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 30th December 2007, 11:28   #41
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Todd? Cricketer is he? Or barber surgeon?
Being Australian, he probably is quite a good cricketer by now, whatever his day job -- if indeed he has one. Anyway, although many pictures of him are pictures of a real person, he is fictional. Todd was the elder brother of a younger kid sister on "Neighbours" at about the time I used to watch it occasionally. Younger sister (unfortunately I can't remember her name -- it is a bad sign!) was known for her deep trust in the words and wisdom of her elder bro, and there are some albeit probably limited circles in which the no doubt distorted quotation "I agree with everything Todd says" has had a certain currency.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 11:36   #42
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Being Australian, he probably is quite a good cricketer by now, whatever his day job -- if indeed he has one. Anyway, although many pictures of him are pictures of a real person, he is fictional. Todd was the elder brother of a younger kid sister on "Neighbours" at about the time I used to watch it occasionally. Younger sister (unfortunately I can't remember her name -- it is a bad sign!) was known for her deep trust in the words and wisdom of her elder bro, and there are some albeit probably limited circles in which the no doubt distorted quotation "I agree with everything Todd says" has had a certain currency.
Ah, thank you for the explanation. My own Neighbours watching career, intense though it once was, is now happily getting on for twenty years back. Jason loves Kylie and all that. I think I was old enough to know better but young enough just about to have got away with it.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:01   #43
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
Well, my point is that it's all well and good to look at the figures, and see that Monty took some wickets (mostly tailenders, mostly slogging, mostly when the innings was already beyond redemption), but I'm going by the empirical and observational truth that he bowled like a drain for large parts of the series, not looking threatening and throwing in far too much rubbish.
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:20   #44
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark nicholas' lawyer View Post
Well, my point is that it's all well and good to look at the figures, and see that Monty took some wickets (mostly tailenders, mostly slogging, mostly when the innings was already beyond redemption), but I'm going by the empirical and observational truth that he bowled like a drain for large parts of the series, not looking threatening and throwing in far too much rubbish.
Oh. Well if that's what you meant, why didn't you say so?

I don't envy you your empirical observation of the bowling of drains. Whenever I've observed them empirically, they haven't done much bowling; so you must have been empirically observing with quite some dedication. Indeed, one might even say that your empirical observation doesn't match mine at all. What shall we do in this unexpected impasse? Is my drain blocked, do you think? Or is there something necessarily sub-empirical about my own observations, perhaps on account of one of the various syndromes from which I suffer?
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:31   #45
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Tautology alert. MNL and SS. Empirical data = data that is produced by experiment or observation.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:36   #46
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Oh. Well if that's what you meant, why didn't you say so?

I don't envy you your empirical observation of the bowling of drains. Whenever I've observed them empirically, they haven't done much bowling; so you must have been empirically observing with quite some dedication. Indeed, one might even say that your empirical observation doesn't match mine at all. What shall we do in this unexpected impasse? Is my drain blocked, do you think? Or is there something necessarily sub-empirical about my own observations, perhaps on account of one of the various syndromes from which I suffer?
Trying for once to stay out of the minefield that this debate is in danger of becoming, which bits of IGHOLS' observations about Panesar's bowling don't you agree with? Were his wickets not disproportionately tailenders (Vaas, Fernando, Malinga twice in a series with just one completed Sri Lankan innings) and slogs? Did he actually bowl with threat and not throw in a load of loose deliveries?
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 30th December 2007 at 14:41.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:42   #47
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Tautology alert. MNL and SS. Empirical data = data that is produced by experiment or observation.
Tautology can be a rhetorical device too!
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:45   #48
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Trying for once to stay out of the minefield that this debate is in danger of becoming, which bits of IGHOLS' observations about Panesar's bowling don't you agree with? ...
Only the bit about empirically observing that he bowled like a drain. Drains don't bowl under laboratory conditions, as any fuel kno. I think it's a bit like caged birds not singing.

But if we're on to that, I'd be interested to hear who disagrees with the observations in my original post -- i.e. that Monty took 8 wickets in the series, and that 8 is very very nearly 33/4, and that England picked 4 bowlers, and that Monty was the only one of them who was a spinner, etc. Admittedly, though, some of that material wasn't empirical so much as logical. But I believe that for those overkeen on the empirical the 33/4 trick can be verified with the use of leftover Xmas walnuts.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 14:53   #49
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I actually think Monty's done OK in SL considering. He took 8 out of the 33 wickets that England bowlers took in the series. That's very nearly a quarter of them; and he was very nearly a quarter of the bowlers England picked. And when you consider that England played only one spinner out of four bowlers, that would suggest that England expected seamers to do better than spinners anyhow.
1. If Sri Lanka scored 1000 for 8 and each bowler took 2 for 250, you would presumably think each did OK then?

2. Sri Lanka only played one spinner among their 4 main bowlers but I dont think this meant they expected the seamers to do better than Muriali.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:10   #50
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Drains don't bowl under laboratory conditions, as any fuel kno.
as any FULE kno

Oh, and you can take your maths and shove it. It doesn't mean a bloody thing. Maybe if he'd picked up half of England's wickets at a decent average you'd have a case, but the stats alone, especially when leaving out the average and strike-rate, are exceptionally misleading in this instance.
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:28   #51
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark nicholas' lawyer View Post
...Maybe if he'd picked up half of England's wickets at a decent average you'd have a case...
Au contraire old boy. If Monty had taken half of England's wickets at whatever average then I would be utterly wrong to be arguing that he had taken ever so slightly under a quarter of them.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:30   #52
Joe Diddly
Posting God
 
Joe Diddly's Avatar
Mark Nicholas' Lawyer's Pall Bearer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW17
Team(s): Northants
Posts: 13,522
Calling Vaas a tailender is a little insulting to be honest. The whole tailend wickets vs. batsmen is also a bit of a red herrring...
Joe Diddly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:33   #53
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
1. If Sri Lanka scored 1000 for 8 and each bowler took 2 for 250, you would presumably think each did OK then?

2. Sri Lanka only played one spinner among their 4 main bowlers but I dont think this meant they expected the seamers to do better than Muriali.
Hi Kim. What are you up to?

1. Relative to the others, yes. Although obviously none of the bowlers would have done OK in absolute terms, in those circumstances the figures wouldn't justify singling out one particular bowler for criticism.
2. Murali is no ordinary spinner, as we know. He has a freaky arm. They would play him on anything.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:41   #54
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Joe Diddly] View Post
Calling Vaas a tailender is a little insulting to be honest. The whole tailend wickets vs. batsmen is also a bit of a red herrring...
Bats at 8, averages a bit over 20. I think it's certainly possible to get overly focussed on where in the order a bowlers wickets come, especially over a short period but it's not exactly a red herring either. IGHOLS' point that Monty was getting tailenders out, if anyone at all, mostly to slogs and that plenty of his wickets came too late in the piece was a decent one.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:44   #55
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Only the bit about empirically observing that he bowled like a drain. Drains don't bowl under laboratory conditions, as any fuel kno. I think it's a bit like caged birds not singing.
Ah so the style is the problem, not the substance. As a disciple of Wilde, IGHOLS will be most upset.

Quote:
But if we're on to that, I'd be interested to hear who disagrees with the observations in my original post -- i.e. that Monty took 8 wickets in the series, and that 8 is very very nearly 33/4, and that England picked 4 bowlers, and that Monty was the only one of them who was a spinner, etc. Admittedly, though, some of that material wasn't empirical so much as logical. But I believe that for those overkeen on the empirical the 33/4 trick can be verified with the use of leftover Xmas walnuts.
The observation is true, just not that relevant, is all. It's a statistical curio, which I think was largely what IGHOLS meant.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 30th December 2007 at 15:47.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 15:54   #56
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Hi Kim. What are you up to?

1. Relative to the others, yes. Although obviously none of the bowlers would have done OK in absolute terms, in those circumstances the figures wouldn't justify singling out one particular bowler for criticism.
2. Murali is no ordinary spinner, as we know. He has a freaky arm. They would play him on anything.
Im just passing time before I have to go to a neighbours for "drinks" which is right up there in my top 10 of least favourite things to do.

I dont think Monty has been singled out for critisism - in fact, every possible excuse has been made for his poor series. He just bowled poorly and has been critisised for it. Which is fair enough.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 16:14   #57
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
sophistsimon
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 16:17   #58
otto nothling
International Material
 
otto nothling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,505
yes indeed,monty bowled crap this series,that is all there is to it!
otto nothling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 17:08   #59
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,192
Another way of looking at it since some bowlers didn't bowl in all the matches -

Average wickets per Test
Hoggard 3.5
Harmison 3
Panesar 2.66
Anderson 2
Sidebottom 1.66
Broad and Collingwood 1
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 17:21   #60
Joe Diddly
Posting God
 
Joe Diddly's Avatar
Mark Nicholas' Lawyer's Pall Bearer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW17
Team(s): Northants
Posts: 13,522
Sidebottom's is quite bad considering he didn't bowl that badly. Mind you, he was given a lesson in swing bowling in Galle.
Joe Diddly 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 20:22.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org