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, 12:06   #1301
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,371
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, 12:36   #1302
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,285
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2018, 12:39   #1303
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,319
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, 13:46   #1304
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,732
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, 11:13   #1305
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,732
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
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 22:38.



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