View Full Version : Boje closing in on a special record.
frankrizzo
28 Apr 2006, 21:36
he needs 5 wickets to become the first bowler to take 100 wickets at an average over 40. :thumbsu:
Grimreepah
28 Apr 2006, 22:01
Interesting.
The fact that Boje bats at 9 suggests he is in the team for his bowling.
pluga_4
30 Apr 2006, 22:38
it may take a while if he keeps on being held wicketless :D
Sidey_87
30 Apr 2006, 22:46
he needs 5 wickets to become the first bowler to take 100 wickets at an average over 40. :thumbsu:
Which show's there are no decent spinners in RSA, if Vettori averaged 40 he'd prob still be in the side just because he's a spinner.
Would be Australias best all rounder :thumbsu: :D
Browney
30 Apr 2006, 22:58
Should have started this thread a little later, its gunna take a while for those 5 wickets.
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:17
Would be Australias best all rounder :thumbsu: :D
Michael Clarke
batting average - 36.22
bowling average - 9.37
Difference = 26.85
Ricky Ponting
batting average - 58.22
bowling average - 46.20
Difference = 12.02
Jason Gillespie
batting average - 18.73
bowling average - 26.13
Difference = -7.4
Shane Warne
batting average - 16.61
bowling average - 25.25
Difference = -8.64
Brett Lee
batting average - 21.08
bowling average - 33.45
Difference = -12.37
Boje
batting average - 26
bowling average - 39.56
Difference = -13.56
Of the current side, Boje would be our 6th best all rounder. Interesting that Ricky Ponting has a similar bowling average to Boje. Perhaps we should think of Boje as being as good as Ponting, but without the batting ability.
Qualification, 1 ODI hundred or Test hundred, over 90 test wickets.
Browney
30 Apr 2006, 23:26
Qualification, 1 ODI hundred or Test hundred, over 90 test wickets.
But....Gillespie fits into that
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:26
Qualification, 1 ODI hundred or Test hundred, over 90 test wickets.
Is that meant to be proof that Boje:
Would be Australias best all rounder :thumbsu: :D
crownie
30 Apr 2006, 23:29
id take Boje over Giles anyday
but i guess that aint saying much :D
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:31
Michael Clarke
batting average - 36.22
bowling average - 9.37
Difference = 26.85
Ricky Ponting
batting average - 58.22
bowling average - 46.20
Difference = 12.02
Jason Gillespie
batting average - 18.73
bowling average - 26.13
Difference = -7.4
Shane Warne
batting average - 16.61
bowling average - 25.25
Difference = -8.64
Brett Lee
batting average - 21.08
bowling average - 33.45
Difference = -12.37
Boje
batting average - 26
bowling average - 39.56
Difference = -13.56
Of the current side, Boje would be our 6th best all rounder. Interesting that Ricky Ponting has a similar bowling average to Boje. Perhaps we should think of Boje as being as good as Ponting, but without the batting ability.
Typically simplistic stuff from Grimreepah.
Is that the definitive measure of an all-rounder? The difference between their batting and bowling average?
Is Ponting a better Test all-rounder than Flintoff and Kallis?
According to your retarded little formula, he is.
Browney
30 Apr 2006, 23:33
Typically simplistic stuff from Grimreepah.
Is that the definitive measure of an all-rounder? The difference between their batting and bowling average?
Is Ponting a better Test all-rounder than Flintoff and Kallis?
According to your retarded little formula, he is.
I dont think he was actually using the stats as accurate i think that he was just trying to prove how he thought F/D's statement was dumb, by counter attacking it with a stupid formula, well thats at least what i think he is doing.
RoosterLad
30 Apr 2006, 23:34
Gunnar strikes again. Do you ever get tired of being a :D:D:D:Dwit? Everybody who has an opinion which differs to yours is 'retarded' or a 'moron'
Get over yourself you tosser.
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:35
I dont think he was actually using the stats as accurate i think that he was just trying to prove how he thought F/D's statement was dumb.Which part of his post gives you that impression?
He claimed Boje would be our 6th best all-rounder based purely on where his magic number (batting average minus bowling average) ranks against other guys.
Incredibly simplistic. Typically so.
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:36
Typically simplistic stuff from Grimreepah.
Is that the definitive measure of an all-rounder? The difference between their batting and bowling average?
Is Ponting a better Test all-rounder than Flintoff and Kallis?
According to your retarded little formula, he is.
Just food for thought Gunnar. No need to get so hot under the collar.
Stats are evidence, not definitive proof. It's funny that you throw a wobbly when I provide stats, but then you'll go mental when someone doesn't back up an argument. Maybe you're just confused.
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:36
Gunnar strikes again. Do you ever get tired of being a :D:D:D:Dwit? Everybody who has an opinion which differs to yours is 'retarded' or a 'moron'
Get over yourself you tosser.So do you agree with him?
Do you think Ponting is a better all-rounder than Flintoff and Kallis?
If you don't agree with that ridiculous suggestion, then you don't endorse Grimreepah's laughably reductive method of judging an all-rounder's quality.
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:37
Just food for thought Gunnar. No need to get so hot under the collar.
Stats are evidence, not definitive proof. It's funny that you throw a wobbly when I provide stats, but then you'll go mental when someone doesn't back up an argument. Maybe you're just confused.The stats you've provided don't prove anything.
Do you think Ponting is a better Test all-rounder than Flintoff and Kallis?
That's what your magic number theory suggests.
Or do you just apply that logic selectively?
Another conclusion that your magic number theory would demand you draw is that Darren Lehmann is a better all-rounder than Flintoff, Richards and Pollock.
Do you actually think that? Or do you admit that your statistical analysis is reductive, stupid and irrelevant?
RoosterLad
30 Apr 2006, 23:39
Hahahahahhaha GUNNAR you fly off the handle because somebody says something you dont like. How do you live son? Will you go to sleep tonight and have ghoulish nightmares about the bat-bowl average theory?
Will you tell mummy and daddy over dinner tomorrow night?
Seriously how the hell do people put up with you in the big real world if you act like this?
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:39
The stats you've provided don't prove anything.
Do you think Ponting is a better Test all-rounder than Flintoff and Kallis?
That's what your magic number theory suggests.
Or do you just apply that logic selectively?
I was just trying to make a point Gunnar. I threw in Clarke and Ponting for emphasis. Jeez, you get upset easily. Have you had a bad day?
RoosterLad
30 Apr 2006, 23:41
I think Gunnar's had a bad 20 years judging by his reactions to every single post!
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:43
I was just trying to make a point Gunnar. I threw in Clarke and Ponting for emphasis. Jeez, you get upset easily. Have you had a bad day?And what was your point?
That the most compelling way to gauge an all-rounder's quality is by substracting his bowling average from his batting average?
Is that the point you're trying to make?
If that's the point you're trying to make, then you'd also argue that Lehmann is a better test all-rounder than Pollock and Flintoff. That would be consistent with your previous argument.
Is that what you're saying?
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:44
I think Gunnar's had a bad 20 years judging by his reactions to every single post!Do you agree with Grimreepah's argument?
That you're doing your best to avoid the issue in question is pretty conspicuous.
Hahahahahhaha GUNNAR you fly off the handle because somebody says something you dont like. How do you live son? Will you go to sleep tonight and have ghoulish nightmares about the bat-bowl average theory?
Will you tell mummy and daddy over dinner tomorrow night?
Seriously how the hell do people put up with you in the big real world if you act like this?
You do the same thing.
When I mention some good RSA youngsters you rubbish them all and you dont even know them.
So try not to be a hypocrite.
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:45
And what was your point?
That the most compelling way to gauge an all-rounder's quality is by substracting his bowling average from his batting average?
Is that the point you're trying to make?
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? I have already answered this. I was providing evidence to the contrary of FD's statement. I threw in Clarke and Ponting for effect.
Jeez. Mountain out of a molehill.
Browney
30 Apr 2006, 23:46
You do the same thing.
When I mention some good RSA youngsters you rubbish them all and you dont even know them.
So try not to be a hypocrite.
Agreed.
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:47
You do the same thing.
When I mention some good RSA youngsters you rubbish them all and you dont even know them.
So try not to be a hypocrite.
How is that the same thing?
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:49
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? I have already answered this. I was providing evidence to the contrary of FD's statement. I threw in Clarke and Ponting for effect.
Jeez. Mountain out of a molehill.So you don't think Boje would be our 6th best all-rounder?
That's what you said.
How am I meant to discern whether you actually mean the stuff you post, or whether you're just making broad-ranging, baseless assessments "for effect"?
Your earlier post made a clear implication that Boje is behind numerous Australians, and that his so-called all-rounder rating is definitive evidence of that. Why else would you list them in descending order, with Boje's all-rounder rating highlighted?
Do you maintain this position? Do you maintain that an all-rounder rating conclusively reflects a player's worth?
Or you can abandon that position and admit that it's not a basis for any meaningful analysis. That's what I want you to admit.
Grimreepah
30 Apr 2006, 23:51
How am I meant to discern whether you actually mean the stuff you post, or whether you're just making broad-ranging, baseless assessments "for effect"?
By using common sense.
How is that the same thing?
Because he continually rejects the RSA players who have talent and says they dont?
And I was talking to RL not you mate.
Browney
30 Apr 2006, 23:55
By using common sense.
Hang on, were you posting those stats with all seriousness or were you just providing a dumb assessment to provide what you thought was a dumb post by F/D with a dumb equivelent just to shut him up? Becuase in all seriouseness that was the impression i got from the posts with the stats in it
Gunnar Longshanks
30 Apr 2006, 23:59
By using common sense.Respond to the rest of my post.
I want to know whether you're prepared to apply your logic consistently, or whether you're just going to abandon your earlier argument completely.
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 00:04
Hang on, were you posting those stats with all seriousness or were you just providing a dumb assessment to provide what you thought was a dumb post by F/D with a dumb equivelent just to shut him up? Becuase in all seriouseness that was the impression i got from the posts with the stats in it
Bloody hell. It's getting to the stage where you have to defend yourself if you type funny.
F/D made a comment as banter and I responded in a reciprocal way. I presented some statistics to make fun of F/D's statement. Why do you have to take things so seriously?
Yes. The stats were serious. The conclusions I drew were only half serious, as was the context of the conversation.
Gunnar Longshanks
1 May 2006, 00:06
Yes. The stats were serious. The conclusions I drew were only half serious, as was the context of the conversation.I guess I was confused by the fact that you didn't use a smiley face.
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 00:07
Respond to the rest of my post.
I already have. Twice.
I want to know whether you're prepared to apply your logic consistently, or whether you're just going to abandon your earlier argument completely.
That's a loaded question, which is as stupid as my half serious Ponting Clarke comment. Only you are being serious.
Bloody hell. It's getting to the stage where you have to defend yourself if you type funny.
F/D made a comment as banter and I responded in a reciprocal way. I presented some statistics to make fun of F/D's statement. Why do you have to take things so seriously?
Yes. The stats were serious. The conclusions I drew were only half serious, as was the context of the conversation.
Thats exactly what i thought, why are you getting all hyped about it?
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 00:16
Thats exactly what i thought, why are you getting all hyped about it?
Because I'm under attack:(
Because I'm under attack:(
I understand what your saying, but you confused me when you started argueing with Gunnar.
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 00:25
I understand what your saying, but you confused me when you started argueing with Gunnar.
Yep, sorry. I misread the tone of your comments and I got a bit defensive. Keep up the good work:thumbsu:
Gunnar Longshanks
1 May 2006, 02:48
Yep, sorry. I misread the tone of your comments and I got a bit defensive. Keep up the good work:thumbsu:So very gay...
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 02:54
So very gay...
What? Being polite? Not only are you a dckhead, but you also abuse people for not being a dckhead.
What a guy!
Gunnar Longshanks
1 May 2006, 03:44
What? Being polite? Not only are you a dckhead, but you also abuse people for not being a dckhead.
What a guy!"Keep up the good work:thumbsu: "
Where are your pom-poms?
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 03:56
"Keep up the good work:thumbsu: "
Where are your pom-poms?
My girlfriend borrowed them
http://absolutestockphoto.com/albums/userpics/10007/normal_Absolute_7_138.jpg
"Keep up the good work:thumbsu: "
Where are your pom-poms?
you are a downright fool, with zero credibitlity on this forum anymore. Way to go.:thumbsu:
I suggest you scrap your username and use another one because everyone on this board thinks you're a tool now.
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 13:12
I suggest you scrap your username and use another one because everyone on this board thinks you're a tool now.
I would only support that if he had resolved to stop carrying on like a pork chop.
spell_check
2 May 2006, 01:46
you are a downright fool, with zero credibitlity on this forum anymore. Way to go.:thumbsu:
I suggest you scrap your username and use another one because everyone on this board thinks you're a tool now.
And I doubt if you even looked at my thread to determine that. :D
keep up the good work fella's :D :thumbsu:
Grimreepah
2 May 2006, 12:03
keep up the good work fella's :D :thumbsu:
Lol.:D Do you have pom poms too?
just maybe
2 May 2006, 13:36
"Keep up the good work:thumbsu: "
Where are your pom-poms?
You got picked on a lot in school, didn't you? And now you have some desperate desire to pedantically attack any person and try and prove to yourself how intellectually superior you are.
How's the stacking shelves going for you?
Minotaur
2 May 2006, 15:34
Gunnar strikes again. Do you ever get tired of being a :D:D:D:Dwit? Everybody who has an opinion which differs to yours is 'retarded' or a 'moron'
Get over yourself you tosser.
I agree and with some other comments. The thing I don't get with you Gunnar is that you do have excellent cricket knowledge and worthwhile opinions, but why do you need to be so aggressive and dissmissive of everyone else.
Ice goddess
5 May 2006, 11:35
According to Warney, Boje is a good bowler who has been wrecked because Smith has misused him. Personally I've never thought he spun the ball much or was a particular threat.
well he's snagged one wicket today, makes it 96 @ 43
he still ain't reached 100 :D
Grimreepah
5 Aug 2006, 20:21
well he's snagged one wicket today, makes it 96 @ 43
he still ain't reached 100 :D
At the moment he is going almost 500 run (http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2239;class=testplayer;filter=basic; team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=2000-02-24;start=2000-02-24;enddefault=2006-07-31;end=2006-07-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;s cheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0; captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposit ion=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_cumulative;bowposition=0;ball slow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchi gh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=; caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh= ;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype)s in between wickets.
Won't worry these guys (http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200607/s1700487.htm) though.
"Booowwllliinnnggg Nicky"
http://www.cricbuzz.com/component/option,com_staticxt/Itemid,999999/staticfile,archive-2006_SL_RSA-SL_RSA_JUL27_JUL31-scorecard.html/
dan warna
6 Aug 2006, 10:59
Sir Donald Bradman, Greatest All rounder of all time :P
Browney2006
7 Aug 2006, 21:30
Boje is on Fire! Has taken 3 wickets in the current innings for 67!!!
Takes him to 99 career wickets, his average is at 42.63
well done nicky, 100 @ 42.65 :thumbsu:
Grimreepah
8 Aug 2006, 20:20
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/files/joe-applause.GIF