50 Overs Stats
..............................Player 1 Player 2
Batting Average.........14.41 16.43
Scoring Rate.............86.06 74.68
Bowling Average.........43.61 45.27
Strike Rate................47.74 46.18
Which one of the above two players would you choose and why?
Message Board Archives
Criticising Selectors Is Easy - Now You Are The Chairman
WI men are good at great at admiring, talking, criticising, even regurgitating, but not so good at doing. Two hours and more than 12 posts later not one 'selector' was brave enough to touch this post.
A hundred criticisms have been piled on the selectors during the past 18 hours. I was criticising too until I checked the numbers. That is when it dawned on me that the critics could not choose between these two players.
In reply to Headley
Both are weak players, toss a coin into the air
In reply to Headley
..............................Player 1 Player 2
Batting Average.........14.41 16.43
Scoring Rate.............86.06 74.68
Bowling Average.........43.61 45.27
Strike Rate................47.74 46.18
Which one of the above two players would you choose and why?
You will need more info.
Is this career stats?
Season stats? how many games played?
What teams they play for...ranking in the tournament?
who are the team mates....what are their stats?
role in team....all rounder? batsman?bowler?
batting position?
bowling period...opening...at death etc
Maybe you should play our fantasy league so you would know what should go into selecting players
In reply to Narper
Season stats? how many games played?
What teams they play for...ranking in the tournament?
who are the team mates....what are their stats?
role in team....all rounder? batsman?bowler?
batting position?
bowling period...opening...at death etc
You really think most posters, look at the above when discussing team selection?
You've moved that goal post so far away for the penalty line.
In reply to Headley
Show their passports and you'll get your answer
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
May be the best answer so far.
In reply to Narper
It is not really needed but these are career stats.
In reply to Headley
How about neither?
Why? Not up to standard!
In reply to Headley
The interesting thing is that player 1 who was selected in describing player 2 who was not said:
This guy is one of the most talented cricketers in the world!!!!
He said that after the guy took 5-15.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In reply to Headley
I like your puzzles. Don't have a clue if these are real stats or people.
If so,
then
WI cricket sucks
if that's all we got to pick from.
Of course, I give little value to numbers unless it is money or stocks.
Now if one player is an old mule with a D rating (in fantasy football lingo), cannot go any further than his extreme mediocrity exhibited over the donkey years. Then his numbers would tell me a lot.
and the other one is a kid who hasn't ketch his length yet, (his tenderfeet numbers mean squat)
who would you select?
In reply to Dukes
A few questions sir. Was the 5-15 performance in a T2I or an ODI? And how the hell would Player 1 have been interviewed after that 5-15 performance by Player 2? Was Player 1 the captain or something? Or was it a tweet???
In reply to Walco
You need to pay closer attention.
What you think????
In reply to Walco
You have to smile at some of the arguments.
I had to look up Paul's stats, to see what the fuss is all about.
In reply to Headley
Tough decision there. The selectors obviously went with the more experienced guy--Player 1--who has had good recent form in the format compared to Player 2 who I think was injured during the last ODI series.
In reply to openning
Truth be told. I am a big Keemo Paul fan. He is an intelligent cricketer with lots of upside as a bowler. Some say he also has loads of ability with the bat, but I have not seen it so far at the international level. For me, if he keeps up the hard work Paul will be playing for the WI for another 10 years ...
In reply to openning
I looked at Paul in the test match at Antigua and after that I said it was the best example of swing bowling I had seen from a West Indian fast bowler since Malcolm Marshall.
I will tell you right here,right now. BOOKMARK THIS POST.
In reply to Dukes
In reply to Dukes
Doc, I once gave away 100 US dollars, betting on Ali against Spinks.
My ignorance and arrogance, made me give that money to a buddy, who after hearing the fight rush to tell us what happened, I with my big mouth told him, he was lying and bet the money.
I was a poor young student at the time, who could not afford to lose any money.
So I just watch players, hoping they would succeed
.............................. .Player 1 Player 2 Player 3
Batting Average..........14.41 16.43 19.52
Scoring Rate...............86.06 74.68 98.03
Bowling Average.........43.61 45.27 43.26
Strike Rate.................47.74 46.18 50.24
Now that you're a big time selector, enjoying the per diem, the days of being paid to watch cricket and feeling like you have the power to shape WI cricket look at the third player above and decide which one you will NOT select.
It seems that based on the limited responses the CWI selectors did not do such a bad job. By now most of you should realise (if you did not from the clues Dukes gave) that the 3 players are Brathwaite, Paul and Nurse.
Statistically I see no way to choose between the three of them except to say Nurse has the best batting stats and I see his position not as an underachieving allrounder but as a wickettaking bowler. It is wickets I need from Nurse. At the very least he must be very economical to apply pressure if he is not taking wickets. Batting is gravy from him. Since his fitness is also a concern he has to go.
In reply to Headley
The selected player is the designated media liaison and assistant to the captain!
In reply to Headley
If it was just a numbers game they wouldn't need selectors, the board's statistician can just parse the stats from Cricinfo and come up with the most qualified players.
In the West Indies intangibles plays a big part
.
In reply to StumpCam
Life is not fair. Some get reward for hard work and some get more work.
In reply to Kay
It is a numbers game. It has always been a numbers game. The development of new criteria and new metrics for measurement is significantly where WI has been left behind.
The smart selector will always be guided by numbers. Where that guidance is not applicable or cannot help to differentiate between players then the intangibles should be applied.
The people who criticise the selectors the most are usually ignorant of the statistics.
In reply to Kay
Search
Live Scores
- no matches