PDA

View Full Version : More humiliation


Spitfire_x86
April 1, 2005, 12:56 PM
Click (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/APR/219219_COL-STATS_01APR2005.html)

Pakistan's lower-order biffers

After playing out of their skins to draw the Test series, Pakistan will go into the one-dayers believing they can win. And what'll give them confidence is the strength of their lower middle order the Shoaib Maliks and the Abdul Razzaqs who have regularly converted totals of 160 after 40 overs into 250-plus scores.

In fact, a look at their scoring patterns reveal the strength and weakness of the teams Pakistan strong point is clearly their finish, while the Indians often finish weakly after laying a reasonable foundation. Since 2003, Pakistan's average score after 40 overs, when batting first, is 166; they then add 75 in the last ten to end up with an average total of 241. India, on the other hand, usually start off much better after 40 overs, they average 14 more than Pakistan and yet they end up with an average total of 238, three less than Pakistan. (The numbers exclude matches played against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the other minnows.)

Mahmood
April 1, 2005, 01:09 PM
Ei din din noy, aro din achhe...

Let them say these while they can... soon they wont have this chances anymore.

al
April 1, 2005, 01:12 PM
its psychological. Psy ops man!

Shehwar
April 1, 2005, 01:20 PM
just wait till we beat England....

pagol-chagol
April 1, 2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Rajputro
Ei din din noy, aro din achhe...



Lakh kothar ek kotha.

Ahmed_B
April 1, 2005, 02:42 PM
It's not humiliation... don't overrate these kinds of 'demonstrations' by calling them 'humiliation'.

It's a disgusting behavior by a site which is pretty well-known for these stuff for long time.

Better learn to ignore these.

pagol-chagol
April 1, 2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by crickethorizon
It's not humiliation... don't overrate these kinds of 'demonstrations' by calling them 'humiliation'.

It's a disgusting behavior by a site which is pretty well-known for these stuff for long time.

Better learn to ignore these.

More like Chulkani.

RazabQ
April 1, 2005, 03:03 PM
Frankly, from a statistical point-of-view, I'd have done the same thing. Much as it hurts guys, games against us and Zim and say Namibia will probably constitute "outliers" which would skew the accuracy of a comparision between, say, India & Pakistan. You could use results against the "minnows", but then both teams would have had to play those opponents. i.e. you could say, against weaker opponents, Pakistan has done better than India or vice versa.

It's upto our boys to ensure that we are outliers more, and upto us fans to root for them and support them in everyway possible.

And yes, Inshallah, amadero din ashbe ... :)

pagol-chagol
April 1, 2005, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by razabq
Frankly, from a statistical point-of-view, I'd have done the same thing. Much as it hurts guys, games against us and Zim and say Namibia will probably constitute "outliers" which would skew the accuracy of a comparision between, say, India & Pakistan. You could use results against the "minnows", but then both teams would have had to play those opponents. i.e. you could say, against weaker opponents, Pakistan has done better than India or vice versa.

It's upto our boys to ensure that we are outliers more, and upto us fans to root for them and support them in everyway possible.

And yes, Inshallah, amadero din ashbe ... :)

When you exclude Zimbo and Bd, Shourov's recent batting stat suddenly looks like a bowler's batting stat.

I am ashamed of that.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 8:18 PM GMT, by pagol-chagol.

AsifTheManRahman
April 1, 2005, 03:19 PM
it's like leaving out the datae which are way outside the bounds of the upper and lower quartiles to be considered as part of a general trend. important for accuracy in statistical analysis. :)

a thought: would you define <a href = "http://www.cricinfo.com/db/NATIONAL/BDESH/">this </a>as humiliation? or would you not care? :)


"Aus-SA, Eng-NZ and Ind-SL bunched together"






Edited on, April 1, 2005, 8:38 PM GMT, by AsifTheManRahman.
Reason: after thought :)

Fazal
April 1, 2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
it's like leaving out the datae which are way outside the bounds of the upper and lower quartiles to be considered as part of a general trend. important for accuracy in statistical analysis. :)

They are leaving the lower bound data for sure. How about upper bound. Then why not removing games with Australia then?:-/

AsifTheManRahman
April 1, 2005, 03:39 PM
haha...you got me there...maybe they should remove all the bad scores that those guys had against australia to be consistent: that would make it more accurate wouldn't it? :)

pagol-chagol
April 1, 2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Fazal
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
it's like leaving out the datae which are way outside the bounds of the upper and lower quartiles to be considered as part of a general trend. important for accuracy in statistical analysis. :)

They are leaving the lower bound data for sure. How about upper bound. Then why not removing games with Australia then?:-/

Fazal - I swear I thought that. This is probably the 100th time I saw my thoughts in you post which I was too lazy to type. Are you sure you aren't my alter-ego or my split personality posting with a different user name.

(P.S.- I am not a girl.)

AsifTheManRahman
April 1, 2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by pagol-chagol
(P.S.- I am not a girl.)

Fazal,

in that case you may as well wanna stay away from him :)

pagol-chagol
April 1, 2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
Originally posted by pagol-chagol
(P.S.- I am not a girl.)

Fazal,

in that case you may as well wanna stay away from him :)

HAHA.

And Married with Children.

Fazal
April 1, 2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
Originally posted by pagol-chagol
(P.S.- I am not a girl.)

Fazal,

in that case you may as well wanna stay away from him :)

Ha Ha Ha...

... LOL. what can I say...great mind thinks alike ...

AsifTheManRahman
April 1, 2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by pagol-chagol
HAHA.

And Married with Children.

wow...even worse...fazal, you really don't want to meet his wife in court

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 9:27 PM GMT, by AsifTheManRahman.

Tintin
April 1, 2005, 05:03 PM
After including Bangladesh matches



Before

Pakistan 27 166/75 241
South Africa 17 166/75 241
Australia 34 191/74 265
West Indies 11 184/72 256
England 19 161/63 224
Sri Lanka 20 180/60 240
India 23 180/58 239
New Zealand 17 158/57 215

After

Pakistan 32 170/76 246
South Africa 19 170/75 245
Australia 34 191/74 265
West Indies 13 183/73 256
England 19 161/63 224
Sri Lanka 20 180/60 240
India 25 182/61 243
New Zealand 19 157/60 217



The opponent batted first in 19 matches against BD at this point of time. In these matches, BD conceded an average of 76.36 runs in the last 10 overs.

Include a +/-1 error for the decimals lost in approximation. The 25 over match in WI, and one Zim match whose scores are not available in CI excluded.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 10:36 PM GMT, by Tintin.

pagol-chagol
April 1, 2005, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Tintin
After including Bangladesh matches



Before

Pakistan 27 166/75 241
South Africa 17 166/75 241
Australia 34 191/74 265
West Indies 11 184/72 256
England 19 161/63 224
Sri Lanka 20 180/60 240
India 23 180/58 239
New Zealand 17 158/57 215

After

Pakistan 32 170/76 246
South Africa 19 170/75 245
Australia 34 191/74 265
West Indies 13 183/73 256
England 19 161/63 224
Sri Lanka 20 180/60 240
India 25 182/61 243
New Zealand 19 157/60 217



Include a +/-1 error for the decimals lost in approximation. The 25 over match in WI excluded.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 10:04 PM GMT, by Tintin.

Nice.

This shows that their conclusion doesn't change significantly whether they include BD-Zim or not. Its +14 to - 3 vs. +12 to -3 in the first 40 & last 10 overs.

Now why would they include BD-Zim? Just to make their article more wordy?

Tintin would like to think "its about nothing".

I am not so sure.

Dhakablues
April 1, 2005, 05:49 PM
The conclusion should be this....
Dont feel embarrassed by Cricinfo/Rediff excluding bangladesh from their stats... They both stem from the same country who dont acknowledge Bangladesh that much...They would want to exclude Bangladesh from stats,, as it will exclude their defeat as well.

Secondly, why even bother about what others are saying..We have not done justice to our cause either except recent times. Give the team few more years and I bet you wont see Bangladesh being excluded from any statistics,,, not even 'low caste' Rediff types.

Third, We shouldnt treat Cricket more than what it really is.. when we win ( or come close to it) we feel proud, when we lose,, the team should learn from it and improve,,, not get a heart attack and be in shambles

cricket_pagla
April 1, 2005, 08:01 PM
why we're again and again... read this dumb article.. and make foolin' around!:drool:

RazabQ
April 1, 2005, 10:26 PM
Tintin, kudos for going and crunching the numbers. It seems that on this situation we were not such a outlier after all. Oh well, this just proves what we already know - sux to be at the bottom of the pecking order :) And Cricinfo sux :)

israr
April 2, 2005, 12:17 PM
Cricinfo is cheap and just fails to recognise anything.:down: