The Roar
The Roar

Statistic Skeptic

Roar Pro

Joined August 2013

5.4k

Views

4

Published

83

Comments

Published

Comments

“I couldn’t help but feel this was an inflated figure.
So I removed these stats
This I believe is his true figure
which is where I think his true ability lies”.

Shrugs.

'Old man' Kumar Sangakkara just keeps on breaking records

Johnno – You missed this guy: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/55427.html

Pity he played for the ‘crap’ Zimbabwe eh?

'Old man' Kumar Sangakkara just keeps on breaking records

sheek – so based on your entirely qualitative opinion, you still rate Sangakkara as equal to Greg Chappell… who by batting average is the 3rd best Australian batsman of all time.

So why the need to denigrate his record? – why bring up Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at all if all it does to his average is claw him back down to Greg Chappell’s fantastically elevated podium?

'Old man' Kumar Sangakkara just keeps on breaking records

Just disappointed at the need to somehow ‘qualify’ Sangakkara’s stats. He’s a gun… regardless of who he’s played more than others.

'Old man' Kumar Sangakkara just keeps on breaking records

sheek – the way you put that out is pretty condescending though.

I mean when we talk about Bradman we don’t say ‘Well let’s take out the matches against South Africa and India because they were weren’t as good as England at the time’.

'Old man' Kumar Sangakkara just keeps on breaking records

I agree Johnno, Santa is a more complete batter… quick between the wickets too.

Sage is wasted behind the stumps though… goes better in the oven with some pork.

'Old man' Kumar Sangakkara just keeps on breaking records

You missed Singapore Cricket’s response to Malaysia… where they went one step further and suggested their Under 15s could use some practice warming up for a tournament…

Social media reacts to England's swift Cricket World Cup exit

Didn’t say it was sports participation, it’s just population.

This google image search: https://www.google.com.my/search?q=cricket+india&biw=1070&bih=815&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=35r2VIu6CMr28QXOr4DQDA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=street+cricket+india

Might cast some doubt on your opinion though…

A 10-team World Cup wouldn't be all that bad

India Population – 1.25 billion

England – 53 million; Pakistan – 182 million; Sri Lanka – 20 million; Bangladesh – 156 million; Afghanistan – 30 million; Australia – 23 million; South Africa – 53 million; Ireland – 4.5 million; NZ – 4.5 million; Scotland – 5 million; UAE – 9 million; Zimbabwe – 14 million; West Indies – 39 million
Rest of World at CWC 2015 = 593 million

So India is roughly twice the combined population of the other 13 countries at CWC 2015

A 10-team World Cup wouldn't be all that bad

The issue with this current world cup has less to do with the number of teams and more to do with the asinine way it’s been structured.

Swap back to the 2007 set-up (16 teams in four groups of four), and dump the super eight and you’ve got a tight tournament where every single game matters and there is a big chance for an upset.

The fact that the Football World Cup has 32 teams, and play only 64 matches… but the 14 teams in the Cricket World Cup need 49 matches is frankly a bit silly.

A 10-team World Cup wouldn't be all that bad

biltongbek – that’s ‘possible’ but you can’t state that as a surety. If Philander hadn’t gotten injured then based on his economy rates the score should’ve been less as well.

I’m not ignoring the reasons for why SA had to chase 300, just that I think it’s counterintuitive to blame the bowlers when the batsmen didn’t deliver. Had the batsmen gotten them to say within 50 odd with eight or nine overs left, then you can start to point fingers at them… but that wasn’t the case here.

Note: not disagreeing with the sentiment of wanting to pick your best team, and I’d defer to your better knowledge on that fact.

Away with specialist bowlers, it's a batsmen's World Cup

South Africa didn’t lose to India because their specialist bowlers failed to bat properly… they lost because their specialist batsmen failed to score enough off India’s specialist bowlers.

South Africa were 1/38 after ten overs – and it gets even worse if you look at the partnership breakdown. Not a single one of the top five partnerships scored at a run a ball. The closest was de Villiers and du Plessis who scored at 5.4 an over. This meant that the run rate required kept getting further and further away – which increased the pressure and caused the wickets to fall.

The chase was essentially over after over 34 (when Miller and Philander were out) – at that time the asking rate was 9.7 and seven wickets were down… with 16 overs left. If the tail had somehow come away with the win from that position it would’ve been folk-lore generating success for the record books.

SA didn’t lose because they didn’t have enough all-rounders… they lost because:
A) The Indian specialist bowlers bowled better than their specialist bowlers.
and
B) Their specialist batsmen didn’t mount a good enough base for the chase.

Away with specialist bowlers, it's a batsmen's World Cup

Not bad for the 10th ranked team in the AFC confederation (pre-tournament that is) 🙂

[VIDEO] Socceroos vs South Korea highlights: 2015 Asian Cup Final scores, blog

Faulkner definitely has some lopsided statistics at the moment.

Average batting first is 23.5 (16 innings, 4 not outs)
Average batting second is 134.3 (11 innings, 8 not outs)

Faulkner the finisher steers Australia home

The Springboks have ended the year on a high though – picking up some silverware!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/806329.html

Victor Matfield looks to have a post-rugby future as a pinch hitter, and le Roux’s 3/4 in two overs ain’t too shabby.

South Africa's midfield conundrum

Relevant Article: http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/rugby/story/247401.html
Relevant quotes from said article:
“Australia still had a losing record against all of the home nations, except England.” (prior to 1984)
“Australia since then have had a winning record against every opponent other than New Zealand.”

1984 was a turning point – whether you like it or not. There are quite a number of rugby pundits out there from both Australia and overseas that put the 1984 Wallabies into their ‘top teams of all time’ lists.

What you haven’t made mention in either article is how the forwards played into the transformation of the Wallabies sides (specifically the Grand Slam team) of the time. Guys like Topo, Lawton, Poidevin, Williams and Cutler and later Willie O, Kearns, McKenzie, etc – the backs only got to do what they do because of the hard yards of the piggies up front. One of the biggest demonstrations of that was the pushover try against the Welsh.

The nostalgia for the 1980s and Dwyers 1991 wallabies doesn’t and shouldn’t start and end with the back line.

Ella, the 80s and rose-coloured glasses (part II)

Well 6 tries in 25 tests (0.24) compares very favorably with Dan Carter’s 29 tries in 101 tests (0.29), Lynagh’s 17 in 72 (0.24) and Larkham’s 25 in 102 (0.25) – plus it overweighs O’Garas 16 in 130 (0.12).

Assessing the performance of a fly-half purely on the numbers of tries they’ve scored is a bit silly and limited.

And IMHO a single series can produce a ‘great’ – but I’ll not quibble with you on that.

Ella, the 80s and rose-coloured glasses (part II)

So Ella scored 6 tries and 8 drop goals… but lets take a slightly closer look at that.
He scored drops in 7 matches – as per this search: http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/player/9209.html?class=1;drop_goalsmin1=1;drop_goalsval1=drop_goals;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;player_involve=8979;template=results;type=player;view=match

Of the drop goals he scored, only 2 of them were part of the grand slam tour… while 4 of his tries were during the grand slam.

So for Mark Ella’s last four matches (which comprise the Grand Slam tour) he scored 4 tries and 2 drop goals. ‘Now that is food for thought.’

Ella, the 80s and rose-coloured glasses (part II)

Just watched that part of the game…. and TBH both the high tackle and taking in the air were penalties… but didn’t deserve to be conflated into a yellow.

The All Blacks see red when shown yellow

Looking specifically at the innings in which he made more than 50 or 100

5/84; 4/461; 4/410; 4/119; 4/250; 4/43; 5/326; 5/18; 4/96; 4/164; 4/214

Sure he strode out and delivered sometimes while the scores were massive… but he also delivered decent scores in a number of trying conditions.

Will the real Glenn Maxwell please stand up?

I did think it a bit strange that Hartley got away without a warning (if not for the holding as much as the lusty two handed push in the back).

The All Blacks see red when shown yellow

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/yellow-card-kings-all-blacks-outscore-opponents-when-reduced-to-14-players/story-fndpt9s1-1227119526523

Looks like Fox Sports had the same idea I did…

The All Blacks see red when shown yellow

Without statement on the reason for the cards – New Zealand do currently lead the aggregate tally for yellow cards this year. Most of the RC / 6 Nations teams have 3 or 4 yellows, while Ireland stands out as only getting the one this year so far.

New Zealand – 7 yellows
Wales – 6 yellows
France – 5 yellows
Argentina / Italy / Scotland – 4 yellows
South Africa / Australia / England – 3 yellows
Ireland – 1 yellow

The All Blacks see red when shown yellow

Richard Loe doesn’t appear to have even been yellow carded in his career.

Only two All Blacks have been Red Carded – CJ Brownlie in 1925, and CE Meads in 1967.

The All Blacks see red when shown yellow

Last year there were a few yellows thrown around in the NZ v SA games:
In the Auckland game the 14 man Boks outscored the 13 man All Blacks at the death with a try to Lambie

In the Jo’burg fixture the balance was mixed:
First yellow to Messam was won by the Boks 7-3
Second yellow to Franks was won by the Kiwis 7-0

The All Blacks see red when shown yellow

close