Deodharant Trophy
Andrew Dunford
17 off 43 balls before cutting a swathe through the Central Zone top order
as first-change bowler (3-0-28-0).
Andrew
Tweedle Dee
Oh, be nice. It's only further proof of the trauma created by the
comments of More and Co. Ganguly is gathering exhibits for his mental
harassment lawsuit against the BCCI.
--TD
2PacAllypse
Uday Rajan
There you go, undermining Ganguly's achievements again. In fact,
Ganguly single-handedly did his bit to exorcise the demons of Javed
Miandad from Samarth's mind. With Central Zone needing a 4 to tie off
the last ball of the match, he served up a ball that was hit for six
(OK, over extra cover, not mid-wicket) by Dishant Yagnik. This noble
sacrifice was performed by Ganguly so that ten years later, Indian fans
who are still crawling around in their diapers will be able to ask
"Miandad who?" when India plays Pakistan.
Meanwhile, another report says that the Punjab Cricket Association has
invited Ganguly to Mohali to watch the 2nd Test. Make what you will of
that.
alvey
Yep, local cricket fans certainly look forward to this comp every season.
"Roll on Deodharant." they say.
alvey
Tabula Rasa
alvey wrote:
>
> Yep, local cricket fans certainly look forward to this comp every season.
Ball by ball.
Andrew Dunford
"alvey" <is...@allinterested.com> wrote in message
news:1acxhbr0bw8x5$.dl0v3mc7jsig.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:21:32 +1300, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> Yep, local cricket fans certainly look forward to this comp every season.
> "Roll on Deodharant." they say.
Yes, that was the general idea.
Andrew
Southpaw
Uday Rajan wrote:
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > I see Ganguly had a good all-round match for East Zone, smashing a whirlwind
> > 17 off 43 balls before cutting a swathe through the Central Zone top order
> > as first-change bowler (3-0-28-0).
>
> There you go, undermining Ganguly's achievements again. In fact,
> Ganguly single-handedly did his bit to exorcise the demons of Javed
> Miandad from Samarth's mind.
Not just me. You too have been "outpsyched" by Miandad. Just follow the
links below.
Good theory though. I think you should support it with some stats from
CricInfo plotted using Excel, and publish your findings in the British
Medical Journal. Just don't publish it in April, otherwise people will
assume it is an April Fool's joke.
For your reference:
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/134081.html
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7443/800 (excerpt
below)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/other_international/3599275.stm
http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/sports/cricket/20040405-0.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=383375
-----
Comment
Overall, Pakistan has achieved greater success in both forms of the
game. These data suggest that in one day matches Miandad's six inspired
an improvement in Pakistan's performance or a decline in India's, or
both, but this effect was small in test cricket. Venue, winning the
toss, and batting first were not associated with outcome. We believe
there are no other important explanations for the observed findings.
Both teams have won one World Cup final and lost one. No other factors
were at play around our reference point that might have favoured one
team over the other, certainly not in terms of retirements or rule or
format changes. Weather conditions, ground conditions, selection
policies, and match fixes are too innumerable to measure or adjust for.
We believe these data support our hypothesis that a single shot had an
enduring influence. Now India must have a landmark victory of its
own-it may have already.
-----
When this was first published, I seriously thought it was an April
Fool's joke. But then there were articles in CricInfo, BBC and Indian
Express on the paper or citing the paper, which itself was on one
desperate lapeta shot played 20 years ago! The article is also linked
from the NIH's website.
The statistical analysis is basically the sort that wouldn't stand up
to scrutiny even on RSC. E.g., India and Pak both won 8 each of the 17
ODOs prior to Miandad's six. That is used to conclude that Pak didn't
have a stranglehold over India, which they gained only upon being
inspired by the six.
Now, just about anyone on RSC knows 17 ODOs is in fact a minute sample
size. It's about half the ODOs India plays in a year these days. I
mean, when Gafoor uses stats to bash Kumble in ODOs, even he looks
beyond just 17 ODOs, to make any sort of conclusion. The authors also
mention that Pak have always - before and after the six - held sway
over India in tests.
Then there are the arguments that simply wouldn't stand scrutiny even
on RSC, let alone in a research paper: "Weather conditions, ground
conditions, selection policies, and match fixes are too innumerable to
measure or adjust for." In other words, conditions and selection
policies have been ignored in the analysis. The relative merits of the
players themselves, in terms of technique, temperament, etc. are not
mentioned at all, as a possible reason for one team dominating the
other. I mean, why have Aus won more vs. India than we have against
them? Which particular stroke have they been inspired by?
BTW, Yagnik's shot was probably better, if equally desperate. Hitting
over covers vs. lapeta over mid-wicket - take your pick.
-Samarth [ Pak have now lost four times vs. India in WC, and not even
won once... no inspiration from Miandad's six? ].
Ram
Southpaw wrote:
> It's about half the ODOs India plays in a year these days. I
> mean, when Gafoor uses stats to bash Kumble in ODOs, even he looks
> beyond just 17 ODOs, to make any sort of conclusion.
Nice bait there! :-)
Though I could have sworn Gafoor's Kumble vs Agarkar posts always start
with
"Last 10 ODOs".
Southpaw
Ram wrote:
> Southpaw wrote:
>
> > It's about half the ODOs India plays in a year these days. I
> > mean, when Gafoor uses stats to bash Kumble in ODOs, even he looks
> > beyond just 17 ODOs, to make any sort of conclusion.
>
> Nice bait there! :-)
> Though I could have sworn Gafoor's Kumble vs Agarkar posts always start
> with
> "Last 10 ODOs".
It's not a bait, honestly. Gafoor really gets pummeled on RSC for the
way he uses stats. But in fact, his analysis seems far more rigorous
than the standards of the British Medical Journal require!
I know Gafoor starts with "Last 10 ODOs". But IIRC he proceeds to show
"Last 20", "Last 30", etc., etc. Just to make sure that at *no* point
was there reversal in the trend he is trying to show. He tries to show
a *consistent* trend over a *substantial* number of games.
OTOH, this grand analysis published in BMJ implies a trend over 17
games, which is hardly substantial. And makes no attempt to verify the
consistency of this trend during those 17 games. (The first 7 - all in
Pak - went 5-2 Pakistan's way. The next 10 went 6-3 India's way, with
India winning both games at home, two in Sharjah and both in Melbourne,
and Pak winning one at home and two in Sharjah.)
-Samarth [ Pakistan actually beat India convincingly in Sharjah just 5
months before Miandad's six... yet we are supposed to believe that that
six reversed some trend ].
Andrew Dunford
"Uday Rajan" <uday...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141695388....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Meanwhile, another report says that the Punjab Cricket Association has
> invited Ganguly to Mohali to watch the 2nd Test. Make what you will of
> that.
Poor ticket sales. The entire population of India was sent the same letter.
Andrew
Yuk Tang
news:476latF...@individual.net:
No wonder the invitations were turned down, if they all started "Dear
Saurav".
--
Cheers, ymt.
Southpaw
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Uday Rajan" <uday...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141695388....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Meanwhile, another report says that the Punjab Cricket Association has
> > invited Ganguly to Mohali to watch the 2nd Test. Make what you will of
> > that.
>
> Poor ticket sales.
Boring England team!
-Samarth.
Ravi
with instructions to mail it to the next person.
> Andrew
Gilly's Danda
Southpaw wrote:
> Ram wrote:
> > Southpaw wrote:
> >
> > > It's about half the ODOs India plays in a year these days. I
> > > mean, when Gafoor uses stats to bash Kumble in ODOs, even he looks
> > > beyond just 17 ODOs, to make any sort of conclusion.
> >
> > Nice bait there! :-)
> > Though I could have sworn Gafoor's Kumble vs Agarkar posts always start
> > with
> > "Last 10 ODOs".
>
> It's not a bait, honestly. Gafoor really gets pummeled on RSC for the
> way he uses stats. But in fact, his analysis seems far more rigorous
> than the standards of the British Medical Journal require!
Depends. The BMJ doesn't really seem to be talking about bowling which
is Gafool's specialty. (Hence the aversion to the hook-pull
distinction.) If the BMJ does something extra-Gafoolish (like leaving
out economy rate AND strike rate for ODIs, because they're
inconvenient), then we'd know for certain that their standards are
sub-Gafoolish. I'm not convinced yet.
<snip>
A
Uday Rajan
> When this was first published, I seriously thought it was an April
> Fool's joke. But then there were articles in CricInfo, BBC and Indian
> Express on the paper or citing the paper, which itself was on one
> desperate lapeta shot played 20 years ago! The article is also linked
> from the NIH's website.
Sadly, I can't say it particularly surprises me. Especially when work
is outside of the area of expertise of the readers (and referees) of a
particular journal, there is a good chance of nonsense getting through.
I must say it's an interesting theory, and we should apply it in other
places too. To get us started, I nominate the cause of England's ten
successive Test defeats to the WI in the period 1984-86: Look no
further than Viv Richards' 189* in an odo in 1984. After all, the WI
had barely eked out a 1-0 win in 1980 (the only Test to be decided was
won by 2 wickets), and only managed to win two out of four Tests in
1981. Richards hit 5 sixes in that innings, there must have been at
least one that was the traumatic one.
<sample size argument snipped for brevity; I agree it's a small sample
size>
> Then there are the arguments that simply wouldn't stand scrutiny even
> on RSC, let alone in a research paper: "Weather conditions, ground
> conditions, selection policies, and match fixes are too innumerable to
> measure or adjust for." In other words, conditions and selection
> policies have been ignored in the analysis. The relative merits of the
> players themselves, in terms of technique, temperament, etc. are not
> mentioned at all, as a possible reason for one team dominating the
> other.
Team strength is hard to measure, of course, but it's odd to completely
ignore it. Perhaps one can argue that there was no great relative
change in the respective strengths of India and Pakistan over the
sample period (I haven't read the original paper, so I don't know the
details of the analysis). But certainly there are numerous instances in
which relative team strength (or lack thereof) was the single biggest
factor in determining the outcomes of a match. E.g., look at the many
Aus losses in the mid-'80s, or Bangladesh' many losses more recently.
Gafoor
> It's not a bait, honestly. Gafoor really gets pummeled on RSC for the
> way he uses stats.
The post which started it all.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/9ba432c03a4af970
Till that time, Holmans was a big fan of stats.