Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12th October 2018, 13:06   #1301
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
The small sample size in Tudor's case is because he was dropped for not being good enough, though, wasn't it? Interesting that that could happen despite his having won MoM in 2 of his 10 tests. Or put another way, if frequency of MoM awards were a reliable indicator of player quality, one would expect the leaders in the "Least [should read "Fewest"] test matches per MoM award" chart to be players who were good enough to have long careers. Pietersen is an example of this: at this stage of his career he had 2 MoMs in 14 tests, and he went on to have a rather successful test career. But Tudor is not the only player in this chart (cf. also Tuffey above him) who won MoM in a high proportion of the tests they played but nonetheless weren't picked to play many tests. Presumably high MoM frequency is compatible with being pants quite a bit of the rest of the time, and selectors may prefer a more consistent player with a lower ceiling, if available.
Tudor more got dropped because he got injured rather frequently rather than not being good enough. It is fair to say though that after a fair few injuries he wasn't any longer good enough as he had lost quite a bit of pace. I was in Australia in 98/99 for the series then and he was quick, real quick but injury prone.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2018, 13:36   #1302
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
The small sample size in Tudor's case is because he was dropped for not being good enough, though, wasn't it? Interesting that that could happen despite his having won MoM in 2 of his 10 tests. Or put another way, if frequency of MoM awards were a reliable indicator of player quality, one would expect the leaders in the "Least [should read "Fewest"] test matches per MoM award" chart to be players who were good enough to have long careers. Pietersen is an example of this: at this stage of his career he had 2 MoMs in 14 tests, and he went on to have a rather successful test career. But Tudor is not the only player in this chart (cf. also Tuffey above him) who won MoM in a high proportion of the tests they played but nonetheless weren't picked to play many tests. Presumably high MoM frequency is compatible with being pants quite a bit of the rest of the time, and selectors may prefer a more consistent player with a lower ceiling, if available.
I suggest you google the impact of low base size. You donít appear to understand it.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2018, 13:39   #1303
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,417
I was at the 2nd of his MoM games and had forgotten he'd even played in that match.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2018, 14:46   #1304
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
I suggest you google the impact of low base size. You donít appear to understand it.
Maybe I don't. But if I don't, I suspect I'm not the only one here who doesn't. Could you perhaps explain it yourself in context? I've googled it. Most of the pages featuring it are trying to sell me a bed, and the other seem to be about business and I don't immediately grasp the relevance for this particular cricketing "statistic".
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2018, 12:13   #1305
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Low base size ... Is this an example? We have had two female prime ministers of this country and they have both been massively awful. (If you don't agree, please bear with me for the sake of the example.) That's 100% of them, as opposed to something less than 100% of male prime ministers. But because two is still a very small number, it is not correct to draw the conclusion that female prime ministers are significantly more likely (in future) to be awful than male ones.

... or is that just low sample size?
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2018, 20:06   #1306
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,832
In theory, all things supposedly being equal, there should be more and more female prime ministers.

You could reduce the era since most prime ministers served their terms before female politicians were allowed out of the HP kitchen (very tongue in cheek if any members on here are female)

So if you take the period between the first female and last/current PM you have a smaller sample across the board, and have the likes of Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron been a massive step up from Thatcher and May?

How big an impact the PM has is debatable anyway, like the captain in football and drawing conclusions about their captaincy from the events/results that happened during their tenure.

And whether anyone judges a male or female PM well or badly is more than likely going to be based on personal bias for or against policies implemented during their reign. Like the BBC headliner "will you be better or worse off?" when it comes to the budget, do people judge the pros and cons of the budget or simply whether or not their own pockets are hit.............
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2018, 20:18   #1307
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Tudor more got dropped because he got injured rather frequently rather than not being good enough. It is fair to say though that after a fair few injuries he wasn't any longer good enough as he had lost quite a bit of pace. I was in Australia in 98/99 for the series then and he was quick, real quick but injury prone.
Tudor made his famous 99no against the kiwis in his 3rd Test for England, having made 32no in the 1st innings of that same match. Thereafter he scored only 63 runs in 10 innings at an average of 7

He took 4/89 in his first bowl for England in the 98/99 Ashes, then 5/44 in his next Test against the aussies in 2001 then 4/65 and 3/44 against Sri Lanka in 2002 (I was at that Test, also forget like gbg that he was even playing!

So his bowling whilst ending with two 2 for 100+ s and a 0/80 didn't hit a downward spiral, although those last three bowls took his average up by nearly 10 runs which isn't unusual when talking relatively low numbers of wickets which you'd expect 8-10 Tests in, perhaps wasn't a key reason he was left out never to return.

He played his one and only Test of the Ashes 02/03 series at the WACA never to be seen again in the England Test side. He was blighted with injuries, released by Surrey and barely played much more county cricket.

If you think 10 Tests is a low figure for someone of his ability, he played only 3 ODIs, 129 FC matches and 82 List A. There'll be plenty of FC cricketers reaching 10 Tests for whichever country who'll play far more than what amounts to about eight seasons of county cricket.
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 12:40   #1308
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Low base size ... Is this an example? We have had two female prime ministers of this country and they have both been massively awful. (If you don't agree, please bear with me for the sake of the example.) That's 100% of them, as opposed to something less than 100% of male prime ministers. But because two is still a very small number, it is not correct to draw the conclusion that female prime ministers are significantly more likely (in future) to be awful than male ones.

... or is that just low sample size?
My son corrected me over using the phrase "small sample size" in describing drawing conclusions from something that had only happened once. He described it as a "small census". The distinction being that a sample is taking a proportion of a larger data set whereas a census is taking all the data. An opinion poll is a one example but you could use something simple like taking 3 socks out of a draw of 100 and saying that the socks in the draw are all red or even mostly red, when that is over reaching what your sample allows you to say. If you took 10 socks, 9 of which were red and concluded that the majority of the socks in the draw were red that would be a much more robust sample size and a much better supported conclusion.

I assume small base size is another way of saying small census.

I had no need to bear with you for the sake of the example, by the way. I think massively awful is slightly generous to both.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 13:41   #1309
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,894
Must be about 20 wickets at 18 or 19 since recall for moeen. Average of 38 for about 150 wickets. Reasonable.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 18:25   #1310
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
Tudor made his famous 99no against the kiwis in his 3rd Test for England, having made 32no in the 1st innings of that same match. Thereafter he scored only 63 runs in 10 innings at an average of 7

He took 4/89 in his first bowl for England in the 98/99 Ashes, then 5/44 in his next Test against the aussies in 2001 then 4/65 and 3/44 against Sri Lanka in 2002 (I was at that Test, also forget like gbg that he was even playing!

So his bowling whilst ending with two 2 for 100+ s and a 0/80 didn't hit a downward spiral, although those last three bowls took his average up by nearly 10 runs which isn't unusual when talking relatively low numbers of wickets which you'd expect 8-10 Tests in, perhaps wasn't a key reason he was left out never to return.

He played his one and only Test of the Ashes 02/03 series at the WACA never to be seen again in the England Test side. He was blighted with injuries, released by Surrey and barely played much more county cricket.

If you think 10 Tests is a low figure for someone of his ability, he played only 3 ODIs, 129 FC matches and 82 List A. There'll be plenty of FC cricketers reaching 10 Tests for whichever country who'll play far more than what amounts to about eight seasons of county cricket.
When he first play for England he had a beautiful action and had real nip. Sadly God gives few the gifts to bowl quickly and even fewer the tools to do it for 10 or more seasons.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 18:41   #1311
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Must be about 20 wickets at 18 or 19 since recall for moeen. Average of 38 for about 150 wickets. Reasonable.
Now overhauled Embruary and likely to have overhauled Titmus by the end of the next test in terms of test wickets. That would leave him second highest off break bowler behind Swann. Not that sure the Moeen Ali saga has that much longer to run but he's done pretty well for a part-time spinner. Lucky to have played in an era with little competition but achieved a lot more than most thought likely. Disastrous economy rate but only the very best English spinners can match his strike rate.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 18:56   #1312
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 9,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
Now overhauled Embruary and likely to have overhauled Titmus by the end of the next test in terms of test wickets. That would leave him second highest off break bowler behind Swann.
Third highest. He'll need another 45 wickets to take second place from Laker.
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 20:25   #1313
JRC67
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
Third highest. He'll need another 45 wickets to take second place from Laker.
I stand corrected. I'm not wholly sure he'll quite achieve that as there is a lot of competition for 7, 8 and 9 in the order. That said he has bowled significantly better in the last 2 years, so he might fight off the likes of Virdi long enough to reach 200 wickets.
JRC67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 20:28   #1314
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Must be about 20 wickets at 18 or 19 since recall for moeen ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRC67 View Post
... Lucky to have played in an era with little competition but achieved a lot more than most thought likely. Disastrous economy rate but only the very best English spinners can match his strike rate.
Wickets per test match (not including current test):

Emburey 2.3
Titmus 2.9
Tufnell 2.9
Panesar 3.3
Laker 4.2
Swann 4.3

Borthwick 4.0
Dawson 2.3
Bess 1.5

Rashid 3.2
Leach 2.0
Moeen 2.8
Moeen since recall 6.0
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2018, 20:52   #1315
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
My son corrected me over using the phrase "small sample size" in describing drawing conclusions from something that had only happened once. He described it as a "small census" ... I assume small base size is another way of saying small census ...
That'll be it. God bless your son.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2018, 00:39   #1316
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
That'll be it. God bless your son.
Heís a fine lad: precocious, pedantic and sarcastic. Iím very proud of him.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2018, 06:49   #1317
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,468
We know that heís no number 3 and that him taking up that position is a short term measure but where to now? Talk of Bairstow, but who drops out of this team? Buttler?
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2018, 07:24   #1318
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
We know that heís no number 3 and that him taking up that position is a short term measure but where to now? Talk of Bairstow, but who drops out of this team? Buttler?
I think itís Bairstow v Stokes.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2018, 08:26   #1319
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
We know that heís no number 3 and that him taking up that position is a short term measure but where to now? Talk of Bairstow, but who drops out of this team? Buttler?
The crazy thing is they batted him at #4 I think it was in India and he did well, but because Root "prefers to bat at #4" then they have fudged it a bit.

He's not got the attributes to bat at the top of the order, not in Tests, but with so many wanting to bat 4-7 it's pushing square pegs in round holes. Where do you bat Root, Stokes, Bairstow and/or Buttler, Foakes et al?

For Ali to be in the side consistently he needs runs to his name to cover for when he's not picking up wickets. Slotting him 7-8 meant low pressure on his batting as the side was either doing well so runs not important, or they'd failed in which case for him he could fail, or if he scored runs it made him look even better.

Going back to Root, whilst it may not be exactly a poor return, I thought about the comments on Bairstow somewhere on these forums and thought it worth looking at Root who has now settled at #4

Tests 1-44 : 3875 runs @ 56.16
Tests 45-75 : 2442 runs @ 43.61

His average has dropped 5 runs in that time, and since his obsession with #4 is more recent than it is old, someone might argue him batting at #4 is not best for the team and he may as well bat #3

#3 : 40 inns, 1538 runs @ 40.47
#4 : 49 inns, 2366 runs @ 51.43
#5 : 28 inns, 1755 runs @ 73.13

I'm not suggesting he'd score as many runs at #3 as #4, just that as he's not been as productive as he had been before then freeing up a slot a bit further away from the new ball might lessen his runs and average a bit, but if whoever slots in at #4 makes 10-20 more runs there than at #3 then it's better all round surely...........?

Put another way, England lose 3-4 wickets and worse before much of a score is on the board far too often, enough that the middle order are carrying it a lot more than they should have to. One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, if Root were scoring lots more runs I think he could pick and choose when, where (in the order) and where (in the world) he bats, and with what, but he's not. He's averaging what a decent batsman should aspire to whilst the top order is mostly scraping runs.

Not much of a captain putting himself before the team, indeed could extend that to some of the prolonged agonies we suffered with batsmen not good enough. I expect Jennings to revert to type sooner or later

And back to Ali, he averages low 30s, imagine what that could be if England batted him in a sensible slot. 91 innings for England, he's batted less than a third of them in any single batting position!
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2018, 10:39   #1320
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I think itís Bairstow v Stokes.
Can't see Stokes making way for him. Might end up being poor Sammy Curran come to think of it. He's now doing the lower order job that Moeen did until a couple of years ago.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:31.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org