruous and bound to draw attention from match officials, but New Zealand's cricketers admitted doing all of the above in full view during a test in Pakistan in 1990. In those days of no match referees they were never sanctioned for ball tampering, despite Chris Pringle generating spectacular reverse swing in an 11-wicket haul which nearly spurred New Zealand to victory in the third test of that series in Faisalabad. Chris Pringle totally cheated. But NZ was crap back then. Not world class. No Hadlee, no Chatfield, no Bracwell, no Snedden Crap. Just crap. We cheated. Didn't even have Wright on that tour. We sucked.... see where this is going... You seem to be inferring that only crap teams cheat. If so, your present captain is a blatant chucker (and has been banned before), which is obviously cheating. As he has been reported again recently, would this infer that NZ are crap at the moment? They seem to be going ok. Williamson seems a fine bloke. That NZ team was so bad, Imran Khan refused to play. That is how bad that cheating Pringle team was. It was horrid. Akram and Younis thrashed that team. Much much much better bowlers.
Imran claims that he wasn't shy about putting a bit of extracurricular work on the ball himself (with bottle tops). Read the article further to find what the kiwis though of the Pakastani bowlers and why they decided to level the playing field.
But Pringle was never caught on camera, and admitted it happily after getting away with it... And he never said it was sticky tape with grit neither... he said what he did. And owned it like a champ...
Oh, all good then. If he had have captained a team with a particular knucklehead who was not very good at ball tampering schemes though, and then tried to do the right thing by standing by them, he would be the devil incarnate. Objectivity again. 1 KW has chucked. But he aint a bowler. Lets talk about Lee.... True, Williamson is not a bowler he's a chucker. That's cheating. Though he is also one of the nicer blokes in world cricket, and a great batsman. So is Smith and I wonder why he is treated so differently to Williamson, Khan, Atherton, Faff and any number of others. Let's talk about Lee then. If you could persuade that he was a genuine chucker (doubtful), that would at least destroy your inference that only crap teams cheat.
3 You can defend Smith as captain if you want. Smith is one of th etwo best batsmen I have ever watched. I rate him highly. Still a cheat, though. (Sorrry - he was captain and knew it wasn't sticky tape with grit).
Wasn't much of a Captain (tactically better than Paine though), but he seems a nice enough person. After the fact, yes he knew it wasn't sticky tape. His biggest mistake was that presser after play. Though CA never found or claimed that he had foreknowledge of the particular plan. He had knowledge of a "potential plot". Very different thing. He saw the two players in discussion, thought they were "up to something" but didn't take it further. I think he has been treated very unfairly.
Whathas any of this have to do with the Aussie bowlers are so bad, you only won 3 of your last 11 test series? Despite Smith? I dont get it...
You brought the "cheating" part up. Still not buying the World class attack part.... | View overall figures [change view] | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Apr 2016  | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
| Page 1 of 1 | Showing 1 - 12 of 12 | |  First  Previous | Next  Last  | |
| Statsguru includes the following current or recent Test matches: | England v Australia at The Oval, 5th Test, Sep 12-15, 2019 [Test # 2362]
| Bangladesh v Afghanistan at Chattogram, Only Test, Sep 5-9, 2019 [Test # 2361]
| England v Australia at Manchester, 4th Test, Sep 4-8, 2019 [Test # 2360]
|
Your statistical (ahem) “analysis” seems a little cursory, and while I’m no statistician, it’s obvious that you certainly aren’t either lol. What factors have you considered which could modify/affect/skew the analysis, how have you allowed for this. None? You also seem to have accepted homogeneity across the board over the last few years, which is quite unreasonable. How did you allow for this. You didn't? We play most of our cricket on some of the most batting friendly surfaces on the planet where our batsmen plunder weak “away” attacks like the poms, the Lankans, Pakistan who come out here every four years or so and have been in the last few. At the same time such conditions offer little to our bowlers. It’s rare to get a bowler friendly pitch, (though it does happen i.e. our batsmen rolling over at Bellerieve). You don’t see how this could skew your “analysis” in favour of our batting, unrealistically? Or skew our bowling against averages of other attacks? Why wouldn’t our stats be perfectly consistent and expected? Have you consulted anything other than your own belief? What historical trends have you compared? A quick look shows that historically, our batting average is weaker over the last few years (by a couple of runs), while over the same period our bowlers are performing 5 whole runs better than our historical average. Not relevant? Our current bowlers are averaging the same over the last few years as we did from 2000- '09. We had weak attacks then too? Yet our current batting is worse on average by about 13 whole runs lol. Yet our bowlers are letting us down. :blink:It looks like you simply formed an opinion, then hit statsguru for statistics to support it. Lies and statistics. No, you just cant handle the truth, so you try to deny the stats. You're wasting my time. Your attack is not world class in this era. It was in the early 2000's. Stop wasting my time. | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date between 1 Jan 2000 and 1 Apr 2007 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHere you go Paddles. So you don't feel left out. :)
The irony is that it happened against Pakistan, past masters of (ahem) "reverse swing". It's not a recent nor likely to be an isolated phenomena restricted to any particular team or something teams wait until they are losing to try. It's been happening in Aus domestic cricket for awhile. We've had coaches done for ball tampering! Not that it can't happen without tampering, but really how much of this spectacular "reverse swing" has ever been solely down to the bowler, and how much to "ball preparation"? By the way, what are your views on openly and blatantly "chucking"? That cheating? [quote] Take one bottle top. Cut into quarters. Apply tape, leaving sharp point exposed. Hide in pocket. Gouge cricket ball when required. It seems brazen, incongruous and bound to draw attention from match officials, but New Zealand's cricketers admitted doing all of the above in full view during a test in Pakistan in 1990. In those days of no match referees they were never sanctioned for ball tampering, despite Chris Pringle generating spectacular reverse swing in an 11-wicket haul which nearly spurred New Zealand to victory in the third test of that series in Faisalabad. Chris Pringle totally cheated. But NZ was crap back then. Not world class. No Hadlee, no Chatfield, no Bracwell, no Snedden Crap. Just crap. We cheated. Didn't even have Wright on that tour. We sucked.... see where this is going... You seem to be inferring that only crap teams cheat. If so, your present captain is a blatant chucker (and has been banned before), which is obviously cheating. As he has been reported again recently, would this infer that NZ are crap at the moment? They seem to be going ok. Williamson seems a fine bloke. That NZ team was so bad, Imran Khan refused to play. That is how bad that cheating Pringle team was. It was horrid. Akram and Younis thrashed that team. Much much much better bowlers.
Imran claims that he wasn't shy about putting a bit of extracurricular work on the ball himself (with bottle tops). Read the article further to find what the kiwis though of the Pakastani bowlers and why they decided to level the playing field.
But Pringle was never caught on camera, and admitted it happily after getting away with it... And he never said it was sticky tape with grit neither... he said what he did. And owned it like a champ...
Oh, all good then. If he had have captained a team with a particular knucklehead who was not very good at ball tampering schemes though, and then tried to do the right thing by standing by them, he would be the devil incarnate. Objectivity again. 1 KW has chucked. But he aint a bowler. Lets talk about Lee.... True, Williamson is not a bowler he's a chucker. That's cheating. Though he is also one of the nicer blokes in world cricket, and a great batsman. So is Smith and I wonder why he is treated so differently to Williamson, Khan, Atherton, Faff and any number of others. Let's talk about Lee then. If you could persuade that he was a genuine chucker (doubtful), that would at least destroy your inference that only crap teams cheat.
3 You can defend Smith as captain if you want. Smith is one of th etwo best batsmen I have ever watched. I rate him highly. Still a cheat, though. (Sorrry - he was captain and knew it wasn't sticky tape with grit).
Wasn't much of a Captain (tactically better than Paine though), but he seems a nice enough person. After the fact, yes he knew it wasn't sticky tape. His biggest mistake was that presser after play. Though CA never found or claimed that he had foreknowledge of the particular plan. He had knowledge of a "potential plot". Very different thing. He saw the two players in discussion, thought they were "up to something" but didn't take it further. I think he has been treated very unfairly.
Whathas any of this have to do with the Aussie bowlers are so bad, you only won 3 of your last 11 test series? Despite Smith? I dont get it...
You brought the "cheating" part up. Still not buying the World class attack part.... | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Apr 2016 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
| Page 1 of 1 | Showing 1 - 12 of 12 | | First Previous | Next Last | |
| Statsguru includes the following current or recent Test matches: | England v Australia at The Oval, 5th Test, Sep 12-15, 2019 [Test # 2362]
| Bangladesh v Afghanistan at Chattogram, Only Test, Sep 5-9, 2019 [Test # 2361]
| England v Australia at Manchester, 4th Test, Sep 4-8, 2019 [Test # 2360]
|
Your statistical (ahem) “analysis” seems a little cursory, and while I’m no statistician, it’s obvious that you certainly aren’t either lol. What factors have you considered which could modify/affect/skew the analysis, how have you allowed for this. None? You also seem to have accepted homogeneity across the board over the last few years, which is quite unreasonable. How did you allow for this. You didn't? We play most of our cricket on some of the most batting friendly surfaces on the planet where our batsmen plunder weak “away” attacks like the poms, the Lankans, Pakistan who come out here every four years or so and have been in the last few. At the same time such conditions offer little to our bowlers. It’s rare to get a bowler friendly pitch, (though it does happen i.e. our batsmen rolling over at Bellerieve). You don’t see how this could skew your “analysis” in favour of our batting, unrealistically? Or skew our bowling against averages of other attacks? Why wouldn’t our stats be perfectly consistent and expected? Have you consulted anything other than your own belief? What historical trends have you compared? A quick look shows that historically, our batting average is weaker over the last few years (by a couple of runs), while over the same period our bowlers are performing 5 whole runs better than our historical average. Not relevant? Our current bowlers are averaging the same over the last few years as we did from 2000- '09. We had weak attacks then too? Yet our current batting is worse on average by about 13 whole runs lol. Yet our bowlers are letting us down. :blink:It looks like you simply formed an opinion, then hit statsguru for statistics to support it. Lies and statistics. No, you just cant handle the truth, so you try to deny the stats. You're wasting my time. Your attack is not world class. It was in the early 2000's. Stop wasting my time. | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date between 1 Jan 2000 and 1 Apr 2007 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Go easy on the newbie Paddles. He has made a valid point. So dont shoot him down in flames.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPaddles you're on a losing battle, you're using common sense and logic, that won't win here. Here is the overall performances of the world's opening bowlers in the last 2 1/2 years, including the recent Ashes, that have played 10 or more tests (you'll have to teach me how to post the table) http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=2;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingNot a single Australian bowler in the top 10, Starc 4th last and Hazlewood 2nd last, with Broad in between them (probably why some say Broad is a great bowler as it makes out our bowlers are better than what they are). As I've been trying to point out here, is those one off tests where good bowling has occurred ultimately only mean something when you follow them up with other consistent performances otherwise you end up with a 30 average. It's like banging your head against a brick wall, doesn't make a lot of sense but makes more sense than some of the arguments put up here. I see 4 Indian bowlers ahead of Starc, 3 SA bowlers, 2 NZ, 2 WI, and 2 Pakistan so their 2 opening bowlers are better than our best opening bowler in Starc Strike rates for these frontline bowlers http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=2;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingStarc has moved up but Hazlewood now dead last. When I look at all the bowlers posiitons 1-4 (37 bowlers world wide) you now see Cummins come in at 9th but the others have all dropped down as the No 3 and 4 bowlers come in, so other world teams have No 3 and No 4 bowlers better than our opening bowlers. (I see 5 Indian, 3 English, 3 SA, 3 Pakistan, 3 WI, 2 NZ all better than our 2nd best Starc). There are 15 bowlers with averages of 24 or under, which is indicative of how poor world batsmen are presently. A 30 average when others are bowling at 24 or under which amounts to potentially a difference of 60 runs per innings or 120 per test, is not something the world's batsmen can afford when they are all struggling. Thankfully we have Smith who is so far ahead of the rest of the world, he is covering this deficiency and adding a few runs additional, but ultimately we still lose. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=4;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingAnd when I look at SR http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_positionmax1=4;bowling_positionmin1=1;bowling_positionval1=bowling_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=10;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=15+Mar+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingCummins maintains his position so he is World Class but Starc you would say is average but look at Hazlewood, thank God for the all-rounders, it would be completely embarrassing. Anyone that claims Australia is "the best in the world" is either stupid or arrogant, as both qualities ignore the obvious. You cannot claim someone is the best unless they have been consistent over a period of time which is certainly not the case with Australia, one off series or even test match doesn't make someone the best. For Australia to continue with their current attack then they really have to develop the best batting line up in the world to move up the world rankings, batting on an even keel with the rest of the world is not winning matches and we will remain around the 5th position. As for "Australia bowling on batting friendly wickets" doesn't hold much water when Cummins has an overall average of 21.45 and in Australia averages 20.88, good bowlers can bowl in any conditions. Cummins has an average of 30 bowling in the subcontinent, so I would say it is easier to take wickets as a pace bowler in Australia than Asia, so why are so many Indian bowlers ranked so high? Bumrah averaged 17 on our "Batsmen friendly wickets" last season. He would love to play half his games in Australia. Poor bowlers use that argument as an excuse, Cummins may not make the team if he had to play for India in India. This really is an issue. Especially seeing Cummins rarely gets the new ball either. Bumrah hasn't actually played in India yet, but BK, Yadav, Sharma and Shami have done the hard yards there. Haze and Starc don't right now strike as world class. Patto aint back at full steam, and Siddle is a bit ordinary. But I actually find the Lyon question more interesting. I am done with the seamers question. | View overall figures [change view] | | On continent Asia | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jan 2014 | | Type of bowler (by style) spin bowler | | Qualifications matches played greater than or equal to 3 | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Overall figures| Player | Span | Mat | Inns | Overs | Mdns | Runs | Wkts | BBI | BBM | Ave | Econ | SR | 5 | 10 | |
|---|
| Rashid Khan (AFG) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 5 | 122.2 | 23 | 360 | 20 | 6/49 | 11/104 | 18.00 | 2.94 | 36.7 | 3 | 1 |  | | RA Jadeja (INDIA) | 2015-2018 | 25 | 49 | 1147.1 | 305 | 2676 | 130 | 7/48 | 10/154 | 20.58 | 2.33 | 52.9 | 7 | 1 | | | Shoaib Malik (PAK) | 2015-2015 | 3 | 6 | 77.5 | 14 | 228 | 11 | 4/33 | 7/59 | 20.72 | 2.92 | 42.4 | 0 | 0 | | | MJ Leach (ENG) | 2018-2018 | 3 | 6 | 142.4 | 16 | 385 | 18 | 5/83 | 8/153 | 21.38 | 2.69 | 47.5 | 1 | 0 | | | R Ashwin (INDIA) | 2015-2018 | 30 | 58 | 1401.2 | 295 | 3932 | 182 | 7/59 | 13/140 | 21.60 | 2.80 | 46.1 | 15 | 5 | | | Haris Sohail (PAK) | 2017-2018 | 7 | 9 | 63.0 | 9 | 155 | 7 | 3/1 | 3/35 | 22.14 | 2.46 | 54.0 | 0 | 0 | | | A Dananjaya (SL) | 2018-2019 | 5 | 10 | 186.5 | 19 | 705 | 31 | 6/115 | 8/44 | 22.74 | 3.77 | 36.1 | 4 | 0 | | | Kuldeep Yadav (INDIA) | 2017-2018 | 4 | 8 | 124.0 | 15 | 436 | 19 | 5/57 | 6/119 | 22.94 | 3.51 | 39.1 | 1 | 0 | | | A Mishra (INDIA) | 2015-2016 | 7 | 14 | 197.5 | 28 | 621 | 27 | 4/43 | 7/72 | 23.00 | 3.13 | 43.9 | 0 | 0 | | | Nayeem Hasan (BDESH) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 6 | 68.0 | 7 | 237 | 10 | 5/61 | 5/90 | 23.70 | 3.48 | 40.8 | 1 | 0 | | | HMRKB Herath (SL) | 2014-2018 | 31 | 59 | 1530.1 | 308 | 4383 | 181 | 9/127 | 14/184 | 24.21 | 2.86 | 50.7 | 16 | 5 | | | Yasir Shah (PAK) | 2014-2018 | 22 | 43 | 1261.3 | 217 | 3653 | 150 | 8/41 | 14/184 | 24.35 | 2.89 | 50.4 | 11 | 2 | | | WER Somerville (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 6 | 136.2 | 28 | 352 | 14 | 4/75 | 7/127 | 25.14 | 2.58 | 58.4 | 0 | 0 | | | Mehidy Hasan Miraz (BDESH) | 2016-2019 | 14 | 26 | 593.4 | 75 | 1856 | 73 | 7/58 | 12/117 | 25.42 | 3.12 | 48.7 | 6 | 2 | | | Bilal Asif (PAK) | 2018-2018 | 5 | 10 | 195.4 | 40 | 424 | 16 | 6/36 | 6/123 | 26.50 | 2.16 | 73.3 | 2 | 0 | | | JA Warrican (WI) | 2015-2018 | 4 | 7 | 155.4 | 24 | 426 | 16 | 4/62 | 6/105 | 26.62 | 2.73 | 58.3 | 0 | 0 | | | Taijul Islam (BDESH) | 2014-2019 | 20 | 37 | 850.4 | 131 | 2616 | 92 | 8/39 | 11/170 | 28.43 | 3.07 | 55.4 | 6 | 1 | | | AY Patel (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 5 | 9 | 221.5 | 35 | 627 | 22 | 5/59 | 7/123 | 28.50 | 2.82 | 60.5 | 2 | 0 | | | JP Duminy (SA) | 2014-2015 | 7 | 10 | 72.0 | 13 | 260 | 9 | 3/27 | 3/27 | 28.88 | 3.61 | 48.0 | 0 | 0 | | | NM Lyon (AUS) | 2014-2018 | 13 | 25 | 712.0 | 115 | 2113 | 72 | 8/50 | 13/154 | 29.34 | 2.96 | 59.3 | 5 | 1 | | | Mohammad Nawaz (3) (PAK) | 2016-2016 | 3 | 6 | 63.5 | 12 | 147 | 5 | 2/32 | 4/70 | 29.40 | 2.30 | 76.6 | 0 | 0 | | | Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH) | 2014-2019 | 20 | 35 | 767.2 | 123 | 2500 | 83 | 6/59 | 10/124 | 30.12 | 3.25 | 55.4 | 7 | 2 | | | KC Brathwaite (WI) | 2015-2018 | 9 | 10 | 94.2 | 10 | 302 | 10 | 6/29 | 6/29 | 30.20 | 3.20 | 56.6 | 1 | 0 | | | Jubair Hossain (BDESH) | 2014-2015 | 6 | 9 | 119.1 | 10 | 493 | 16 | 5/96 | 7/152 | 30.81 | 4.13 | 44.6 | 1 | 0 | | | SNJ O'Keefe (AUS) | 2014-2017 | 7 | 13 | 308.1 | 54 | 863 | 28 | 6/35 | 12/70 | 30.82 | 2.80 | 66.0 | 2 | 1 | | | MDK Perera (SL) | 2014-2019 | 31 | 57 | 1370.2 | 191 | 4388 | 139 | 6/32 | 10/78 | 31.56 | 3.20 | 59.1 | 8 | 2 | | | Mohammad Nabi (AFG) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 5 | 91.0 | 17 | 254 | 8 | 3/36 | 4/95 | 31.75 | 2.79 | 68.2 | 0 | 0 | | | D Elgar (SA) | 2014-2018 | 10 | 14 | 68.0 | 5 | 223 | 7 | 4/22 | 4/56 | 31.85 | 3.27 | 58.2 | 0 | 0 | Lyon is totally boosted by his results in Bangladesh. If Bangladesh is excluded, watch this: | View overall figures [change view] | | Host country India or Pakistan or Sri Lanka or United Arab Emirates | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jan 2014 | | Type of bowler (by style) spin bowler | | Qualifications matches played greater than or equal to 3 | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Overall figures| Player | Span | Mat | Inns | Overs | Mdns | Runs | Wkts | BBI | BBM | Ave | Econ | SR | 5 | 10 | |
|---|
| RA Jadeja (INDIA) | 2015-2018 | 25 | 49 | 1147.1 | 305 | 2676 | 130 | 7/48 | 10/154 | 20.58 | 2.33 | 52.9 | 7 | 1 | | | Shoaib Malik (PAK) | 2015-2015 | 3 | 6 | 77.5 | 14 | 228 | 11 | 4/33 | 7/59 | 20.72 | 2.92 | 42.4 | 0 | 0 | | | MJ Leach (ENG) | 2018-2018 | 3 | 6 | 142.4 | 16 | 385 | 18 | 5/83 | 8/153 | 21.38 | 2.69 | 47.5 | 1 | 0 | | | R Ashwin (INDIA) | 2015-2018 | 29 | 56 | 1370.2 | 287 | 3837 | 177 | 7/59 | 13/140 | 21.67 | 2.80 | 46.4 | 14 | 5 | | | Haris Sohail (PAK) | 2017-2018 | 7 | 9 | 63.0 | 9 | 155 | 7 | 3/1 | 3/35 | 22.14 | 2.46 | 54.0 | 0 | 0 | | | Kuldeep Yadav (INDIA) | 2017-2018 | 4 | 8 | 124.0 | 15 | 436 | 19 | 5/57 | 6/119 | 22.94 | 3.51 | 39.1 | 1 | 0 | | | A Mishra (INDIA) | 2015-2016 | 7 | 14 | 197.5 | 28 | 621 | 27 | 4/43 | 7/72 | 23.00 | 3.13 | 43.9 | 0 | 0 | | | HMRKB Herath (SL) | 2014-2018 | 28 | 53 | 1421.4 | 294 | 3976 | 169 | 9/127 | 14/184 | 23.52 | 2.79 | 50.4 | 16 | 5 | | | Yasir Shah (PAK) | 2014-2018 | 20 | 39 | 1167.0 | 204 | 3313 | 140 | 8/41 | 14/184 | 23.66 | 2.83 | 50.0 | 11 | 2 | | | WER Somerville (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 6 | 136.2 | 28 | 352 | 14 | 4/75 | 7/127 | 25.14 | 2.58 | 58.4 | 0 | 0 | | | Bilal Asif (PAK) | 2018-2018 | 5 | 10 | 195.4 | 40 | 424 | 16 | 6/36 | 6/123 | 26.50 | 2.16 | 73.3 | 2 | 0 | | | KC Brathwaite (WI) | 2015-2018 | 7 | 8 | 71.2 | 9 | 226 | 8 | 6/29 | 6/29 | 28.25 | 3.16 | 53.5 | 1 | 0 | | | SNJ O'Keefe (AUS) | 2014-2017 | 6 | 11 | 262.5 | 48 | 735 | 26 | 6/35 | 12/70 | 28.26 | 2.79 | 60.6 | 2 | 1 | | | AY Patel (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 5 | 9 | 221.5 | 35 | 627 | 22 | 5/59 | 7/123 | 28.50 | 2.82 | 60.5 | 2 | 0 | | | A Dananjaya (SL) | 2018-2019 | 4 | 8 | 171.5 | 16 | 661 | 23 | 6/115 | 8/195 | 28.73 | 3.84 | 44.8 | 3 | 0 | | | Mohammad Nawaz (3) (PAK) | 2016-2016 | 3 | 6 | 63.5 | 12 | 147 | 5 | 2/32 | 4/70 | 29.40 | 2.30 | 76.6 | 0 | 0 | | | MDK Perera (SL) | 2014-2019 | 27 | 49 | 1197.5 | 165 | 3810 | 124 | 6/32 | 10/78 | 30.72 | 3.18 | 57.9 | 7 | 2 | | | PADLR Sandakan (SL) | 2016-2018 | 10 | 18 | 303.5 | 34 | 1120 | 34 | 5/95 | 7/107 | 32.94 | 3.68 | 53.6 | 2 | 0 | | | J Yadav (INDIA) | 2016-2017 | 4 | 8 | 104.3 | 19 | 367 | 11 | 3/30 | 4/68 | 33.36 | 3.51 | 57.0 | 0 | 0 | | | Imran Tahir (SA) | 2014-2015 | 6 | 11 | 191.0 | 25 | 635 | 18 | 5/38 | 6/71 | 35.27 | 3.32 | 63.6 | 1 | 0 | | | NM Lyon (AUS) | 2014-2018 | 11 | 21 | 578.1 | 81 | 1798 | 50 | 8/50 | 8/132 | 35.96 | 3.10 | 69.3 | 2 | 0 | | | JP Duminy (SA) | 2014-2015 | 5 | 8 | 53.0 | 9 | 218 | 6 | 2/38 | 3/85 | 36.33 | 4.11 | 53.0 | 0 | 0 | | | Zulfiqar Babar (PAK) | 2014-2016 | 12 | 23 | 600.0 | 129 | 1641 | 45 | 5/74 | 8/233 | 36.46 | 2.73 | 80.0 | 2 | 0 | | | PM Pushpakumara (SL) | 2017-2018 | 4 | 6 | 143.2 | 14 | 520 | 14 | 3/28 | 5/92 | 37.14 | 3.62 | 61.4 | 0 | 0 | | | Saeed Ajmal (PAK) | 2014-2014 | 4 | 8 | 276.1 | 62 | 635 | 17 | 5/166 | 5/173 | 37.35 | 2.29 | 97.4 | 1 | 0 | Is he like an Aus specialist spinner? | View overall figures [change view] | | Host country Australia | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jan 2014 | | Type of bowler (by style) spin bowler | | Qualifications innings bowled in greater than or equal to 2 | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Okay - but he made the ICC test team of year in 2018 right? | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date between 1 jan 2018 and 1 Jan 2019 | | Type of bowler (by style) spin bowler | | Qualifications innings bowled in greater than or equal to 2 | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Have to admit - I found it one of the more perplexing selections.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHere you go Paddles. So you don't feel left out. :)
The irony is that it happened against Pakistan, past masters of (ahem) "reverse swing". It's not a recent nor likely to be an isolated phenomena restricted to any particular team or something teams wait until they are losing to try. It's been happening in Aus domestic cricket for awhile. We've had coaches done for ball tampering! Not that it can't happen without tampering, but really how much of this spectacular "reverse swing" has ever been solely down to the bowler, and how much to "ball preparation"? By the way, what are your views on openly and blatantly "chucking"? That cheating? [quote] Take one bottle top. Cut into quarters. Apply tape, leaving sharp point exposed. Hide in pocket. Gouge cricket ball when required. It seems brazen, incongruous and bound to draw attention from match officials, but New Zealand's cricketers admitted doing all of the above in full view during a test in Pakistan in 1990. In those days of no match referees they were never sanctioned for ball tampering, despite Chris Pringle generating spectacular reverse swing in an 11-wicket haul which nearly spurred New Zealand to victory in the third test of that series in Faisalabad. Chris Pringle totally cheated. But NZ was crap back then. Not world class. No Hadlee, no Chatfield, no Bracwell, no Snedden Crap. Just crap. We cheated. Didn't even have Wright on that tour. We sucked.... see where this is going... You seem to be inferring that only crap teams cheat. If so, your present captain is a blatant chucker (and has been banned before), which is obviously cheating. As he has been reported again recently, would this infer that NZ are crap at the moment? They seem to be going ok. Williamson seems a fine bloke. That NZ team was so bad, Imran Khan refused to play. That is how bad that cheating Pringle team was. It was horrid. Akram and Younis thrashed that team. Much much much better bowlers.
Imran claims that he wasn't shy about putting a bit of extracurricular work on the ball himself (with bottle tops). Read the article further to find what the kiwis though of the Pakastani bowlers and why they decided to level the playing field.
But Pringle was never caught on camera, and admitted it happily after getting away with it... And he never said it was sticky tape with grit neither... he said what he did. And owned it like a champ...
Oh, all good then. If he had have captained a team with a particular knucklehead who was not very good at ball tampering schemes though, and then tried to do the right thing by standing by them, he would be the devil incarnate. Objectivity again. 1 KW has chucked. But he aint a bowler. Lets talk about Lee.... True, Williamson is not a bowler he's a chucker. That's cheating. Though he is also one of the nicer blokes in world cricket, and a great batsman. So is Smith and I wonder why he is treated so differently to Williamson, Khan, Atherton, Faff and any number of others. Let's talk about Lee then. If you could persuade that he was a genuine chucker (doubtful), that would at least destroy your inference that only crap teams cheat.
3 You can defend Smith as captain if you want. Smith is one of th etwo best batsmen I have ever watched. I rate him highly. Still a cheat, though. (Sorrry - he was captain and knew it wasn't sticky tape with grit).
Wasn't much of a Captain (tactically better than Paine though), but he seems a nice enough person. After the fact, yes he knew it wasn't sticky tape. His biggest mistake was that presser after play. Though CA never found or claimed that he had foreknowledge of the particular plan. He had knowledge of a "potential plot". Very different thing. He saw the two players in discussion, thought they were "up to something" but didn't take it further. I think he has been treated very unfairly.
Whathas any of this have to do with the Aussie bowlers are so bad, you only won 3 of your last 11 test series? Despite Smith? I dont get it...
You brought the "cheating" part up. Still not buying the World class attack part.... | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Apr 2016 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
| Page 1 of 1 | Showing 1 - 12 of 12 | | First Previous | Next Last | |
| Statsguru includes the following current or recent Test matches: | England v Australia at The Oval, 5th Test, Sep 12-15, 2019 [Test # 2362]
| Bangladesh v Afghanistan at Chattogram, Only Test, Sep 5-9, 2019 [Test # 2361]
| England v Australia at Manchester, 4th Test, Sep 4-8, 2019 [Test # 2360]
|
Your statistical (ahem) “analysis” seems a little cursory, and while I’m no statistician, it’s obvious that you certainly aren’t either lol. What factors have you considered which could modify/affect/skew the analysis, how have you allowed for this. None? You also seem to have accepted homogeneity across the board over the last few years, which is quite unreasonable. How did you allow for this. You didn't? We play most of our cricket on some of the most batting friendly surfaces on the planet where our batsmen plunder weak “away” attacks like the poms, the Lankans, Pakistan who come out here every four years or so and have been in the last few. At the same time such conditions offer little to our bowlers. It’s rare to get a bowler friendly pitch, (though it does happen i.e. our batsmen rolling over at Bellerieve). You don’t see how this could skew your “analysis” in favour of our batting, unrealistically? Or skew our bowling against averages of other attacks? Why wouldn’t our stats be perfectly consistent and expected? Have you consulted anything other than your own belief? What historical trends have you compared? A quick look shows that historically, our batting average is weaker over the last few years (by a couple of runs), while over the same period our bowlers are performing 5 whole runs better than our historical average. Not relevant? Our current bowlers are averaging the same over the last few years as we did from 2000- '09. We had weak attacks then too? Yet our current batting is worse on average by about 13 whole runs lol. Yet our bowlers are letting us down. :blink:It looks like you simply formed an opinion, then hit statsguru for statistics to support it. Lies and statistics. No, you just cant handle the truth, so you try to deny the stats. You're wasting my time. Your attack is not world class in this era. It was in the early 2000's. Stop wasting my time. | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date between 1 Jan 2000 and 1 Apr 2007 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
I agree with Baggers. Paddles, we are trying to build the forum. How about a civil post, welcoming the participation of a new member, even if he disagrees with you, mate? Flyslip isn't wasting anybody's time.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
Lyon is a specialist Australian conditions spinner uses the extra bounce which he was bought up on. How would he go as a spinner if playing in the sub continent who knows, he does have a better average in India than his overall average, but so far behind India's spinners, doubtful he would ever get a run. The ICC probably looked at number of wickets taken, but does not excuse overlooking Perera, Shah, Jadeja nor any Bangladesh bowlers. The only reason Lyon has taken so many wickets is solely, someone has to, it's not like we're destroying batting sides with our bowlers, and oppositions are batting for a long time due to lack of wicket taking elsewhere, Cummins does need a rest. Look at the number of deliveries bowled by Australia since 1 jan 2018 compared to India, South Africa, even NZ. Even Sri Lanka who have played same matches have bowled less deliveries. And only 7 of the 18 matches were played on the so-called "batting friendly Australian pitches", which shows that Australia are struggling everywhere in the world to take wickets at an effective rate. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=balls;spanmin2=01+jan+2018;spanval2=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamEven from your above table you can see Lyon has bowled 615 overs for 49, double all the other bowlers with the exception of Perera who bowled 470 overs for 50 wickets. Lyons performance is greatly exaggerated because he gets more opportunities than the others. Also probably explains why Australia feel the need for M Marsh http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=balls;spanmin1=01+jan+2018;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=bowlingNearly 1000 overs since 1 jan 2018 in only 18 matches, surely that has to mean 100 wickets at a SR of a poor 60? Bowlers at the other end at the same time, not seeing anyone with 100 wickets, not even combining Starc and Hazlewood is 955 overs only 96 wickets (what's that 5 full test dismissals out of 13 tests for half our bowling attack), plenty of opportunities for Lyon. Do you think Cummins back is getting sore from carrying the weight of the bowling attack. But Lyon is the best we have I can't think of anyone else for Australia. Probably adds more to the argument that Australia doesn't have the best attack in the world. 18 matches a possible 360 wickets to take to win and the attack of Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon can only take 260 combined, why are we losing so much and are ranked 5th in the world? Gee I don't know!
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLyon is a specialist Australian conditions spinner uses the extra bounce which he was bought up on. How would he go as a spinner if playing in the sub continent who knows, he does have a better average in India than his overall average, but so far behind India's spinners, doubtful he would ever get a run. The ICC probably looked at number of wickets taken, but does not excuse overlooking Perera, Shah, Jadeja nor any Bangladesh bowlers. The only reason Lyon has taken so many wickets is solely, someone has to, it's not like we're destroying batting sides with our bowlers, and oppositions are batting for a long time due to lack of wicket taking elsewhere, Cummins does need a rest. Look at the number of deliveries bowled by Australia since 1 jan 2018 compared to India, South Africa, even NZ. Even Sri Lanka who have played same matches have bowled less deliveries. And only 7 of the 18 matches were played on the so-called "batting friendly Australian pitches", which shows that Australia are struggling everywhere in the world to take wickets at an effective rate. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=balls;spanmin2=01+jan+2018;spanval2=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamEven from your above table you can see Lyon has bowled 615 overs for 49, double all the other bowlers with the exception of Perera who bowled 470 overs for 50 wickets. Lyons performance is greatly exaggerated because he gets more opportunities than the others. Also probably explains why Australia feel the need for M Marsh http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=balls;spanmin1=01+jan+2018;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=bowlingNearly 1000 overs since 1 jan 2018 in only 18 matches, surely that has to mean 100 wickets at a SR of a poor 60? Bowlers at the other end at the same time, not seeing anyone with 100 wickets, not even combining Starc and Hazlewood is 955 overs only 96 wickets (what's that 5 full test dismissals out of 13 tests for half our bowling attack), plenty of opportunities for Lyon. Do you think Cummins back is getting sore from carrying the weight of the bowling attack. But Lyon is the best we have I can't think of anyone else for Australia. Interesting thoughts. I have something to show you on the former topic, but it wont let me post it. You being a keen cricket stat observer will know that we are in a bowler era right now, some fans still seem think its the 2000's still. But watch this. Look at Cummins drop from 2016 on to 2018 on. Like most the bowlers do. But watch what happens to the support cast. He is literally the only Aus bowler under 29. I've never seen anything like this before. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=5;qualval1=innings_bowled;spanmin2=01+jan+2018;spanval2=span;template=results;type=allroundhttp://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=5;qualval1=innings_bowled;spanmin1=01+Jan+2016;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround| View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 jan 2018 | | Qualifications innings bowled in greater than or equal to 5 | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Overall figures| Player | Span | Mat | Runs | HS | Bat Av | 100 | Wkts | BBI | Bowl Av | 5 | Ct | St | Ave Diff | |
|---|
| JO Holder (WI) | 2018-2019 | 10 | 669 | 202* | 44.60 | 1 | 48 | 6/59 | 14.83 | 5 | 13 | 0 | 29.76 | | | TJ Murtagh (IRE) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 109 | 54* | 27.25 | 0 | 13 | 5/13 | 16.38 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10.86 | | | D Olivier (SA) | 2018-2019 | 5 | 19 | 10* | 4.75 | 0 | 31 | 6/37 | 17.12 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -12.37 | | | Mohammad Abbas (PAK) | 2018-2019 | 9 | 52 | 11 | 7.42 | 0 | 43 | 5/33 | 17.53 | 3 | 3 | 0 | -10.10 | | | Yamin Ahmadzai (AFG) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 12 | 9 | 2.40 | 0 | 10 | 3/41 | 17.90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -15.49 | | | Rashid Khan (AFG) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 104 | 51 | 20.80 | 0 | 20 | 6/49 | 18.00 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2.80 | | | VD Philander (SA) | 2018-2019 | 11 | 342 | 52* | 20.11 | 0 | 41 | 6/21 | 18.56 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1.55 | | | KAJ Roach (WI) | 2018-2019 | 11 | 282 | 39 | 21.69 | 0 | 46 | 5/8 | 19.00 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2.69 | | | PJ Cummins (AUS) | 2018-2019 | 16 | 347 | 63 | 15.08 | 0 | 87 | 6/23 | 19.05 | 3 | 7 | 0 | -3.97 | | | JJ Bumrah (INDIA) | 2018-2019 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 2.00 | 0 | 62 | 6/27 | 19.24 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -17.24 | | | L Ngidi (SA) | 2018-2018 | 4 | 15 | 5 | 3.75 | 0 | 15 | 6/39 | 19.53 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -15.78 | | | M Morkel (SA) | 2018-2018 | 6 | 42 | 10* | 5.25 | 0 | 28 | 5/23 | 19.78 | 1 | 4 | 0 | -14.53 | | | I Sharma (INDIA) | 2018-2019 | 13 | 145 | 57 | 8.52 | 0 | 52 | 5/43 | 19.78 | 2 | 5 | 0 | -11.25 | | | JC Archer (ENG) | 2019-2019 | 4 | 48 | 15 | 6.85 | 0 | 22 | 6/45 | 20.27 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -13.41 | | | SR Thompson (IRE) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 64 | 53 | 10.66 | 0 | 10 | 3/28 | 20.40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -9.73 | | | Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH) | 2018-2019 | 5 | 268 | 80 | 29.77 | 0 | 22 | 6/33 | 20.50 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 9.27 | | | Mohammad Amir (PAK) | 2018-2019 | 6 | 106 | 24* | 15.14 | 0 | 24 | 4/36 | 21.00 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -5.85 | | | K Rabada (SA) | 2018-2019 | 14 | 247 | 30 | 10.29 | 0 | 71 | 6/54 | 21.01 | 2 | 13 | 0 | -10.72 | | | UT Yadav (INDIA) | 2018-2018 | 5 | 57 | 26* | 19.00 | 0 | 20 | 6/88 | 21.40 | 1 | 3 | 0 | -2.39 | | | TG Southee (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 9 | 227 | 68 | 32.42 | 0 | 43 | 6/62 | 22.39 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 10.03 | | | TA Boult (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 11 | 77 | 26 | 9.62 | 0 | 54 | 6/30 | 22.87 | 3 | 9 | 0 | -13.24 | | | JM Anderson (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 16 | 55 | 12 | 5.50 | 0 | 53 | 5/20 | 22.90 | 2 | 7 | 0 | -17.40 | | | Nayeem Hasan (BDESH) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 51 | 26 | 17.00 | 0 | 10 | 5/61 | 23.70 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -6.69 | | | Mahmudullah (BDESH) | 2018-2019 | 11 | 738 | 146 | 41.00 | 3 | 4 | 1/3 | 23.75 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 17.25 | | | AS Joseph (WI) | 2019-2019 | 3 | 43 | 34 | 10.75 | 0 | 10 | 2/12 | 23.80 | 0 | 4 | 0 | -13.04 | | | ST Gabriel (WI) | 2018-2019 | 13 | 50 | 12 | 3.57 | 0 | 50 | 8/62 | 24.60 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -21.02 | | | RA Jadeja (INDIA) | 2018-2019 | 8 | 384 | 100* | 48.00 | 1 | 33 | 4/17 | 24.66 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 23.33 | | | MVT Fernando (SL) | 2019-2019 | 3 | 7 | 6* | 3.50 | 0 | 16 | 4/62 | 24.75 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -21.24 | | | A Dananjaya (SL) | 2018-2019 | 6 | 135 | 43* | 16.87 | 0 | 33 | 6/115 | 24.81 | 4 | 1 | 0 | -7.94 | | | WER Somerville (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 65 | 40* | 32.50 | 0 | 14 | 4/75 | 25.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.35 | | | Taijul Islam (BDESH) | 2018-2019 | 9 | 139 | 39* | 10.69 | 0 | 51 | 6/33 | 25.27 | 4 | 5 | 0 | -14.58 | | | R Ashwin (INDIA) | 2018-2018 | 10 | 306 | 38 | 20.40 | 0 | 38 | 4/27 | 25.36 | 0 | 2 | 0 | -4.96 | | | Yasir Shah (PAK) | 2018-2019 | 7 | 63 | 28 | 5.72 | 0 | 38 | 8/41 | 25.60 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -19.87 | | | Mohammed Shami (INDIA) | 2018-2019 | 15 | 107 | 28 | 5.63 | 0 | 58 | 6/56 | 25.68 | 2 | 3 | 0 | -20.05 | | | N Wagner (NZ) | 2018-2019 | 8 | 109 | 47 | 13.62 | 0 | 30 | 5/45 | 25.80 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -12.17 | | | CR Woakes (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 9 | 356 | 137* | 27.38 | 1 | 28 | 6/17 | 26.03 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1.34 | | | MJ Leach (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 9 | 202 | 92 | 18.36 | 0 | 32 | 5/83 | 26.06 | 1 | 4 | 0 | -7.69 | | | Faheem Ashraf (PAK) | 2018-2019 | 4 | 138 | 83 | 23.00 | 0 | 11 | 3/42 | 26.09 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3.09 | | | Kuldeep Yadav (INDIA) | 2018-2019 | 4 | 18 | 12 | 4.50 | 0 | 15 | 5/57 | 26.13 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -21.63 | | | SCJ Broad (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 19 | 228 | 38 | 9.50 | 0 | 69 | 6/54 | 26.15 | 2 | 6 | 0 | -16.65 | | | RAS Lakmal (SL) | 2018-2019 | 17 | 295 | 40 | 12.82 | 0 | 45 | 5/54 | 26.33 | 2 | 6 | 0 | -13.50 | | | Bilal Asif (PAK) | 2018-2018 | 5 | 73 | 15 | 9.12 | 0 | 16 | 6/36 | 26.50 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -17.37 | | | Mehidy Hasan Miraz (BDESH) | 2018-2019 | 10 | 296 | 68* | 19.73 | 0 | 46 | 7/58 | 27.41 | 4 | 9 | 0 | -7.67 | | | GH Vihari (INDIA) | 2018-2019 | 6 | 456 | 111 | 45.60 | 1 | 5 | 3/37 | 28.40 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17.20 | | | HMRKB Herath (SL) | 2018-2018 | 6 | 86 | 35 | 9.55 | 0 | 27 | 6/98 | 28.62 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -19.07 | | | MA Wood (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 3 | 78 | 52 | 15.60 | 0 | 10 | 5/41 | 28.80 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -13.19 | | | PADLR Sandakan (SL) | 2018-2018 | 3 | 40 | 25 | 10.00 | 0 | 12 | 5/95 | 28.83 | 1 | 3 | 0 | -18.83 | | | MM Ali (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 12 | 358 | 60 | 15.56 | 0 | 50 | 5/63 | 28.84 | 1 | 6 | 0 | -13.27 | | | SM Curran (ENG) | 2018-2019 | 11 | 541 | 78 | 30.05 | 0 | 21 | 4/74 | 29.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.05 | | | Shadab Khan (PAK) | 2018-2019 | 4 | 223 | 56 | 44.60 | 0 | 11 | 3/31 | 29.18 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 15.41 | | | Page 1 of 2 | Showing 1 - 50 of 89 | | First Previous | | |
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
The 2016 link fried - but here is the relevant parts. | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jan 2016 | | Qualifications innings bowled in greater than or equal to 5 | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
Curiously we keep calling for Southee to be dropped in NZ too. For some weird reason, Wagner is always the first dropped :(
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHere you go Paddles. So you don't feel left out. :)
The irony is that it happened against Pakistan, past masters of (ahem) "reverse swing". It's not a recent nor likely to be an isolated phenomena restricted to any particular team or something teams wait until they are losing to try. It's been happening in Aus domestic cricket for awhile. We've had coaches done for ball tampering! Not that it can't happen without tampering, but really how much of this spectacular "reverse swing" has ever been solely down to the bowler, and how much to "ball preparation"? By the way, what are your views on openly and blatantly "chucking"? That cheating? [quote] Take one bottle top. Cut into quarters. Apply tape, leaving sharp point exposed. Hide in pocket. Gouge cricket ball when required. It seems brazen, incongruous and bound to draw attention from match officials, but New Zealand's cricketers admitted doing all of the above in full view during a test in Pakistan in 1990. In those days of no match referees they were never sanctioned for ball tampering, despite Chris Pringle generating spectacular reverse swing in an 11-wicket haul which nearly spurred New Zealand to victory in the third test of that series in Faisalabad. Chris Pringle totally cheated. But NZ was crap back then. Not world class. No Hadlee, no Chatfield, no Bracwell, no Snedden Crap. Just crap. We cheated. Didn't even have Wright on that tour. We sucked.... see where this is going... You seem to be inferring that only crap teams cheat. If so, your present captain is a blatant chucker (and has been banned before), which is obviously cheating. As he has been reported again recently, would this infer that NZ are crap at the moment? They seem to be going ok. Williamson seems a fine bloke. That NZ team was so bad, Imran Khan refused to play. That is how bad that cheating Pringle team was. It was horrid. Akram and Younis thrashed that team. Much much much better bowlers.
Imran claims that he wasn't shy about putting a bit of extracurricular work on the ball himself (with bottle tops). Read the article further to find what the kiwis though of the Pakastani bowlers and why they decided to level the playing field.
But Pringle was never caught on camera, and admitted it happily after getting away with it... And he never said it was sticky tape with grit neither... he said what he did. And owned it like a champ...
Oh, all good then. If he had have captained a team with a particular knucklehead who was not very good at ball tampering schemes though, and then tried to do the right thing by standing by them, he would be the devil incarnate. Objectivity again. 1 KW has chucked. But he aint a bowler. Lets talk about Lee.... True, Williamson is not a bowler he's a chucker. That's cheating. Though he is also one of the nicer blokes in world cricket, and a great batsman. So is Smith and I wonder why he is treated so differently to Williamson, Khan, Atherton, Faff and any number of others. Let's talk about Lee then. If you could persuade that he was a genuine chucker (doubtful), that would at least destroy your inference that only crap teams cheat.
3 You can defend Smith as captain if you want. Smith is one of th etwo best batsmen I have ever watched. I rate him highly. Still a cheat, though. (Sorrry - he was captain and knew it wasn't sticky tape with grit).
Wasn't much of a Captain (tactically better than Paine though), but he seems a nice enough person. After the fact, yes he knew it wasn't sticky tape. His biggest mistake was that presser after play. Though CA never found or claimed that he had foreknowledge of the particular plan. He had knowledge of a "potential plot". Very different thing. He saw the two players in discussion, thought they were "up to something" but didn't take it further. I think he has been treated very unfairly.
Whathas any of this have to do with the Aussie bowlers are so bad, you only won 3 of your last 11 test series? Despite Smith? I dont get it...
You brought the "cheating" part up. Still not buying the World class attack part.... | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Apr 2016 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
| Page 1 of 1 | Showing 1 - 12 of 12 | | First Previous | Next Last | |
| Statsguru includes the following current or recent Test matches: | England v Australia at The Oval, 5th Test, Sep 12-15, 2019 [Test # 2362]
| Bangladesh v Afghanistan at Chattogram, Only Test, Sep 5-9, 2019 [Test # 2361]
| England v Australia at Manchester, 4th Test, Sep 4-8, 2019 [Test # 2360]
|
Your statistical (ahem) “analysis” seems a little cursory, and while I’m no statistician, it’s obvious that you certainly aren’t either lol. What factors have you considered which could modify/affect/skew the analysis, how have you allowed for this. None? You also seem to have accepted homogeneity across the board over the last few years, which is quite unreasonable. How did you allow for this. You didn't? We play most of our cricket on some of the most batting friendly surfaces on the planet where our batsmen plunder weak “away” attacks like the poms, the Lankans, Pakistan who come out here every four years or so and have been in the last few. At the same time such conditions offer little to our bowlers. It’s rare to get a bowler friendly pitch, (though it does happen i.e. our batsmen rolling over at Bellerieve). You don’t see how this could skew your “analysis” in favour of our batting, unrealistically? Or skew our bowling against averages of other attacks? Why wouldn’t our stats be perfectly consistent and expected? Have you consulted anything other than your own belief? What historical trends have you compared? A quick look shows that historically, our batting average is weaker over the last few years (by a couple of runs), while over the same period our bowlers are performing 5 whole runs better than our historical average. Not relevant? Our current bowlers are averaging the same over the last few years as we did from 2000- '09. We had weak attacks then too? Yet our current batting is worse on average by about 13 whole runs lol. Yet our bowlers are letting us down. :blink:It looks like you simply formed an opinion, then hit statsguru for statistics to support it. Lies and statistics. No, you just cant handle the truth, so you try to deny the stats. You're wasting my time. Your attack is not world class in this era. It was in the early 2000's. Stop wasting my time. | View overall figures [change view] | | Start of match date between 1 Jan 2000 and 1 Apr 2007 | | Grouped by team | | Ordered by bowling average (ascending) |
I agree with Baggers. Paddles, we are trying to build the forum. How about a civil post, welcoming the participation of a new member, even if he disagrees with you, mate? Flyslip isn't wasting anybody's time. I'm keen for you to build the forum. And I appreciate you trying to be forum leader of us like you would your pupils. If you read back, I did the civil welcoming post, and I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. Done many years in litigation, even done work teaching law at university, teaching people to disagree with their fellow colleagues. So that's really not the issue for me. You have me pegged quite incorrectly there. I do not get personal over disagreement. I welcome debate. I said "Heya, thanks for your thoughts and reply." right at the beginning. Read back, you will see it. He said "lol" in reply and questioned my logic or integrity that I had straw manned him. Which I hadn't. I was sticking to my original premises. But when he brought up Chris Pringle from 1990, I thought that was gorgeous as he is so keen to talk about irrelevancies. My premises are - Broad is overrated (ill even raise it being lucky to be in the England team given the injuries to Stone, TRJ and Anderson). And that the current Australian attack is not world class. I have not wavered on those. And I get they are unpopular topics for many. But they are my opinions, and my conclusions that have been put out there. But for the good of the forum, I will politely avoid talking to this user directly for a while and just keep positing my statistical observations.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
Totally agree, But pro support cast will say Cummins is taking the wickets because of the pressure bowling applied by the support cast. You and I both know, garbage. The one question I ask, is what if I am right about my take on the support cast? I'm not Nostradamus, it's there if you look, As you point out it's just on the downhill slide, when is enough enough and we try someone else? We don't have another spinner IMO. Do we just have to wait for injuries and continue losing. Do we wait for the under-performing teams like Pakistan, jump up and down saying see they're good again and then put them up against quality opposition and fail again. I've always asked when is enough enough? I would have dropped Starc and Hazlewood after SA debacle. Warner's use of sandpaper was to help Starc and Hazlewood try to swing the ball, it is saying, "you are bowling garbage let me see if I can help by breaking the rules".
Look how Supporters carried on when England fell for 67, Hazlewood SR 16 Cummins SR 18 Pattinson SR 15, they all did it against England's poor batting Hazlewood just got more opportunity than the others that's why he got 5 for. All catches except Leach. Then England knuckled down in the 2nd innings and they ended up winning, How can a team possibly win when dismissed for 67 trailing by 113 (see the batsmen did their jobs) they have to score a record score and people refuse to put any blame on the bowlers, is beyond me. But they go as far as to dub them "world's best attack". Does that mean England has the "world's best batting side".
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTotally agree, But pro support cast will say Cummins is taking the wickets because of the pressure bowling applied by the support cast. You and I both know, garbage. The one question I ask, is what if I am right about my take on the support cast? I'm not Nostradamus, it's there if you look, As you point out it's just on the downhill slide, when is enough enough and we try someone else? We don't have another spinner IMO. Do we just have to wait for injuries and continue losing. Do we wait for the under-performing teams like Pakistan, jump up and down saying see they're good again and then put them up against quality opposition and fail again. I've always asked when is enough enough? I would have dropped Starc and Hazlewood after SA debacle. Warner's use of sandpaper was to help Starc and Hazlewood try to swing the ball, it is saying, "you are bowling garbage let me see if I can help by breaking the rules". Look how Supporters carried on when England fell for 67, Hazlewood SR 16 Cummins SR 18 Pattinson SR 15, they all did it against England's poor batting Hazlewood just got more opportunity than the others that's why he got 5 for. All catches except Leach. Then England knuckled down in the 2nd innings and they ended up winning, How can a team possibly win when dismissed for 67 trailing by 113 (see the batsmen did their jobs) they have to score a record score and people refuse to put any blame on the bowlers, is beyond me. But they go as far as to dub them "world's best attack". Does that mean England has the "world's best batting side". Yeah I firmly believe, that the way a bowler helps another in test cricket, is to get a wicket, and send a new batsman out, cos the cheapest time to dismiss a batsman is before he has 25+ runs on the board. There is far less run rate pressure in test cricket compared to limited overs. Bowl 20 maidens at Boycott, S Waugh, Faf or Dravid for all they care. New batsmen are easier to dismiss than set batsmen. The problem is potential vs results. Hazlewood has potential in many people's eyes. And I can see why. When he was in NZ in 2016, he didn't do well. But he was nagging. Constantly on the stumps. Now he is so much wider, which you identify. That's taken bowled and lbw out of the equation. Batsman want this. S Smith is making a stellar career out of it but batting on 5th stump! And bowlers follow him, blindly. It's a genius ploy. So simple. But he has convinced every bowler to bowl wide to him. I find it stupid bowling, and would set a leg side field to him. I've said this since 2015. The one time he failed in England, caught at leg slip... Root however said, they tried it in the first test, but the catches were't going to hand. Fine. Have a fine leg, a leg slip (that's how NZ got him in the WC too - we came up with leg slip plan) and a square leg on the left of the umpire. Smith will still score runs at huge numbers. He's too good and too smart not too. I mean, he saw waht Graeme Smith did, and said, I'll step further accross. But not at the Bradman levels he has been churning out. (Gary Kirsten used to try and do the same thing). I think its a genius tactic more batsmen should use. Haze has height, channel accuracy, and pace when he wants it on tap. But he isn't performing. I don't think Starc ever will be much more than a tail end smasher. For all those destructive spells, he will bowl so much short wide rubbish in betweeen, cos his action is limited to yorker accuracy. He falls away so much at the crease, its basically impossible for him to hit a length that isn't full on demand. He reminds me of Jerome Taylor and Mo Sami, despite the fact he is so much taller than them and it should be easy for him. But he totally collapses in release. All he can see accurately is full. (Yes Dec, I have bowled enough to know this, without being a physicist in optics or biomechanics - but try it yourself, stand tall and look at the ground, bowl a ball, you can hit closer to the ground you more accurately than further away, now collapse and crouch your stance and get more side arm, do it at again, you won't be as accurate closer, but you will be further away disproportionately - hence Malinga and Starc are famous for yorkers, this is why short bowlers like Sami and Curran struggle to hit length, and often bowl full and short instead, and why tall bowlers like McGrath, Hadlee, Reid, Ambrose could length all day, hence why most bowlers are typically tall and over 6 foot - but batsmen are typically shorter, cos the shorter a batsman is, the less room for bowlers to hit a length - which is between a pull and a drive, its not a set measurement, it depends on the height of a batsman, there are tall exceptions like Greig and Lloyd, or Garner for his yorkers, but he almost so tall, he hadn't lost the margin of error, but regained it, so it was still seemingly "close" to him, but not all that many exceptions for this not to be a rule: hence height is an advantage to bowling for more reasons than bounce, lack of height advantages batsmen as long as they still strong enough to hit the boundary). Of course I am sure you already know why length is so important.... Cos on the right line, in the textbook, there is no statistically productive shot to play for it, its too short to drive for a good risk return, too full to pull for a good risk return, and you don't glance it unless your Steve Smith batting on 5th stump (that's why he a genius) - admittedly in ODI people like KW run it down to the third man for one, but in test cricket there are slips. I am concerned about Patto, though. He had the tools to be the next Steyn, now he is just bowling far too wide also. Throwing out wide stuff for rhb batsmen to nick off too is a hail mary, its not plan A. Forcing them to play, getting lbw bowled or a nick all, that's plan A.
|
|
|
|
|
RedKat
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4K,
Visits: 1
|
2nd T20I South Africa 149/5 (20) - De Kock 52(37), Bavuma 49(43) - Chahar 2/22 (4) India 151/3 (19) - Kohli 72* (52), Dhawan 40(31) - Shamsi 1/19 (3) South Africa played 3 T20I debutants- Temba Bavuma (49), Bjorn Fortuin (1/32 off 4) and Andrich Nortje (0/27 off 3)
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xDiscussing with Decentric got me thinking, about a topic I often think about. What is world class? | 1 | 908 | P.J. Cummins |  | 914 v England, 18/08/2019 | | 2 | 851 | K. Rabada |  | 902 v Australia, 12/03/2018 | | 3 | 835 | J.J. Bumrah |  | 835 v West Indies, 02/09/2019 | | 4 | 814 | J.M. Anderson |  | 903 v India, 13/08/2018 | | 4 | 814 | J.O. Holder |  | 814 v India, 02/09/2019 | | 6 | 813 | V.D. Philander | | 912 v India, 22/12/2013 | | 7 | 795 | T.A. Boult |  | 825 v England, 25/05/2015 | | 8 | 785 | N. Wagner | | 801 v Bangladesh, 12/03/2019 | | 9 | 780 | K.A.J. Roach | | 780 v India, 02/09/2019 | | 10 | 770 | Mohammad Abbas |  | 838 v New Zealand, 19/11/2018 | | 11 | 764 | R.A. Jadeja | | 899 v Australia, 20/03/2017 | | 12 | 758 | J.R. Hazlewood | | 863 v India, 08/03/2017 | | 13 | 754 | T.G. Southee | | 799 v West Indies, 12/06/2014 | | 14 | 747 | R. Ashwin | | 904 v England, 12/12/2016 | | 15 | 731 | S.C.J. Broad | | 880 v South Africa, 18/01/2016 | | 16 | 710 | Yasir Shah | | 878 v England, 18/07/2016 | | 17 | 698 | M.A. Starc | | 805 v Pakistan, 19/12/2016 | | 18 | 680 | Mohammad Shami | | 703 v South Africa, 28/01/2018 | | 18 | 680 | S.T. Gabriel | | 757 v Bangladesh, 14/07/2018 | | 20 | 677 | I. Sharma | | 677 v West Indies, 02/09/2019 | | 21 | 674 | N.M. Lyon |
Here is the current top 21 bowlers. Now, what some of you may not know, is that a bowler needs a 100 wickets before they are not penalised. This means Bumrah on 60 something wickets, is massively penalised right now, and so is Abbas on 60 something wickets. The difference this makes is huge, cos Bumrah, having played in SA, Eng and Aus all recently like Cummins, has averaged 19 for his career striking at 43 with over 5 wickets per test. Cummins is also a very impressive 5 per test, but at 21 average at 46 and has a massive lead over Bumrah. Another example, is Holder with 101 wickets at 27 striking at 63, is higher than Abbas at 19 striking at 46. So now you will understand the penalty system. But most the following bowlers have 100 wickets. Abbas and Bumrah are recent freaks to world test cricket. But lets look closer at the list. WI - Holder and Roach are both in the top 10. But noone really seems to rate them nor discuss them. They have Gabriel in 18th. But noone is really calling them world class. But 2 in the top 10. They do love to outbowl England, though. And were very impressive against India, but their own batting was diabolical to the point cricinfo wrote an article reminding everyone how well Roach had bowled despite Bumrah turning the series into his own highlights package. SA - they have Rabada and Philander in the top 10, and everyone agrees that they are world class, they also have Ngidi, and Nortje. So SA is world class? I'm fine with this, but after losing Steyn, Abbot, MMorkel, Olivier, they do need Ngidi to carry on as he has started which is averaging 19 and striking at 41. He averages 17 v India and 15 v Australia, so I like his chances he avoids touring SL soon. NZ - Boult and Wagner in the top 10. But noone is calling them world class right? 13th for Southee. But NZ's attack is not world class. And that's fine by me. I would like to see Ferguson given a go as 4th seamer for a reason, too. This attack needs to roll SA or Aus to be world class. Its not able to claim this world class label yet. England - well they only have Jimmy in the top 10. Broad at 15th. Archer will be there soon enough one would feel, though. But are they world class? Woakes, Wood, TRJ, Stone, Overton... The English commentators tell me they are. Maybe with TRJ they could have been. But Archer only just got on the scene and I've been told they're world class for years. Jimmy dominates at home, does much less away. All the hopes for the future lie on Archer and Stone. They were outbowled in the Windies and had to call in Wood to add some muscle, but this was pre Archer debuting. I am not calling this attack worldclass as yet. I think Archer will be, I don't know if Anderson will ever return, and I don't know enough about Stone. I don't know if Wood can shakes years of mediocrity, and I don't rate Stuart Broad. I just don't. Aus - Cummins at #1, going great guns, but only top 10 member, but Haze at 12 and Starc at 17. Is this World Class? I'll tread lightly here as an Australian forum. Its ranking below WI and NZ. India, well since Bumrah, we are now told all the time they have a WC seam attack. Bumrah is the only one in the top 3, with Sharma 20 and Shami 18th. But India is of course different with all their spin tracks at home, and Jadeja is 11th and Ashwin 14th. They also have BK as a spare seamer, and hopefully they will not select Yadav again any time soon unless its against NZ. So India for mine, depsite ranking below Aus, NZ and WI, is possibly the better attack for mine. But if Bumrah gets injured, everything changes. Instantly. When India tour here this summer, more will be revealed about their current seam attack. And NZ's for that matter. Pak has Abbas in the top 10, and Shenwari, Afridi, (63) and Hasan (43) Ali do not yet rank. With Amir 31 retired. Some raw and undeniable talent, but clearly not world class proven yet I think is the safest opinion here. Its a very new, young, and inexperienced attack. So which attacks are world class? How many can be world class? For mine, SA is world class. No doubt. But I am counting on Ngidi to continue on his merry way. But I have seen nothing to suggest he won't. Fitness is more of a concern for him. But they rate this Nortje kid too. India lost in SA to Rabada and Ngidi, and lost in England to a Curran batting and Anderson bowling, won in Aus vs a Smithless Australia. They completely outbowled the Aus attack. And Bumrah is now bowling inswingers and outswingers at will, with Shami bowling 140 outswing, and Sharma line and length with an inswinger. Okay, so if I call the Indian attack world class. I now already have 2 world class attacks. But NZ and WI rate higher than the Indian attack on ratings. For whatever that is worth. NZ outbowled WI here due a to a short barrage, that Gabriel later served up to England. So these attacks are not really world class? Which then leaves Australia, outbowled by India, ranking lower that NZ and WI, as world class? How is that possible? Is Cummins that good? Is that the difference? The 3 spear heads of Bumrah, Cummins, and Rabada just the attack around them? But if that were so, that would make the player world class not the attack. Am I being too harsh, or is world class just totally overused as a term? SL has Lakmal and Kumara, which is certainly better than Bangladesh which is a bit pop gun. But SL needs to develop Chameera and further support for these guys. Ireland's Murtagh is a fabulous cricketer. But he pretyt much is the attack. I expect Hazlewoods 3 tests - 18 @16.8 s/r 40.4 with a game to play. will jump him several places. Cummins 4 tests - 24 @17.4 s/r 41 will retain his #1 spot. Starc will stay where he is on 17 or perhaps even drop. No - the list was done 2 September. Its only missing the last test. Hazelwood didn't move up at all from the first 2 tests he played. Starc went up cos Gabriel went down losing points vs India. Cummins will keep #1, but he lost 6 points in 2nd and 3rd tests. Because the English batting is rated so poorly, your bowlers are just as likely to lose points like Cummins has been. Root is 6th, Stokes 13th, then Bairstow in 32nd.. Butler 41... Burns 67 below Paine.. But there is a win bonus - which should help the Aussie bowlers. :P Impressive knowledge. Where do you learn all this stuff, Paddles? I think this rating the bowler on the quality of his opposition is a nonsense. The bowler prepares for a series with intensity and then bowls in the matches fully expecting a worthy opponent..with that same intensity. The bowler shud not be penalised if the batsman is not up to Test standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xDiscussing with Decentric got me thinking, about a topic I often think about. What is world class? | 1 | 908 | P.J. Cummins | | 914 v England, 18/08/2019 | | 2 | 851 | K. Rabada | | 902 v Australia, 12/03/2018 | | 3 | 835 | J.J. Bumrah | | 835 v West Indies, 02/09/2019 | | 4 | 814 | J.M. Anderson | | 903 v India, 13/08/2018 | | 4 | 814 | J.O. Holder | | 814 v India, 02/09/2019 | | 6 | 813 | V.D. Philander | | 912 v India, 22/12/2013 | | 7 | 795 | T.A. Boult | | 825 v England, 25/05/2015 | | 8 | 785 | N. Wagner | | 801 v Bangladesh, 12/03/2019 | | 9 | 780 | K.A.J. Roach | | 780 v India, 02/09/2019 | | 10 | 770 | Mohammad Abbas | | 838 v New Zealand, 19/11/2018 | | 11 | 764 | R.A. Jadeja | | 899 v Australia, 20/03/2017 | | 12 | 758 | J.R. Hazlewood | | 863 v India, 08/03/2017 | | 13 | 754 | T.G. Southee | | 799 v West Indies, 12/06/2014 | | 14 | 747 | R. Ashwin | | 904 v England, 12/12/2016 | | 15 | 731 | S.C.J. Broad | | 880 v South Africa, 18/01/2016 | | 16 | 710 | Yasir Shah | | 878 v England, 18/07/2016 | | 17 | 698 | M.A. Starc | | 805 v Pakistan, 19/12/2016 | | 18 | 680 | Mohammad Shami | | 703 v South Africa, 28/01/2018 | | 18 | 680 | S.T. Gabriel | | 757 v Bangladesh, 14/07/2018 | | 20 | 677 | I. Sharma | | 677 v West Indies, 02/09/2019 | | 21 | 674 | N.M. Lyon |
Here is the current top 21 bowlers. Now, what some of you may not know, is that a bowler needs a 100 wickets before they are not penalised. This means Bumrah on 60 something wickets, is massively penalised right now, and so is Abbas on 60 something wickets. The difference this makes is huge, cos Bumrah, having played in SA, Eng and Aus all recently like Cummins, has averaged 19 for his career striking at 43 with over 5 wickets per test. Cummins is also a very impressive 5 per test, but at 21 average at 46 and has a massive lead over Bumrah. Another example, is Holder with 101 wickets at 27 striking at 63, is higher than Abbas at 19 striking at 46. So now you will understand the penalty system. But most the following bowlers have 100 wickets. Abbas and Bumrah are recent freaks to world test cricket. But lets look closer at the list. WI - Holder and Roach are both in the top 10. But noone really seems to rate them nor discuss them. They have Gabriel in 18th. But noone is really calling them world class. But 2 in the top 10. They do love to outbowl England, though. And were very impressive against India, but their own batting was diabolical to the point cricinfo wrote an article reminding everyone how well Roach had bowled despite Bumrah turning the series into his own highlights package. SA - they have Rabada and Philander in the top 10, and everyone agrees that they are world class, they also have Ngidi, and Nortje. So SA is world class? I'm fine with this, but after losing Steyn, Abbot, MMorkel, Olivier, they do need Ngidi to carry on as he has started which is averaging 19 and striking at 41. He averages 17 v India and 15 v Australia, so I like his chances he avoids touring SL soon. NZ - Boult and Wagner in the top 10. But noone is calling them world class right? 13th for Southee. But NZ's attack is not world class. And that's fine by me. I would like to see Ferguson given a go as 4th seamer for a reason, too. This attack needs to roll SA or Aus to be world class. Its not able to claim this world class label yet. England - well they only have Jimmy in the top 10. Broad at 15th. Archer will be there soon enough one would feel, though. But are they world class? Woakes, Wood, TRJ, Stone, Overton... The English commentators tell me they are. Maybe with TRJ they could have been. But Archer only just got on the scene and I've been told they're world class for years. Jimmy dominates at home, does much less away. All the hopes for the future lie on Archer and Stone. They were outbowled in the Windies and had to call in Wood to add some muscle, but this was pre Archer debuting. I am not calling this attack worldclass as yet. I think Archer will be, I don't know if Anderson will ever return, and I don't know enough about Stone. I don't know if Wood can shakes years of mediocrity, and I don't rate Stuart Broad. I just don't. Aus - Cummins at #1, going great guns, but only top 10 member, but Haze at 12 and Starc at 17. Is this World Class? I'll tread lightly here as an Australian forum. Its ranking below WI and NZ. India, well since Bumrah, we are now told all the time they have a WC seam attack. Bumrah is the only one in the top 3, with Sharma 20 and Shami 18th. But India is of course different with all their spin tracks at home, and Jadeja is 11th and Ashwin 14th. They also have BK as a spare seamer, and hopefully they will not select Yadav again any time soon unless its against NZ. So India for mine, depsite ranking below Aus, NZ and WI, is possibly the better attack for mine. But if Bumrah gets injured, everything changes. Instantly. When India tour here this summer, more will be revealed about their current seam attack. And NZ's for that matter. Pak has Abbas in the top 10, and Shenwari, Afridi, (63) and Hasan (43) Ali do not yet rank. With Amir 31 retired. Some raw and undeniable talent, but clearly not world class proven yet I think is the safest opinion here. Its a very new, young, and inexperienced attack. So which attacks are world class? How many can be world class? For mine, SA is world class. No doubt. But I am counting on Ngidi to continue on his merry way. But I have seen nothing to suggest he won't. Fitness is more of a concern for him. But they rate this Nortje kid too. India lost in SA to Rabada and Ngidi, and lost in England to a Curran batting and Anderson bowling, won in Aus vs a Smithless Australia. They completely outbowled the Aus attack. And Bumrah is now bowling inswingers and outswingers at will, with Shami bowling 140 outswing, and Sharma line and length with an inswinger. Okay, so if I call the Indian attack world class. I now already have 2 world class attacks. But NZ and WI rate higher than the Indian attack on ratings. For whatever that is worth. NZ outbowled WI here due a to a short barrage, that Gabriel later served up to England. So these attacks are not really world class? Which then leaves Australia, outbowled by India, ranking lower that NZ and WI, as world class? How is that possible? Is Cummins that good? Is that the difference? The 3 spear heads of Bumrah, Cummins, and Rabada just the attack around them? But if that were so, that would make the player world class not the attack. Am I being too harsh, or is world class just totally overused as a term? SL has Lakmal and Kumara, which is certainly better than Bangladesh which is a bit pop gun. But SL needs to develop Chameera and further support for these guys. Ireland's Murtagh is a fabulous cricketer. But he pretyt much is the attack. I expect Hazlewoods 3 tests - 18 @16.8 s/r 40.4 with a game to play. will jump him several places. Cummins 4 tests - 24 @17.4 s/r 41 will retain his #1 spot. Starc will stay where he is on 17 or perhaps even drop. No - the list was done 2 September. Its only missing the last test. Hazelwood didn't move up at all from the first 2 tests he played. Starc went up cos Gabriel went down losing points vs India. Cummins will keep #1, but he lost 6 points in 2nd and 3rd tests. Because the English batting is rated so poorly, your bowlers are just as likely to lose points like Cummins has been. Root is 6th, Stokes 13th, then Bairstow in 32nd.. Butler 41... Burns 67 below Paine.. But there is a win bonus - which should help the Aussie bowlers. :P Impressive knowledge. Where do you learn all this stuff, Paddles? I think this rating the bowler on the quality of his opposition is a nonsense. The bowler prepares for a series with intensity and then bowls in the matches fully expecting a worthy opponent..with that same intensity. The bowler shud not be penalised if the batsman is not up to Test standard. Well you can say the ratings are nonsense entirely, but you seem fond of reminding us where Cummins and Smith rate on the system :P I personally don't agree with the win bonus. If you bowl well, you bowl well, your rating should not depend on your team mates. I don't really buy into Geoff Howarth being rated higher on the all time peak list than Crowe. I think very very very few people would accept that. But anomalies happen. But these bonuses are small, or nurgatory when playing a top team and doing well but losing, like Roach did vs India. He's right up there on the rankings with Holder now. But Howarth better than Crowe? Never. Just never. Same for Taylor too, tbh. But seriously, and for example, the standardization attempt you complain about is just to demonstrate tail end Chris Martin's wickets is worth less than Kane Williamsons. This really only effects tail end bullies, who aren't getting the top 7 or so out. My biggest gripe with the ratings is the minimum cut offs are too high. CdG could potentially retire before hitting non penalty zone for bowling, as NZ play so few tests. It's incredibly biased against countries that don't play many tests. Everyone who is a true cricket fan and not a patriot knows Abbas is kicking ass, but look at his rating. Below Boult and Wagner? I don't think so. And I'm a Kiwi. Mind you, NZ showed the world he can be tamed, then SA followed, so maybe its fair in another way ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
 https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21746867/ipl-now-window-icc-future-tours-programmeSo lets have some truth here. If the IPL expands, and lets be honest, you can see it aiming to spread out already, and add further matches, or teams, March is under attack, cos England won't give up June. This won't worry Aus all that much, cos March is normally when you head to NZ, SA, or WI. March has become NZ's premier tour time, because it competes with Aus and SA to get quality teams over Xmas. So we normally have an Asian or WI team over Xmas, then in March we get an Aus, Eng, SA, Ind type. Though last year we doubled down on Asian teams. If the IPL expands - these 3 countries will be in trouble, with NZ's climate, basically ending NZ's ability to regularly (as in every 2nd year now as it is) host premier cricket teams. The IPL will not clash with any intl cricket at all, bar 3 ODI matches England will play 1 vs Ire and 2 vs Ned in. Don't expect their best team rolled out for those matches. It's astounding that this has been signed off on. But that is how powerful the BCCI is now, even England is feeling it and losing time from their schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+xhttps://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21746867/ipl-now-window-icc-future-tours-programmeSo lets have some truth here. If the IPL expands, and lets be honest, you can see it aiming to spread out already, and add further matches, or teams, March is under attack, cos England won't give up June. This won't worry Aus all that much, cos March is normally when you head to NZ, SA, or WI. March has become NZ's premier tour time, because it competes with Aus and SA to get quality teams over Xmas. So we normally have an Asian or WI team over Xmas, then in March we get an Aus, Eng, SA, Ind type. Though last year we doubled down on Asian teams. If the IPL expands - these 3 countries will be in trouble, with NZ's climate, basically ending NZ's ability to regularly (as in every 2nd year now as it is) host premier cricket teams. The IPL will not clash with any intl cricket at all, bar 3 ODI matches England will play 1 vs Ire and 2 vs Ned in. Don't expect their best team rolled out for those matches. It's astounding that this has been signed off on. But that is how powerful the BCCI is now, even England is feeling it and losing time from their schedule. Paddles what you have to understand is that we are dinosaurs in our support of worldwide cricket and ultimately cricket is dying except for India. The only reason the ICC even listen to Australia and England is because of the history associated with those two nations. NZ WI even SA don't matter in their eyes. 5 years ago this article was published https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11241729/Number-of-people-playing-cricket-in-England-and-Wales-has-plummeted-ECB-survey-shows.htmlThe problem was identified and the ECB wants to put more money into the grass roots. Have they been successful? https://www.statista.com/statistics/899199/cricket-participation-uk/With a drop off of 20% in the last 2 years I'd say no. For Australia it has been shown that CA is inflating the figures to keep the big bucks coming in from television rights. Look at NSW with 1/3 of Australia's population can't even beat out Vic in the number of true participants, which probably explains why Vic is the most successful state over the last 5 years, they have the biggest playing pool. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/caught-out-cricket-s-inflated-playing-numbers-revealed-20190720-p5292s.htmlAnother thing for Australia is the most common names in cricket are Smith and Singh. If it wasn't for the Indian migrants cricket would be in a worse state. You see this when India tour Australia the numbers in the crowd. But it is all about the money. Where is all this money going? The number of players are diminishing, the clubs are folding (800 in the last 10 years), yet they are getting record TV right deals. The money is going to an elite few. Baggers just started a thread about scholarships in NSW and probably thinks this is good, but here is the problem.. these elite few are pushing aside many others playing in NSW junior ranks who have now become disillusioned. CA offer scholarships to certain players as young as 15, who are identified as potential players based on someone's opinion, many of whom haven't performed to an "elite" standard in National championships compared to others yet still maintain their contracts whilst others who do perform are not selected for higher honours nor do they get these contracts. These kids are at the point of their lives where they have to make decisions. Do they take a gamble and continue training hoping for some recognition or do they concentrate elsewhere be it another sport, or their academic studies, going to University or getting a trade. Those with a brain will study, those that don't play Cricket and if that doesn't work out, there's always the dole. That is why numbers are dying off. But it doesn't stop there. CA contracts are offered to an elite few, otherwise they are on state contracts. England and Australia pay their elite so much compared to other countries yet both lie 4th and 5th in the world, is it money well spent? With the number of participants diminishing in England and Australia, there is less to choose from thus why the quality of England and Australia players is also diminishing. You will always see a player like Smith and Cummins, they're naturally talented, but made to look better because of the quality of the opposition, but is Smith really better than a Tendulkar or Lara? Matter of opinion on that question. The question is do NZ WI SA etc bring enough sponsorship to the ICC to prevent them from being screwed over when India want to change programming? In our eyes these are the nations that are keeping cricket alive, the players are not paid much and are playing for the love of the game, but for the ICC it is all about the money. Currently Australia and England do bring money in, but with the sport dying how much longer will it continue. The T20 game is the future in the ICC eyes, test cricket is just about dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xhttps://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21746867/ipl-now-window-icc-future-tours-programmeSo lets have some truth here. If the IPL expands, and lets be honest, you can see it aiming to spread out already, and add further matches, or teams, March is under attack, cos England won't give up June. This won't worry Aus all that much, cos March is normally when you head to NZ, SA, or WI. March has become NZ's premier tour time, because it competes with Aus and SA to get quality teams over Xmas. So we normally have an Asian or WI team over Xmas, then in March we get an Aus, Eng, SA, Ind type. Though last year we doubled down on Asian teams. If the IPL expands - these 3 countries will be in trouble, with NZ's climate, basically ending NZ's ability to regularly (as in every 2nd year now as it is) host premier cricket teams. The IPL will not clash with any intl cricket at all, bar 3 ODI matches England will play 1 vs Ire and 2 vs Ned in. Don't expect their best team rolled out for those matches. It's astounding that this has been signed off on. But that is how powerful the BCCI is now, even England is feeling it and losing time from their schedule. Paddles what you have to understand is that we are dinosaurs in our support of worldwide cricket and ultimately cricket is dying except for India. The only reason the ICC even listen to Australia and England is because of the history associated with those two nations. NZ WI even SA don't matter in their eyes. 5 years ago this article was published https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11241729/Number-of-people-playing-cricket-in-England-and-Wales-has-plummeted-ECB-survey-shows.htmlThe problem was identified and the ECB wants to put more money into the grass roots. Have they been successful? https://www.statista.com/statistics/899199/cricket-participation-uk/With a drop off of 20% in the last 2 years I'd say no. For Australia it has been shown that CA is inflating the figures to keep the big bucks coming in from television rights. Look at NSW with 1/3 of Australia's population can't even beat out Vic in the number of true participants, which probably explains why Vic is the most successful state over the last 5 years, they have the biggest playing pool. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/caught-out-cricket-s-inflated-playing-numbers-revealed-20190720-p5292s.htmlAnother thing for Australia is the most common names in cricket are Smith and Singh. If it wasn't for the Indian migrants cricket would be in a worse state. You see this when India tour Australia the numbers in the crowd. But it is all about the money. Where is all this money going? The number of players are diminishing, the clubs are folding (800 in the last 10 years), yet they are getting record TV right deals. The money is going to an elite few. Baggers just started a thread about scholarships in NSW and probably thinks this is good, but here is the problem.. these elite few are pushing aside many others playing in NSW junior ranks who have now become disillusioned. CA offer scholarships to certain players as young as 15, who are identified as potential players based on someone's opinion, many of whom haven't performed to an "elite" standard in National championships compared to others yet still maintain their contracts whilst others who do perform are not selected for higher honours nor do they get these contracts. These kids are at the point of their lives where they have to make decisions. Do they take a gamble and continue training hoping for some recognition or do they concentrate elsewhere be it another sport, or their academic studies, going to University or getting a trade. Those with a brain will study, those that don't play Cricket and if that doesn't work out, there's always the dole. That is why numbers are dying off. But it doesn't stop there. CA contracts are offered to an elite few, otherwise they are on state contracts. England and Australia pay their elite so much compared to other countries yet both lie 4th and 5th in the world, is it money well spent? The question is do NZ WI SA etc bring enough sponsorship to the ICC to prevent them from being screwed over when India want to change programming? In our eyes these are the nations that are keeping cricket alive, the players are not paid much and are playing for the love of the game, but for the ICC it is all about the money. Currently Australia and England do bring money in, but with the sport dying how much longer will it continue. The T20 game is the future in the ICC eyes, test cricket is just about dead. Mike, you and I are on a whole different level in our support of cricket, understanding of cricket, and our understanding of the cricket politics all. Read the top test wicket taking thread, where I showed how the bCCI banned Shane Bond. They didn't even find it shameful. Their success in doing it is a point of pride to them. And the BCCI announced itself as the indisputable oligarch leader in world cricket. Pakistan lost their best batsman in Mohammad Yousef in the process, it wasn't just NZ trampled on. The poor nations got rissoled. Totally. The BCCI is not good for world cricket, and they make no claims, outside of Afghanistan, to be. But they even crapped on their t20 competition. The BCCI about themselves, for themselves. To me they are myopic, and will transform the sport into kabbaddi levels. ECB and CA are taking their money without a long term vision. They just assume SA, NZ and WI will hang in there. But we won't. We seriously won't. We're already under attack from differing sporting codes. If Tim May had not gotten elected, and had a world view representing Australia, SA, WI and NZ were toast. Absolute toast. CA and ECB are the only ones to protect world cricket, but we need more Tim May types, and not his predecessor at CA - to keep the game in balance. I think it will ultimately be a lost cause, but I appreciate his efforts. Anyone else, who has no idea what Mike and I are talking about, watch Australian journalist Jarrod Kimber's documentary "Death of a Gentleman". You can stream it anywhere. Probably Youtube by now. People really need to understand what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xhttps://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21746867/ipl-now-window-icc-future-tours-programmeSo lets have some truth here. If the IPL expands, and lets be honest, you can see it aiming to spread out already, and add further matches, or teams, March is under attack, cos England won't give up June. This won't worry Aus all that much, cos March is normally when you head to NZ, SA, or WI. March has become NZ's premier tour time, because it competes with Aus and SA to get quality teams over Xmas. So we normally have an Asian or WI team over Xmas, then in March we get an Aus, Eng, SA, Ind type. Though last year we doubled down on Asian teams. If the IPL expands - these 3 countries will be in trouble, with NZ's climate, basically ending NZ's ability to regularly (as in every 2nd year now as it is) host premier cricket teams. The IPL will not clash with any intl cricket at all, bar 3 ODI matches England will play 1 vs Ire and 2 vs Ned in. Don't expect their best team rolled out for those matches. It's astounding that this has been signed off on. But that is how powerful the BCCI is now, even England is feeling it and losing time from their schedule. Paddles what you have to understand is that we are dinosaurs in our support of worldwide cricket and ultimately cricket is dying except for India. The only reason the ICC even listen to Australia and England is because of the history associated with those two nations. NZ WI even SA don't matter in their eyes. 5 years ago this article was published https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11241729/Number-of-people-playing-cricket-in-England-and-Wales-has-plummeted-ECB-survey-shows.htmlThe problem was identified and the ECB wants to put more money into the grass roots. Have they been successful? https://www.statista.com/statistics/899199/cricket-participation-uk/With a drop off of 20% in the last 2 years I'd say no. For Australia it has been shown that CA is inflating the figures to keep the big bucks coming in from television rights. Look at NSW with 1/3 of Australia's population can't even beat out Vic in the number of true participants, which probably explains why Vic is the most successful state over the last 5 years, they have the biggest playing pool. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/caught-out-cricket-s-inflated-playing-numbers-revealed-20190720-p5292s.htmlAnother thing for Australia is the most common names in cricket are Smith and Singh. If it wasn't for the Indian migrants cricket would be in a worse state. You see this when India tour Australia the numbers in the crowd. But it is all about the money. Where is all this money going? The number of players are diminishing, the clubs are folding (800 in the last 10 years), yet they are getting record TV right deals. The money is going to an elite few. Baggers just started a thread about scholarships in NSW and probably thinks this is good, but here is the problem.. these elite few are pushing aside many others playing in NSW junior ranks who have now become disillusioned. CA offer scholarships to certain players as young as 15, who are identified as potential players based on someone's opinion, many of whom haven't performed to an "elite" standard in National championships compared to others yet still maintain their contracts whilst others who do perform are not selected for higher honours nor do they get these contracts. These kids are at the point of their lives where they have to make decisions. Do they take a gamble and continue training hoping for some recognition or do they concentrate elsewhere be it another sport, or their academic studies, going to University or getting a trade. Those with a brain will study, those that don't play Cricket and if that doesn't work out, there's always the dole. That is why numbers are dying off. But it doesn't stop there. CA contracts are offered to an elite few, otherwise they are on state contracts. England and Australia pay their elite so much compared to other countries yet both lie 4th and 5th in the world, is it money well spent? The question is do NZ WI SA etc bring enough sponsorship to the ICC to prevent them from being screwed over when India want to change programming? In our eyes these are the nations that are keeping cricket alive, the players are not paid much and are playing for the love of the game, but for the ICC it is all about the money. Currently Australia and England do bring money in, but with the sport dying how much longer will it continue. The T20 game is the future in the ICC eyes, test cricket is just about dead. Mike, you and I are on a whole different level in our support of cricket, and our understanding of the cricket politics both. Read the top test wicket taking thread, where I showed how the bCCI banned Shane Bond. They didn't even find it shameful. Their success in doing it is a point of pride to them. And the BCCI announced itself as the indisputable oligarch leader in world cricket. Pakistan lost their best batsman in Mohammad Yousef in the process, it wasn't just NZ trampled on. The poor nations got rissoled. Totally. The BCCI is not good for world cricket, and they make no claims, outside of Afghanistan, to be. But they even crapped on their t20 competition. The BCCI about themselves, for themselves. To me they are myopic, and will transform the sport into kabbaddi levels. ECB and CA are taking their money without a long term vision. They just assume SA, NZ and WI will hang in there. But we won't. We seriously won't. We're already under attack from differing sporting codes. Australia is on the collapse as well and CA know it, that's why they're doctoring reports, once the money stops, so will advertising and participation. Really.... Cricket is lagging behind Rugby union now and we suck at Union, how long before we suck at Cricket as well (some of us think we suck now). BCCI is attractive to those that are ignored by their own countries, eg Lynn and MacCullum, both players are big draw crowd players, they are great to watch, increase in turnstiles equals increase money and world T20 comps want them playing. Ignored by your country go make money elsewhere. Bond was as you said honest in how he saw T20 and you can't blame him for setting up his future but banning him from International cricket is politics and has no place in cricket IMO. But welcome to the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xhttps://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21746867/ipl-now-window-icc-future-tours-programmeSo lets have some truth here. If the IPL expands, and lets be honest, you can see it aiming to spread out already, and add further matches, or teams, March is under attack, cos England won't give up June. This won't worry Aus all that much, cos March is normally when you head to NZ, SA, or WI. March has become NZ's premier tour time, because it competes with Aus and SA to get quality teams over Xmas. So we normally have an Asian or WI team over Xmas, then in March we get an Aus, Eng, SA, Ind type. Though last year we doubled down on Asian teams. If the IPL expands - these 3 countries will be in trouble, with NZ's climate, basically ending NZ's ability to regularly (as in every 2nd year now as it is) host premier cricket teams. The IPL will not clash with any intl cricket at all, bar 3 ODI matches England will play 1 vs Ire and 2 vs Ned in. Don't expect their best team rolled out for those matches. It's astounding that this has been signed off on. But that is how powerful the BCCI is now, even England is feeling it and losing time from their schedule. Paddles what you have to understand is that we are dinosaurs in our support of worldwide cricket and ultimately cricket is dying except for India. The only reason the ICC even listen to Australia and England is because of the history associated with those two nations. NZ WI even SA don't matter in their eyes. 5 years ago this article was published https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11241729/Number-of-people-playing-cricket-in-England-and-Wales-has-plummeted-ECB-survey-shows.htmlThe problem was identified and the ECB wants to put more money into the grass roots. Have they been successful? https://www.statista.com/statistics/899199/cricket-participation-uk/With a drop off of 20% in the last 2 years I'd say no. For Australia it has been shown that CA is inflating the figures to keep the big bucks coming in from television rights. Look at NSW with 1/3 of Australia's population can't even beat out Vic in the number of true participants, which probably explains why Vic is the most successful state over the last 5 years, they have the biggest playing pool. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/caught-out-cricket-s-inflated-playing-numbers-revealed-20190720-p5292s.htmlAnother thing for Australia is the most common names in cricket are Smith and Singh. If it wasn't for the Indian migrants cricket would be in a worse state. You see this when India tour Australia the numbers in the crowd. But it is all about the money. Where is all this money going? The number of players are diminishing, the clubs are folding (800 in the last 10 years), yet they are getting record TV right deals. The money is going to an elite few. Baggers just started a thread about scholarships in NSW and probably thinks this is good, but here is the problem.. these elite few are pushing aside many others playing in NSW junior ranks who have now become disillusioned. CA offer scholarships to certain players as young as 15, who are identified as potential players based on someone's opinion, many of whom haven't performed to an "elite" standard in National championships compared to others yet still maintain their contracts whilst others who do perform are not selected for higher honours nor do they get these contracts. These kids are at the point of their lives where they have to make decisions. Do they take a gamble and continue training hoping for some recognition or do they concentrate elsewhere be it another sport, or their academic studies, going to University or getting a trade. Those with a brain will study, those that don't play Cricket and if that doesn't work out, there's always the dole. That is why numbers are dying off. But it doesn't stop there. CA contracts are offered to an elite few, otherwise they are on state contracts. England and Australia pay their elite so much compared to other countries yet both lie 4th and 5th in the world, is it money well spent? The question is do NZ WI SA etc bring enough sponsorship to the ICC to prevent them from being screwed over when India want to change programming? In our eyes these are the nations that are keeping cricket alive, the players are not paid much and are playing for the love of the game, but for the ICC it is all about the money. Currently Australia and England do bring money in, but with the sport dying how much longer will it continue. The T20 game is the future in the ICC eyes, test cricket is just about dead. Mike, you and I are on a whole different level in our support of cricket, and our understanding of the cricket politics both. Read the top test wicket taking thread, where I showed how the bCCI banned Shane Bond. They didn't even find it shameful. Their success in doing it is a point of pride to them. And the BCCI announced itself as the indisputable oligarch leader in world cricket. Pakistan lost their best batsman in Mohammad Yousef in the process, it wasn't just NZ trampled on. The poor nations got rissoled. Totally. The BCCI is not good for world cricket, and they make no claims, outside of Afghanistan, to be. But they even crapped on their t20 competition. The BCCI about themselves, for themselves. To me they are myopic, and will transform the sport into kabbaddi levels. ECB and CA are taking their money without a long term vision. They just assume SA, NZ and WI will hang in there. But we won't. We seriously won't. We're already under attack from differing sporting codes. Australia is on the collapse as well and CA know it, that's why they're doctoring reports, once the money stops, so will advertising and participation. Really.... Cricket is lagging behind Rugby union now and we suck at Union, how long before we suck at Cricket as well (some of us think we suck now). BCCI is attractive to those that are ignored by their own countries, eg Lynn and MacCullum, both players are big draw crowd players, they are great to watch, increase in turnstiles equals increase money and world T20 comps want them playing. Ignored by your country go make money elsewhere. Bond was as you said honest in how he saw T20 and you can't blame him for setting up his future but banning him from International cricket is politics and has no place in cricket IMO. But welcome to the future. Boxing day, new years - Australia is still cricket mad and you expect it on your tvs. NZ has no idea whether cricket will be on, nor where and what format. Don't get me wrong, CA has shafted NZC in the past. But Tim May looked after poor nations like SA, NZ and WI. He really did. He saw the bigger picture. And he sorted it, temporarily (as best he could - but SA and NZ are dying). But for how much longer? That's the question. But not enough people are focused on the long term. They focus on short term figures and not the longevity. And it's a real concern. Because this really is the BCCI plan, Gridiron and NBA... yeah they attract foreign stars, but the sports aren't big there. But huge in the huge markets... BCCI is not a charity, its a business... and it wants a monopoly, and it will, mark my words, take down ECB and CA both if they stupidly let it...
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
Here's a nice simple one. Our batting from 2010 - 2016 (when we did reach no1 on the ICC rankings briefly). Obviously affected by an "all out for 47" in SA and an "all out for 60" against the poms (our historical ave. at top). |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 36.59 | 3.47 | 148 | 659 | 47 |
Our bowling average over the same span (we did have the best attack in the world for a year or two under M Clark IMO)... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 31.1 | 3.24 | 151 | 644 | 96 |
Our batting average since then.. |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 31.94 | 3.11 | 55 | 662 | 107 |
Our bowling average since then... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 29.47 | 3.00 | 55 | 622 | 67 |
This doesn't seem to indicate that at bowling is at the root of our poor performances. What it indicates is that our bowling has improved, yet our batting has dropped off dramatically. How would our resident statistics gurus explain this?
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
Thankfully CA would have people trained in the proper use of statistical analysis (unlike us). I realise that if I use the right parameters, ignore anything that could either mitigate or skew the stats and ignore all relevant trends, I could clearly demonstrate that Shane Warne was a rubbish spinner and that Sachin Tendulkar was a hack not up to test cricket.
I imagine the conversation and advice of our resident unqualified stats gurus would go something like this...
Langer - "Our openers can't buy a run, we are constantly 2 for not many, with the middle order required to see off the new ball from the first couple of overs. We constantly rely on one single batsmen to score around 40% of our runs for us to get a score of 300 or more. Our fielding is so poor that our bowlers have to create anything up to 4 chances to get a single batsman out. Not to mention the way some of our lackadaiscal fielding spuds can turn 1's into 2's for the opposition. We're no chance of hitting the stumps for a run out, in fact simple runout opportunities are more than we can manage. Our captain is utterly useless regarding drs. He also gifts opposition teams first use of flat wickets on a whim, when our bowlers need as much rest as possible. What do your stats say?"
Stats Guru- "Drop Hazlewood".
Langer _ "WTF? He just gave a masterclass of new ball bowling and has the best single figures in a match of 9-115, over a 5 match series (where he didn't play every match)."
Stats Guru- "Drop Hazlewood."
Langer - ".....?"
Though I suppose where opinions are concerned...viva la difference.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+xHere's a nice simple one. Our batting from 2010 - 2016 (when we did reach no1 on the ICC rankings briefly). Obviously affected by an "all out for 47" in SA and an "all out for 60" against the poms (our historical ave. at top). |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 36.59 | 3.47 | 148 | 659 | 47 |
Our bowling average over the same span (we did have the best attack in the world for a year or two under M Clark IMO)... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 31.1 | 3.24 | 151 | 644 | 96 |
Our batting average since then.. |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 31.94 | 3.11 | 55 | 662 | 107 |
Our bowling average since then... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 29.47 | 3.00 | 55 | 622 | 67 |
This doesn't seem to indicate that at bowling is at the root of our poor performances. What it indicates is that our bowling has improved, yet our batting has dropped off dramatically. How would our resident statistics gurus explain this? Really, you must be kidding Here are the bowling for the periods you're looking at that Australia are dropping Australia unfiltered 29.06 2010-2016 av 30.77 2017-2019 av 29.47 So you're all excited about a 1.3 percentage drop. Really have a look South Africa Unfiltered av 29.74 Between 2010-2016 av 28.87 Between 2017-2019 av 23.84 Drop 5.03 (Big, big difference and a big drop in the last 2-3 years) England Unfiltered 27.37 2010- 2016 30.39 2017-2019 29.28 Drop 1.1 (same bowling attack for over 10 years in Broad and Anderson and they're getting old) India unfiltered av 34.06 2010-2016 av 34.39 2017-2019 av 24.48 Drop of 9.9 big, Big difference New Zealand unfiltered av 34.51 2010-2016 av 36.36 2017-2019 av 27.22 Drop of 9.14 Pakistan unfiltered av 31.74 2010-2016 av 31.67 2017-2019 av 25.6 Drop of 6.07 West Indies 2010-2016 av 37.37 2017-2019 av 29.78 Drop 7.6 And you're excited about a 1.3 drop compared to the rest of the world, like really WOW The batting is that bad world wide at the moment that all bowling teams are dropping big time. Think of all the great batsmen that retired 2010-2016, that's why the bowling averages were higher for all teams during the period of 2010-2016. So against the poor world's batting we drop 1.3 point whilst the rest are dropping 5-10 points, I'd say bowling is a big concern. As for the batting look at the batting here they are 2010-2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=12+Sep+2016;spanmin1=15+Mar+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting2017-2019 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=batting_average;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=battingso Australia has dropped from 35.02 to 30.41, (4.6 points) South Africa has dropped from 36.07 to 28.83 (7.2 point drop) England has dropped from 34.31 to 27.57 (6.7 drop) Pakistan has dropped from 32.76 to 26.56 (6.2 drop) West Indies dropped from 26.67 to 23.38 (3.3 drop) obviously there is a point lower than rock bottom Sri Lanka dropped from 31.29 to 26.21 (5.1 drop) Bangladesh dropped from 30.47 to 25.28 (5,2 drop) Only India up 2 points and NZ has increased by 7.6 that's why they're No 1 and 2 So as a percentage drop across the world's batting except India and NZ being the lowest I'd say Australia's batting is holding it's own. In general the world is batting poorly and the bowlers are capitalising except for Australia and England with the exception of Cummins. So do you still think Bowling is not a problem? As I said in a previous post, if you keep the same bowling attack Australia has to develop the best batting line up in the world to move up the rankings.
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
+xPaddles you're on a losing battle, you're using common sense and logic, that won't win here.
Generally an "academic" type of argument benefits from being dispassionate, unbiased and objective, where criticism is both invited and evaluated in the same way. I don't see this as yet with Paddles. I see his argument as a narrow and biased way of trying to put our weights up and I have largely given up there for now. Though even then, if the core argument was sound that could be different, yet I have what I feel are genuine doubts about it that are not so much given evaluation, as sneeringly ignored along with emotional quips that display quite a dislike for things Australian. Though first impressions can be wrong and perhaps I will find the opposite moving forward. Anyway, I will appeal to your sense of rationality and objectivity. The parameters you have set here don't seem to take into account any trends which could be relevant and ignores mitigating circumstances which could affect it. It includes the 18 months directly after sandpapergate, which covers most of that time span and where we were at quite a low in every way, were never going to do well against India, and as Hazlewood himself noted eventually had bowlers out of form through carrying injury (and from which some of them have only just returned after lengthy layoff).....So I have all sorts of doubts this can illustrate too much. Do you really believe it accurately reflects anything other than this....? Surely you can see where it is at least a mitigating factor? As for "Australia bowling on batting friendly wickets" doesn't hold much water when Cummins has an overall average of 21.45 and in Australia averages 20.88, good bowlers can bowl in any conditions. Cummins has an average of 30 bowling in the subcontinent, so I would say it is easier to take wickets as a pace bowler in Australia than Asia, so why are so many Indian bowlers ranked so high? Bumrah averaged 17 on our "Batsmen friendly wickets" last season. He would love to play half his games in Australia. Poor bowlers use that argument as an excuse, Cummins may not make the team if he had to play for India in India.
That the wickets don't bounce doesn't necessarily mean that India is a batting friendly place all the same though. Far from it. An alternate argument would be that Cummins manages this in Aus because he is one of the best in the world. Seemingly indefatigable. He is also a seam bowler that rarely moves the ball much off the straight, and get's many of his wickets through pace alone and short pitched bowling. Hardly tailor made for wickets that are slow and don't bounce. The best visiting bowlers in India seem to manage reverse swing (Steyn has lower than career average there), or at least they used to pre sandpapergate lol. When you consider that Bumrah has yet to play test cricket in India it could be said that he is no better there than MikeR at the moment :) . Do you think that might affect your argument? No doubt a very good bowler (the best at the moment IMO), but in Australia he bowled to a team decimated by sandpapergate, and missing it's only two international standard batsmen. One of our weakest batting line ups, certainly of the modern era. Where the senior players that we looked to amounted to a couple of career "fringe" players (that never really managed to nail a spot consistently) and much of the rest new to test cricket. Aaron finch opening lol? Anyone that claims Australia is "the best in the world" is either stupid or arrogant, as both qualities ignore the obvious. You cannot claim someone is the best unless they have been consistent over a period of time which is certainly not the case with Australia, one off series or even test match doesn't make someone the best.
Who is claiming this? My only claim would be that we are a good international standard attack. Since '07 when MacGrath and Warne retired the only time we were no1 was for a while under M Clarke. When Rhino was fit, Johnson was on song and we had Watson to take up slack. At the moment we are probably among the top 3 all round attacks in the world. With certain retirements and some new bowlers who seem to have great promise, it's difficult to tell who is the best. We're certainly not rubbish though.
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHere's a nice simple one. Our batting from 2010 - 2016 (when we did reach no1 on the ICC rankings briefly). Obviously affected by an "all out for 47" in SA and an "all out for 60" against the poms (our historical ave. at top). |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 36.59 | 3.47 | 148 | 659 | 47 |
Our bowling average over the same span (we did have the best attack in the world for a year or two under M Clark IMO)... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 31.1 | 3.24 | 151 | 644 | 96 |
Our batting average since then.. |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 31.94 | 3.11 | 55 | 662 | 107 |
Our bowling average since then... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 29.47 | 3.00 | 55 | 622 | 67 |
This doesn't seem to indicate that at bowling is at the root of our poor performances. What it indicates is that our bowling has improved, yet our batting has dropped off dramatically. How would our resident statistics gurus explain this? so Australia has dropped from 35.02 to 30.41, (4.6 points) South Africa has dropped from 36.07 to 28.83 (7.2 point drop) England has dropped from 34.31 to 27.57 (6.7 drop) Pakistan has dropped from 32.76 to 26.56 (6.2 drop) West Indies dropped from 26.67 to 23.38 (3.3 drop) obviously there is a point lower than rock bottom Sri Lanka dropped from 31.29 to 26.21 (5.1 drop) Bangladesh dropped from 30.47 to 25.28 (5,2 drop) Only India up 2 points and NZ has increased by 7.6 that's why they're No 1 and 2So as a percentage drop across the world's batting except India and NZ being the lowest I'd say Australia's batting is holding it's own. In general the world is batting poorly and the bowlers are capitalising except for Australia and England with the exception of Cummins. So do you still think Bowling is not a problem? As I said in a previous post, if you keep the same bowling attack Australia has to develop the best batting line up in the world to move up the rankings. The underlined doesn't indicate anything to you? Does our batting over the last couple of years (surely not much of a sample size) get pumped up by Smith's recent performances? He wasn't there for a full 16 months previously you know. Have a look at the Sri Lankan results where our batsmen pummelled hapless attacks on our batting paradises. Could you honestly say that our batting doesn't get pumped up comparative to our bowling through playing very weak away attacks on our batting paradises in Aus? Where was this 5-554 declared against India? Our seconds declared at 5-for and 3-for in the tour match and still won easily. Apart from that though, you should be thanking me for at least expanding your otherwise narrow analysis :).
You will have difficulty being convincing with these arguments for reasons anyone reasonably conversant already knows. It will simply always be an I see your stats and raise you theses stats, not to mention that you seem to ignore all other circumstances and their effects.
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
Really Mike, if you watched the last series and still think our bowling is problematic compared to our batting, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I thought our bowling was world class for the most part. Our batting for the most part was simply diabolical and held together by one player (maybe two, to some extent). Yet I have read where you think Hazlewood was substandard and quite a problem? The same Hazlewood who had the best single match figure for the series.
This, I struggle to fathom. I could be wrong (can't we all?), but it's going to take a bit of convincing and so far no dice.
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHere's a nice simple one. Our batting from 2010 - 2016 (when we did reach no1 on the ICC rankings briefly). Obviously affected by an "all out for 47" in SA and an "all out for 60" against the poms (our historical ave. at top). |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 36.59 | 3.47 | 148 | 659 | 47 |
Our bowling average over the same span (we did have the best attack in the world for a year or two under M Clark IMO)... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 31.1 | 3.24 | 151 | 644 | 96 |
Our batting average since then.. |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 31.94 | 3.11 | 55 | 662 | 107 |
Our bowling average since then... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 29.47 | 3.00 | 55 | 622 | 67 |
This doesn't seem to indicate that at bowling is at the root of our poor performances. What it indicates is that our bowling has improved, yet our batting has dropped off dramatically. How would our resident statistics gurus explain this? so Australia has dropped from 35.02 to 30.41, (4.6 points) South Africa has dropped from 36.07 to 28.83 (7.2 point drop) England has dropped from 34.31 to 27.57 (6.7 drop) Pakistan has dropped from 32.76 to 26.56 (6.2 drop) West Indies dropped from 26.67 to 23.38 (3.3 drop) obviously there is a point lower than rock bottom Sri Lanka dropped from 31.29 to 26.21 (5.1 drop) Bangladesh dropped from 30.47 to 25.28 (5,2 drop) Only India up 2 points and NZ has increased by 7.6 that's why they're No 1 and 2So as a percentage drop across the world's batting except India and NZ being the lowest I'd say Australia's batting is holding it's own. In general the world is batting poorly and the bowlers are capitalising except for Australia and England with the exception of Cummins. So do you still think Bowling is not a problem? As I said in a previous post, if you keep the same bowling attack Australia has to develop the best batting line up in the world to move up the rankings. Our seconds declared at 5-for and 3-for in the tour match and still won easily. Correction. It was drawn match, but really, the score is quite indicative of the bowling quality our "batsmen" had to contend with.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xPaddles you're on a losing battle, you're using common sense and logic, that won't win here.
Generally an "academic" type of argument benefits from being dispassionate, unbiased and objective, where criticism is both invited and evaluated in the same way. I don't see this as yet with Paddles. I see his argument as a narrow and biased way of trying to put our weights up and I have largely given up there for now. Though even then, if the core argument was sound that could be different, yet I have what I feel are genuine doubts about it that are not so much given evaluation, as sneeringly ignored along with emotional quips that display quite a dislike for things Australian. Though first impressions can be wrong and perhaps I will find the opposite moving forward. Anyway, I will appeal to your sense of rationality and objectivity. LOL. You're talking about me personally. Still. And again. Do you realise how poor form this is? For one, if you have an issue with my arguments. Argue against my arguments. Don't just suggest that I am biased cos you don't like my arguments. I find that offensive given the time I put into giving you the statsguru tables. Explain the numbers, cos those numbers have no bias at all. For two, I am more than done with you. I have said already for the good of the forum, I don't want to be communicating with you directly. So please just leave me out of your posts. I am not interested in talking with someone who gets as personal as the above discussing cricket as you do. You just goto ad hominem and claim bias, or not being objective, or not being dispassionate, or "Emotional quips" or "sneering dislike" - I do not want to be bored in a debate where I have to defend my honour from your personal claims when everything I say is supported by the numbers. I am done with you. To clarify, based on the above, you personally, not as an Australian. I will still talk to Baggers and Mike as Australians anytime. Thingybob too. I have always enjoyed and will continue to enjoy following Australian cricket. Half the reason I fell in love with the game in the first place was Kerry Packer's WSC and watching it at night as a kid. I may have even followed more Australian cricket than you, yourself have. I don't know. And I make no conclusion. I even used to zinc my nose in Craig McDermott style on match days. But you don't know me neither, but Baggers, Mike and I go back years. And multiple forums. And they love Aus cricket more than anyone else I know. But I told Baggers a year ago, before the SA ODI tour that I did not think the Aus attack was world class. It will actually be on this forum. I also said India's seamers would out-bowl Aussies. I can probably dredge it up. I have not changed my opinion in the least. But when you did have a class attack, I never made such claims as Mike will verify. He was all over Hazelwood before I ever caught on to the possibility - and I repeat, I still don't have a conclusion on Hazelwood - but I do Starc. So Mike as an Australian, also does not believe the current Australian attack is world class. Take it up with him. He will tell you many good reasons why, because you will not accept mine. And I do not want to waste my time further with someone so personally hostile, which I find the above quote to be entirely. You don't rank 5th, with the best batsman in the world, and have someone say your bowling attack is not worldclass, and get to claim bias. Oh sure he missed 1 SA test, India and UAE series, but that's all in the last 4 years. You still beat SL. You're ranked 5th for a reason. It's not bias. Hadlee by himself took a muppet team to 2nd. You didn't even beat England, who have a horrid batting line up, weakened by the absence of Cook and Anderson's absurd bowling that SA and Ind had to face... Think about the arguments. Are they really anti-Australian, or simply critical? But don't reply to me. Reply to Mike. Cos I am done with the personal attacks from you. But Broad is overrated and the Aus attack is not currently world class. If I am biased, why do I dislike Broad? I am a British citizen.... And Stuart never ran over my dog. I loved watching his father bat. I find Broad and the Aus attack to be totally over rated both.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHere's a nice simple one. Our batting from 2010 - 2016 (when we did reach no1 on the ICC rankings briefly). Obviously affected by an "all out for 47" in SA and an "all out for 60" against the poms (our historical ave. at top). |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 36.59 | 3.47 | 148 | 659 | 47 |
Our bowling average over the same span (we did have the best attack in the world for a year or two under M Clark IMO)... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2010-2016 | 79 | 40 | 27 | 0 | 12 | 1.481 | 31.1 | 3.24 | 151 | 644 | 96 |
Our batting average since then.. |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 31.94 | 3.11 | 55 | 662 | 107 |
Our bowling average since then... |
Overall figures | Span | Mat | Won | Lost | Tied | Draw | W/L | Ave | RPO | Inns | HS | LS | |
|---|
| unfiltered | 1877-2019 | 825 | 388 | 224 | 2 | 211 | 1.732 | 34.27 | 2.95 | 1505 | 758 | 36 | Profile | | filtered | 2017-2019 | 29 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 5 | 1.181 | 29.47 | 3.00 | 55 | 622 | 67 |
This doesn't seem to indicate that at bowling is at the root of our poor performances. What it indicates is that our bowling has improved, yet our batting has dropped off dramatically. How would our resident statistics gurus explain this? Really, you must be kidding Here are the bowling for the periods you're looking at that Australia are dropping Australia unfiltered 29.06 2010-2016 av 30.77 2017-2019 av 29.47 So you're all excited about a 1.3 percentage drop. Really have a look South Africa Unfiltered av 29.74 Between 2010-2016 av 28.87 Between 2017-2019 av 23.84 Drop 5.03 (Big, big difference and a big drop in the last 2-3 years) England Unfiltered 27.37 2010- 2016 30.39 2017-2019 29.28 Drop 1.1 (same bowling attack for over 10 years in Broad and Anderson and they're getting old) India unfiltered av 34.06 2010-2016 av 34.39 2017-2019 av 24.48 Drop of 9.9 big, Big difference New Zealand unfiltered av 34.51 2010-2016 av 36.36 2017-2019 av 27.22 Drop of 9.14 Pakistan unfiltered av 31.74 2010-2016 av 31.67 2017-2019 av 25.6 Drop of 6.07 West Indies 2010-2016 av 37.37 2017-2019 av 29.78 Drop 7.6 And you're excited about a 1.3 drop compared to the rest of the world, like really WOW The batting is that bad world wide at the moment that all bowling teams are dropping big time. Think of all the great batsmen that retired 2010-2016, that's why the bowling averages were higher for all teams during the period of 2010-2016. So against the poor world's batting we drop 1.3 point whilst the rest are dropping 5-10 points, I'd say bowling is a big concern. As for the batting look at the batting here they are 2010-2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=12+Sep+2016;spanmin1=15+Mar+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting2017-2019 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=batting_average;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=battingso Australia has dropped from 35.02 to 30.41, (4.6 points) South Africa has dropped from 36.07 to 28.83 (7.2 point drop) England has dropped from 34.31 to 27.57 (6.7 drop) Pakistan has dropped from 32.76 to 26.56 (6.2 drop) West Indies dropped from 26.67 to 23.38 (3.3 drop) obviously there is a point lower than rock bottom Sri Lanka dropped from 31.29 to 26.21 (5.1 drop) Bangladesh dropped from 30.47 to 25.28 (5,2 drop) Only India up 2 points and NZ has increased by 7.6 that's why they're No 1 and 2 So as a percentage drop across the world's batting except India and NZ being the lowest I'd say Australia's batting is holding it's own. In general the world is batting poorly and the bowlers are capitalising except for Australia and England with the exception of Cummins. So do you still think Bowling is not a problem? As I said in a previous post, if you keep the same bowling attack Australia has to develop the best batting line up in the world to move up the rankings. Yes Mike, we are in a bowling era. People can blame poor batting from t20 influence, or as cric viz as observed far more spin and seam movement in countries it has monitored since 2008. But either way, we are in a bowler era curretnly, and run fests of the 2000's are over. This means what was acceptable before and impressive from a bowling p.o.v is not, and what was not impressive from a batting p.o.v ~ 45 - actually is pretty good now. Whether its batman suck, or pitches getting trickier, 2018 was the lowest batting average year since the 1950's, and 2019 is not on track to changing the bowler era. There's too many batting collapses globally, England twice this year has been rolled for under 100 once to WI and once to Ireland in England. But people aren't always quick to respond to the changes, and keep using the previous reference points as indicators for their "understanding". This is why the ratings are useful, cos they keep everyone to the same time frame, where they're not useful, is in the penalties for less than 100 wickets, or not having played enough tests to not be penalised. But any metric has its flaws.
|
|
|
|
|
flyslip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 192,
Visits: 0
|
Mike, I will try to explain with example and analogy, forlornly perhaps, before I give up wasting time on it as this is only resulting in a stats war, snarkiness and ill feeling.…
Stats based arguments generally amount to little more than a battle of competing stats which can be found all over cricket forums (usually in support of favourite batsmen) and seem to have no end other than when someone gets bored with looking for competing stats. The very same stats can and are occasionally even used to support two entirely opposing pov’s lol (as some of yours can). On their own without supporting argument they are basically gravy without the meat and rarely definitive anyway. Many will (rightly) consider them far more weighty when in support of good reasoned argument (the meat), rather than basically being the argument itself.
Otherwise we would have to accept that of past cricketers to have played 20 or more tests, Adam Voges is the second greatest test batsman in cricket’s history after Bradman lol. This would be statistically incontrovertible.
The match we lost is another analogy/example IMO. Where Stokes went the tonk. You seem to have expressed an opinion that our 2nd innings bowling let us down (particularly Hazlewood despite 4-85?) which is somehow supportive of your more sats derived view that our bowling overall is rubbish (read it in match thread? apologies if I’m mistaken).
No doubt stats could support that if you want them to badly enough. Our bowlers certainly got the treatment near the end of it when it was close and Stokes was on the rampage. A 1-80 and 2-114 for Cummins and Lyon doesn’t look great.
But what stats never explain is what we watched, that often mitigates them and gives them context. They don’t explain that the Aus batting had the poms on the ropes after our bowlers nipped them out for 67 in the first innings, with their bowlers (apart from Stokes) struggling in reasonably good batting conditions offering an ideal chance to bat them out of the game. Another 30-50 runs or so would have done it. Yet, despite reasonable conditions and our middle order platform our batsmen failed after Labbers got out because they can’t apply themselves, leaving the poms with a faint sniff.
It also doesn’t explain the missed chances throughout the match. Stokes himself was dropped twice (once on single figures) and was out plum lbw later when we had no reviews left because we used them ridiculously. Stats don’t broach this aspect, nor explain why we had no reviews left. They don’t explain the easy runout opportunity where the ball was thrown to the wrong end. Or the comical one near the end of the match. They won’t explain that apart from other missed opportunities (was this the one where we got Root out on the 4th attempt?) that if we did get Stokes out, it would have required our bowlers to generate four opportunities to do so.
It won’t either explain the poor Captaincy that simply went to water and had no realistic plan or instructions to deal with the situation.
Nor exactly how very good Stokes was.
It will simply show our bowlers failed second innings.
Irrespective of any stats, it is obvious that our batting, fielding and Captaincy were our concerns in that one, with our bowling (particularly Hazlewood) the lesser of our rather substantial problems.
All that you are really demonstrating is that you can use statsguru to support a view that you wholeheartedly believe (though I’m less convinced of even this much with other similar styled views on this thread).
If that’s all you have, and it’s is enough for you, go for it. I’m seeing lots of gravy with an anaemic lack of meat. Factors such as the vagaries of form and injury (often exacerbated by rather narrow parameters),selections and also including the period of the two greatest upheavals to have occurred in our cricketing history are either ignored, or countered with more stats! lol.
So people are not always disagreeing from bias alone, or illogic, despite not feeling the need to engage a stats war that won’t be conclusive anyway.
|
|
|
|