Aamer's Michelle: Not even one star
Fran
of fast bowlers in world cricket. He can bowl accurately above 145k
and that alone suggests he deserves to be there. There will be days
when he bowls far better than this and only gets two, but this was one
of the softer five-wicket hauls I've seen in tests.
At least three of the five were gifts in which poor risk trading by
the striker gifted him the wicket. Had North been held sweeping
earlier Aamer would not have had him. As good a delivery as was his to
Haddin, it's a better than even bet Haddin would have defended it had
he not been so new to the wicket. And of course Hussey's dismissal was
very probably a poor umpiring decision.
In his defence, he was probably unlucky not to have Watson on 99.
On a five-star rating, I give this 'Michelle' about 0.75.
Fran
Will S
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8e3222e-e1e5-4782...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Aamer will probably make a substantial contribution to the talent pool
> of fast bowlers in world cricket. He can bowl accurately above 145k
> and that alone suggests he deserves to be there. There will be days
> when he bowls far better than this and only gets two, but this was one
> of the softer five-wicket hauls I've seen in tests.
>
> At least three of the five were gifts in which poor risk trading by
> the striker gifted him the wicket. Had North been held sweeping
> earlier Aamer would not have had him. As good a delivery as was his to
> Haddin, it's a better than even bet Haddin would have defended it had
> he not been so new to the wicket. And of course Hussey's dismissal was
> very probably a poor umpiring decision.
Did you see it ? Hussey appealed and he lost because it was an excellent
decision by the umpire.
Admit it Fran, you didnt like him "kissing" Watson ?
For me 3 1/2 stars out of 5
Fran
> "Fran" <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm no Hussey fan, but both decisions were poor
> Admit it Fran, you didnt like him "kissing" Watson ?
>
Actually, I quite liked that.
> For me 3 1/2 stars out of 5
You're obviously a very generous marker.
Fran
Mad Hamish
wrote:
which is far higher than your post gets as a rating.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Will S
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ecec3e0-ce99-4a46...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 3:46 pm, "Will S" <wi...@nomail.com.au> wrote:
>> "Fran" <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c8e3222e-e1e5-4782...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Aamer will probably make a substantial contribution to the talent pool
>> > of fast bowlers in world cricket. He can bowl accurately above 145k
>> > and that alone suggests he deserves to be there. There will be days
>> > when he bowls far better than this and only gets two, but this was one
>> > of the softer five-wicket hauls I've seen in tests.
>>
>> > At least three of the five were gifts in which poor risk trading by
>> > the striker gifted him the wicket. Had North been held sweeping
>> > earlier Aamer would not have had him. As good a delivery as was his to
>> > Haddin, it's a better than even bet Haddin would have defended it had
>> > he not been so new to the wicket. And of course Hussey's dismissal was
>> > very probably a poor umpiring decision.
>>
>> Did you see it ? Hussey appealed and he lost because it was an excellent
>> decision by the umpire.
>>
>
> I'm no Hussey fan, but both decisions were poor
How can they be poor when both were referred and neither showed him not out
?
>
>> Admit it Fran, you didnt like him "kissing" Watson ?
>>
>
> Actually, I quite liked that.
Arousal ?
>
>> For me 3 1/2 stars out of 5
>
> You're obviously a very generous marker.
No, he bowled good especially yesterday. His first spell with the new ball
was as good as I have seen in a long while. He got Katich after hitting and
hurting him and the way he suckered Ponting was beautiful . Also he bowled
quite a long spell and I liked the spirit he showed.
Jellore
I have never heard such a one-eyed, bitter post for quite sometime,
and that is saying a lot on this ng.
Jellore
He also showed wonderful restraint when batting after being hit in the
neck by Ponting fielding close. The latter giggled like a schoolboy
and did not apologise. If it had have been Ponting on the receiving
end he would have howled the place down. Aamr is a star in the making
if he can replicate this form on a consistent basis. The problem seems
to me that Pakistan seem to go through quick bowlers like they are
going out of fashion. Hopefully they will have faith, patience and the
nouse to stick with Aamar.
Andrew Dunford
"Jellore" <jel...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:cb5678d5-3bca-4a45...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Indeed, and the prize for worst line of all is "it's a better than even bet
Haddin would have defended it had he not been so new to the wicket".
Using that logic, most hat tricks were no achievement at all.
Andrew
viper
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8e3222e-e1e5-4782...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
You're living in some delusional, myopic place that is clearly not inhabited
by Mr Logic
You are talking about a 17 year old boy, who has accomplished the
outstanding feat of taking 5 wickets in a Test match against Australia
in the Boxing Day Test Match. For you to demean his achievement is
either bloody minded or ignorant, probably a combination of both.
Here is a boy some 6-8 years away from physical maturity, bowling
140kph +, showing intelligence, aggression and competitiveness in
the cauldron of a Test match and you want to navel gaze and theorise
about the qulaity of his wickets and infer they were a combination
of luck, indolence and the planet Mercury being 5 degrees of it's
axis.
If you're a bloke you are a fuckwit, if a woman, a stroing case for
sticking to the kitchen or coffee with the girls
Viper
Fran
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:01:05 -0800 (PST), Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Aamer will probably make a substantial contribution to the talent pool
> >of fast bowlers in world cricket. He can bowl accurately above 145k
> >and that alone suggests he deserves to be there. There will be days
> >when he bowls far better than this and only gets two, but this was one
> >of the softer five-wicket hauls I've seen in tests.
>
> >At least three of the five were gifts in which poor risk trading by
> >the striker gifted him the wicket. Had North been held sweeping
> >earlier Aamer would not have had him. As good a delivery as was his to
> >Haddin, it's a better than even bet Haddin would have defended it had
> >he not been so new to the wicket. And of course Hussey's dismissal was
> >very probably a poor umpiring decision.
>
> >In his defence, he was probably unlucky not to have Watson on 99.
>
> >On a five-star rating, I give this 'Michelle' about 0.75.
>
> which is far higher than your post gets as a rating.
> --
This is RSC where everyone, including people such as you who possess
only a sneer where a thought should exist, get to have an opinion.
If you every have a thought, be sure and post it here so others can
celebrate the occasion.
Fran
Fran
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Using any logic, you'd know what you posted was flawed, A hat trick
made possible by the skill of the bowler is different and better than
one arising out of batter or umpiring stupidity.
Fran
Fran
>
Noted ... you cite no bitterness in my post.
Fran
Fran
> "Fran" <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c8e3222e-e1e5-4782...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Aamer will probably make a substantial contribution to the talent pool
> > of fast bowlers in world cricket. He can bowl accurately above 145k
> > and that alone suggests he deserves to be there. There will be days
> > when he bowls far better than this and only gets two, but this was one
> > of the softer five-wicket hauls I've seen in tests.
>
> > At least three of the five were gifts in which poor risk trading by
> > the striker gifted him the wicket. Had North been held sweeping
> > earlier Aamer would not have had him. As good a delivery as was his to
> > Haddin, it's a better than even bet Haddin would have defended it had
> > he not been so new to the wicket. And of course Hussey's dismissal was
> > very probably a poor umpiring decision.
>
> > In his defence, he was probably unlucky not to have Watson on 99.
>
> > On a five-star rating, I give this 'Michelle' about 0.75.
>
> > Fran
>
> You're living in some delusional, myopic place that is clearly not inhabited
> by Mr Logic
>
> You are talking about a 17 year old boy, who has accomplished the
> outstanding feat of taking 5 wickets in a Test match against Australia
> in the Boxing Day Test Match. For you to demean his achievement is
> either bloody minded or ignorant, probably a combination of both.
>
Or based on an analysis of the level of difficulty. Mugging old ladies
in the street doesn't make anyone a crime genius.
> Here is a boy some 6-8 years away from physical maturity, bowling
> 140kph +, showing intelligence, aggression and competitiveness in
> the cauldron of a Test match and you want to navel gaze and theorise
> about the qulaity of his wickets and infer they were a combination
> of luck, indolence and the planet Mercury being 5 degrees of it's
> axis.
>
> If you're a bloke you are a fuckwit, if a woman, a strong case for
> sticking to the kitchen or coffee with the girls
>
In any place but RSC the sight of an avowed bigot profferring cultural
adivce woulds be ironic.
Fran
Fran
No ... it's the satisfying irony of someone playing for an ostensibly
muslim country blowing a kiss at another man in public.
>
> >> For me 3 1/2 stars out of 5
>
> > You're obviously a very generous marker.
>
> No, he bowled good especially yesterday. His first spell with the new ball
> was as good as I have seen in a long while. He got Katich
No he didn't
> after hitting and
> hurting him and the way he suckered Ponting was beautiful .
Ponting suckered himself, as per usual
> Also he bowled
> quite a long spell and I liked the spirit he showed.- Hide quoted text -
Hmm ... bowl 2 1/2 feet outside off and wait for the error. Brilliant
Fran
Jellore
Your post oozes bitterness.
Jellore
No irony Fran, Asian men including Muslims are very comfortable
displaying public affection for each other. Have you ever travelled
outside of Australia?
Andrew Dunford
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5481301f-b54f-4eff...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Yes, but the point is that when the bowler did use skill you dismissed it by
saying that the batsman (Haddin) was new to the crease. Same thing for the
North wicket - a decent ball but apparently not worth much owing to a
separate event over which he had no control.
And you are 'very probably' wrong in your assessment of the umpire giving
Hussey out.
Still, rejoice in the number of bites your post has attracted. There will
be days when you troll much better than this and get only one or two
nibbles.
Andrew
Ben Gussey
I'm not sure this really deserves a reply, but I saw him beat the bat
numerous times. By using the aforementioned logic, he was unlucky to
not have 7 or 8 wickets.
Neha
Huh! Bewkoof kahi ka!
Neha!
alvey
snip rubbish
Jaysus! I said just t'other day that you had no clue on things technical.
I'll revise that now. You have no clue about cricket.
as
Fran
So you're saying that Aamer was displaying affection for Watson?
Fran
Fran
> "Fran" <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I didn't dismiss it -- I qualfied it by citing pertinent context.
> Same thing for the
> North wicket - a decent ball but apparently not worth much owing to a
> separate event over which he had no control.
>
North handed his wicket over.
> And you are 'very probably' wrong in your assessment of the umpire giving
> Hussey out.
>
Based on what Andrew? The ball was probably missing the stumps.
> Still, rejoice in the number of bites your post has attracted. There will
> be days when you troll much better than this and get only one or two
> nibbles.
>
I've provoked responses because people suspect I'm right even though
PC says otherwise.
Fran
Fran
Restating doesn't add to your claim.
Fran
Fran
Says someone who makes a virtue out of making absurd claims.
Fran
HVS
> I've provoked responses because people suspect I'm right even
> though PC says otherwise.
If it pleases you to think so, I say "go for it".
(Some of us didn't even bother to bite because the idea that you can
"better than even" discount the bowler's skill if the batsman is new
to the crease is pretty.....well, silly.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
noman
The other argument, "Had North been held sweeping earlier Aamer would
not have had him", was more interesting. I also believe if Haddin was
born a Klingon and was waiting for us to discover FTL travel, Aamer
wouldn't have gotten him out.
--
Noman
alvey
Such as?
alvey
viper
Fran
And in any place but RSC would the sight of someone so willingly
displaying their stupidity, so publicly, be unusual.....
Interesting that there's an avalanche of responses that seem to be
in accord with that view
Now fuck off and make some scones
Viper
Jellore
In a manner of speaking yes.
Jellore
As you have proven by your continued involvement in this, your much
maligned thread.
Fran
You don't really want to open that can of worms do you? That could run
to a thousand responses without even counting your apparent amusement
at confabulation of nomenclature to convey derogatory imputation.
I call thread hijack.
Fran
Fran
Well that did occur to me, but I thought I'd keep my commentary on
your flaws concise.
> Interesting that there's an avalanche of responses that seem to be
> in accord with that view
>
The responses are reflexive PC. Only Andrew went through the formality
of avowing a substantive counterclaim, and he did it without his
customary enthusiasm.
So pure PC ...
> Now fuck off and make some scones
Of course, what we see above from some does not exhaust PC variants in
this place.
Fran
Fran
> On 29 Dec 2009, Fran wrote
>
> > I've provoked responses because people suspect I'm right even
> > though PC says otherwise.
>
> If it pleases you to think so, I say "go for it".
>
Whether I'm pleased by it is moot. In this place, you're supposed to
congratulate people scoring a hundred or a Michelle, regardless of how
they got it.
> (Some of us didn't even bother to bite because the idea that you can
> "better than even" discount the bowler's skill if the batsman is new
> to the crease is pretty.....well, silly.)
>
I didn't discount the bowler's skill. It was a great delivery -- I
daresay the perfect delivery to a new batsman (and perhaps even a well-
set one) -- it's just that Aamer chose *not* to produce these to
Clarke or Watson. Why was that?
Fran
alvey
I worry that you're in a position to influence the minds of children.
alvey
alvey
>>
>
> I didn't discount the bowler's skill. It was a great delivery -- I
> daresay the perfect delivery to a new batsman (and perhaps even a well-
> set one) -- it's just that Aamer chose *not* to produce these to
> Clarke or Watson. Why was that?
Probably because of the amount of fish in the atmosphere. It varies
enormously in Melbourne. You can often get four different types in a day.
alvey
Fran
I'm glad your kind worry. I feel affirmed by your concern.
Fran
viper
Weak as piss
> Interesting that there's an avalanche of responses that seem to be
> in accord with that view
>
The responses are reflexive PC. Only Andrew went through the formality
of avowing a substantive counterclaim, and he did it without his
customary enthusiasm.
So pure PC ...
> Now fuck off and make some scones
Of course, what we see above from some does not exhaust PC variants in
this place.
Fran
Conceited clap trap. Sutton, Jellore, Dunford and I responded with
something more than 'reflexive PC', but don't let that stop you believing
your own press releases, you fucking vacuous dullard....
Viper
Fran
And I saw Siddle bowling an over to Youssuf when Pakistan were 5-180.
Four balls beat the bat despite being there for the drive if the
striker was good enough. The one run scored was an inside edge past
leg-stump that might have taken a wicket.
Any one of these deliveries was better than those that claimed the
wickets of North, Clarke or Ponting.
Fran
eusebius
>
> Still, rejoice in the number of bites your post has attracted. There will
> be days when you troll much better than this and get only one or two
> nibbles.
>
> Andrew-
Well this troll certainly wins in the quantity stakes. That's all that
really counts isn't it (said in a certain accent).
Of course, some of these trolled are new to the (whatever) so....
Andrew Dunford
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40d31c93-9a81-46fe...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
The ball was probably just clipping the stumps. It may have missed, but not
probably so.
>> Still, rejoice in the number of bites your post has attracted. There will
>> be days when you troll much better than this and get only one or two
>> nibbles.
>>
>
> I've provoked responses because people suspect I'm right even though
> PC says otherwise.
What a strange claim.
Hardly anyone here is claiming that Aamer set the world on fire yesterday -
the responses were mostly to point that you were being hugely over-critical
of his effort, because you were, er, hugely over-critical. It wasn't an
especially wonderful bowling performance but hardly deserved the 'not even
one star' tag.
It might be worth considering that people express disagreement because they
disagree. Of course there may be a massive silent majority who agree with
your point but we'll just have to guess about that.
Andrew
Michael Banner
<snip>
> It might be worth considering that people express disagreement because they
> disagree. Of course there may be a massive silent majority who agree with
> your point but we'll just have to guess about that.
I've been silent, but by no means represent the majority. I sure don't
agree with Fran.
If you watched a montage of Glenn McGrath wickets, you might be
inclined to nitpick that a lot of batsmen got themselves out playing
at balls outside off stump and subsequently being caught behind the
wicket. A nitpick which completely ignores the Glenn McGrath modus
operandi of attacking the top of off stump and seaming the ball both
ways.
Of all the Pakistan bowlers I saw in the Boxing Day test, I thought
Aamer was the most impressive. I'm not surprised at all that he got
five. If some of them were "lucky" or from umimpressive balls, that
kind of ignores the other good deliveries he bowled without reward.
Something anyone who has actually played cricket will readily agree
with.
Nirvanam
GOLD!
Fran
Doubtless that is so, but that still brings us back to the question of
comparative evaluation -- is every stroke that scores a run, every run
that compiles a century and every wicket in a five-for of equal merit
to the person credited?
If it is not, should this be noted? And if every such is as good as
any other, what is the proper topic of conversation in a newsgroup
devoted, at least prima facie, to the discussion of the contest of
cricket?
Fran
Nirvanam
Your opinion is valid and personally I'd not criticize you for having
an opinion no matter what the opinion is. And this ng is meant for
sharing opinions so doesn't really make sense to criticize each and
every opinion.
But what I, and I guess some others, feel is that you are being too
critical of Aamer's 5-for. It is possible that the balls to which the
wickets fell might have been ordinary ones but it does not take away
the fact that the boy deserved his 5-for because, as in any spell,
there were balls where he should've gotten a wicket but didn't.
Anyway, why do you rate his achievement at a mere 0.75? Maybe it'll
help us understand your viewpoint better if you gave us a more
insightful comparison of how you are rating. Probably you could give
us examples of which bowling performances you consider to be worth a
rating of 1, rating of 2,....rating of 5. Viewing things from a
relative perspective does help all.
Fran
> Fran,
>
> Your opinion is valid and personally I'd not criticize you for having
> an opinion no matter what the opinion is. And this ng is meant for
> sharing opinions so doesn't really make sense to criticize each and
> every opinion.
>
On the contrary, there's nothing wrong with criticising the opinions
of others. That's what newsgroups are for. Inevitably, some people get
personal and where the criticism is nothing but a flame, that's
silly ...
> But what I, and I guess some others, feel is that you are being too
> critical of Aamer's 5-for. It is possible that the balls to which the
> wickets fell might have been ordinary ones but it does not take away
> the fact that the boy deserved his 5-for because, as in any spell,
> there were balls where he should've gotten a wicket but didn't.
>
If you return to my original post, you will see that I didn't
negatively eveluate Aamer's merit as a player -- quite the reverse. I
never spoke of 'just desert' because I don't believe in the concept.
Things happen in life and sport and one does what one must.
The team needed him to take wickets and/or restrict the run scoring
and he chose a plausible strategy to get the job done -- play on the
minds of the strikers, who were after all, batting for a declaration.
From a team POV he did the job but the quality of the bowling itself
was pretty poor overall. Sometimes teams have to play ugly to win or
at any rate not lose.
> Anyway, why do you rate his achievement at a mere 0.75? Maybe it'll
> help us understand your viewpoint better if you gave us a more
> insightful comparison of how you are rating. Probably you could give
> us examples of which bowling performances you consider to be worth a
> rating of 1, rating of 2,....rating of 5. Viewing things from a
> relative perspective does help all.
That would involve continuing to force the striker to play whiule
making it difficult to score or survive save for persistient
concentration and excellent technique. In a test match people ought to
be tested. If one can test and ultimately defeat the most resolute and
skilled of batsmen playing near the top of their skill bands then one
can draw more personal satisfaction then when some general feature of
the position or poor judgement has come to your aid. While it is true
that one can only play the opposition one gets, and that part of being
professional involves taking all advantages however offered, at a
personal level, one surely draws the most satisfaction when the
advantages were obtained almost entirely by resort to skills one had
developed through one's own efforts.
The chap who scores a big century husbanding the strike after a
lclatter of wickets tumbled at the other end to skillful bowling on a
friendly deck will feel happier than if he does so in a match headed
for a draw when the part timers are running down the clock to
abandonment. Similarly a five wicket haul on a road against determined
well-set bats and despite some dodgy umpiring counts for more than if
you get it against tailenders on a potato patch who were batting for
the declaration.
As I said, Aamer may well have days when every one of his wickets was
the consequence of skillful bowling on a road and after two other
simple chances were put down. The two he gets may well be the two key
wickets. That 2-for will be of greater merit than this 5-for in
Melbourne.
Fran
Nirvanam
It would help if you could give examples of performances at each star-
rating. After all, ratings are relative. This would give a better
understanding of where you think Aamer's effort fits in.
Fran
One star -- Dismissal the result of error forced by need to play at
delivery; dismissal admits orthodox stroke (attacking or defensive);
all dismissals the result (at worst) of minor error of judgement or
execution by fully competent and well set batsman with generally good
technique
Deductions: serious unforced (by bowler) error in
a) shot selection/risk trading
b) footwork
c) unplayable pitch conditions
Level of difficulty increments
a) flat pitch/old ball
b) highly credentialled batsman/in form/well set
This does not exclude hat-tricks of course. Hat tricks can occur at
some temporal distance (either side of a major break and after a new
batsman has become set by facing a new bowler).
That said, getting all five stars will be the exception rather than
the rule, which is as it should be. Three stars or above is still very
good.
Fran
Andrew Dunford
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:319c520e-0f1f-44b3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 12:40 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fran,
>>
>> Your opinion is valid and personally I'd not criticize you for having
>> an opinion no matter what the opinion is. And this ng is meant for
>> sharing opinions so doesn't really make sense to criticize each and
>> every opinion.
>>
>
> On the contrary, there's nothing wrong with criticising the opinions
> of others. That's what newsgroups are for. Inevitably, some people get
> personal and where the criticism is nothing but a flame, that's
> silly ...
>
>> But what I, and I guess some others, feel is that you are being too
>> critical of Aamer's 5-for. It is possible that the balls to which the
>> wickets fell might have been ordinary ones but it does not take away
>> the fact that the boy deserved his 5-for because, as in any spell,
>> there were balls where he should've gotten a wicket but didn't.
>>
>
> If you return to my original post, you will see that I didn't
> negatively eveluate Aamer's merit as a player -- quite the reverse. I
> never spoke of 'just desert' because I don't believe in the concept.
Me neither. Although Pakistan did recently host some odos against NZ in Abu
Dhabi, they transferred the Test series to New Zealand which takes 'just
desert' out of the equation.
<snip>
Andrew
Nirvanam
The criteria are subjective and really it is difficult for any decent
plural consciousness to agree upon individual ratings. But that's
fine. What would help more is if you can indicate, given your
criteria, which bowling performances could be at 1, 2, 3... We already
know which one is at 0.75.
I'd consider a 5-for as at least 3.5 rating. It definitely will not be
less than 3 whether the 5 batsmen included Chris Martin, McGrath,
Walsh, Tufnell, and Nehra or someone else. Probably the general
perception among the fans may be closer to this perspective rather
than the extreme strict ratings you are suggesting.
But I'd still like to know your examples for each level of rating...
Fran
Of course. That's one of the charming things about human discourse. I
like straight drives. Others are charmed more by the late cut or the
leg glance or orthodox sweep.
> But that's
> fine. What would help more is if you can indicate, given your
> criteria, which bowling performances could be at 1, 2, 3... We already
> know which one is at 0.75.
>
As I believe I indicated -- a five-for to have a five-star rating
would mean that every wicket was almost entirely due to the particular
quality of the bowler and hardly at all due to extrinsic factors. On
this scale Hauritz's bag would be about 2.75.
> I'd consider a 5-for as at least 3.5 rating. It definitely will not be
> less than 3 whether the 5 batsmen included Chris Martin, McGrath,
> Walsh, Tufnell, and Nehra or someone else. Probably the general
> perception among the fans may be closer to this perspective rather
> than the extreme strict ratings you are suggesting.
>
I should say that just because someone rates less than one star
doesn't mean that the tactical advantage of the effort was one star.
Out is out and such efforts do turn matches.
> But I'd still like to know your examples for each level of rating...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
arahim
Actually e. Correct to thirteen decimal places it was actually
2.7182818284590. Although, with this batting lineup and its recent
performances and taking the Balaji effect it has been proposed that it
may be (pi - e).
> > I'd consider a 5-for as at least 3.5 rating. It definitely will not be
> > less than 3 whether the 5 batsmen included Chris Martin, McGrath,
> > Walsh, Tufnell, and Nehra or someone else. Probably the general
> > perception among the fans may be closer to this perspective rather
> > than the extreme strict ratings you are suggesting.
>
> I should say that just because someone rates less than one star
> doesn't mean that the tactical advantage of the effort was one star.
> Out is out and such efforts do turn matches.
>
>
>
> > But I'd still like to know your examples for each level of rating...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Nirvanam
> would mean that every wicket was almost entirely due to the particular
> quality of the bowler and hardly at all due to extrinsic factors. On
> this scale Hauritz's bag would be about 2.75.
No Fran, you have not answered the question at all. You have only
stated your criteria. With the same criteria someone else can rank
Aamer's effort as say 3, or 5 even...who knows?
But without evading this time, can you please give us an example of
which bowling performances in cricket should be ranked at 1, at 2,
etc...
> Out is out and such efforts do turn matches.
That definitely is one of the reasons why many here seem to dismiss
your opinion about Aamer as silly.
Once again, please give some examples for ratings of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If
you want to go into detailed levels like 3.5 or 1.67 feel free. But
please do give one example for the whole numbers at least.
DingDong
> you want to go into detailed levels like 3.5 or 1.67 feel free. But
> please do give one example for the whole numbers at least.
yeah i'd like to see that too. or at least start rating every five-for
in this series from now on.
and ftr i thought that five-for was a 3 star one :)
Fran
> > As I believe I indicated -- a five-for to have a five-star rating
> > would mean that every wicket was almost entirely due to the particular
> > quality of the bowler and hardly at all due to extrinsic factors. On
> > this scale Hauritz's bag would be about 2.75.
>
> No Fran, you have not answered the question at all. You have only
> stated your criteria. With the same criteria someone else can rank
> Aamer's effort as say 3, or 5 even...who knows?
>
That's not strictly speaking the case. If someone interprets the
criteria so as to make even "soft" wickets worth one star then the
hardest-earned wickets can also only be one star. All discrimination
would go.
> But without evading this time, can you please give us an example of
> which bowling performances in cricket should be ranked at 1, at 2,
> etc...
>
I'm not evading but I'm unsure what you are asking. Did you want me to
pick out those five-wicket hauls that would rate a five, four or three-
stars?
> > Out is out and such efforts do turn matches.
>
> That definitely is one of the reasons why many here seem to dismiss
> your opinion about Aamer as silly.
>
Putting aside the tendency towards reflexive PC "one may not criticise
the quality of a five-wicket haul as it's unsporting" it may be that
peoplke are confusing the significance of the performance with the
quality of the underlying skill demonstrated by the bowler. These are
not not at all the same thing as my comment above makes plain.
> Once again, please give some examples for ratings of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If
> you want to go into detailed levels like 3.5 or 1.67 feel free. But
> please do give one example for the whole numbers at least.
OK ... I'll go back and take a look so you can run a line through
these.
Fran
DingDong
Fran
> well fran, how would you rate asif's bowling today?
Looking at the pitch, despite its superficial appearance it didn't
produce substantially more anomalous deliveries than any other well
prepared test pitch and if one looks at the fall of wickets, it's not
clear that the pitch directly contributed significantly to any of
them. This would seem to be affirmed by the capacity of players such
as Johnston and Hauritz to score in more or less orthodox fashion.
The wickets of Watson, Clarke, Haddin and Hauritz were all the result
of deliveries that required a stroke and in which the stroke chosen
was at least plausible. Haddin's was poorly executed but this was
probably the result of the anomalous movement of the ball so I'm
rating that mainly as a good delivery rather than as serious striker
error. Clarke wasn't new to the crease and the ball ducked in so again
-- good delivery. I doubt Watson would have played the delivery he
received a lot differently on a good pitch at 0-20. Hauritz is of
course a non-recognised batsman but certainly no rabbit. Ditto Johnson
Of the wickets Asif took, Clarke and Haddin count as one star each,
1/2 for Hauritz and 1/3 for Johnson since he was batting on the basis
of getting as many as possible with the tail. Hussey and North threw
their wickets away.
So let's call it 3 stars ...
Fran
Nirvanam
Fran, stop beating around the bush and answer the question. In case
you did not understand it let me give you the following sentences and
u fill the blanks based on your criteria of evaluating bowling
performances.
According to you,
Aamer's performance of 5-79 at Melbourne in 2009 was = 0.75
According to you -----'s performance of ---- at --------- in ----- was
= 1.0
According to you -----'s performance of ---- at --------- in ----- was
= 2.0
According to you -----'s performance of ---- at --------- in ----- was
= 3.0
According to you -----'s performance of ---- at --------- in ----- was
= 4.0
According to you -----'s performance of ---- at --------- in ----- was
= 5.0
I hope it is not difficult for you to understand the above. Please
stop beating around the bush at least in your response to this post.
Fran
> = 5.0
>
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63629.html
More later ...
Fran
Nirvanam
All you are doing Fran with these meaningless responses and continuous
evading of the question asked of you, is dragging whatever little
credibility / respect you have left in this forum, thru rotten waste.
Just answer the question if you have the guts and sense to, else
accept that your viewpoint on Aamer's performance was based on a lack
of understanding the game at a decent level.
Fran
This addressed what appeared to be your question. I even adopted your
form. If you are unable or unwilling to do understand that's scarcely
my fault.
> and continuous
> evading of the question asked of you,
There's no evasion here.
> is dragging whatever little
> credibility / respect you have left in this forum, thru rotten waste.
> Just answer the question if you have the guts and sense to,
OK ... it's clear that you are simply trolling.
> else
> accept that your viewpoint on Aamer's performance was based on a lack
> of understanding the game at a decent level
I accept that your responses are based on a personality disorder,
possibly aggravated by a lack of facility in receptive reading and/or
intellectual indolence.
While your trolling is mildly irritating, in that I initially took you
seriously, and thus gave you undeserved attention, ultimately you have
my sympathy.
Go and be well with yourself.
Fran
Nirvanam
Thanks Fran, very kind of you.