Does Warner get to take out some outlying poor series as well? Or is that not allowed using these statistics?
He needs to add in some good ones that don't exist if he wants his away average to climb above 37
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does Warner get to take out some outlying poor series as well? Or is that not allowed using these statistics?
Well, 3 of his last 6 have been good, so let's hope! Remembering that an away average of 45 puts you among the greatest of your era.He needs to add in some good ones that don't exist if he wants his away average to climb above 37
Well, 3 of his last 6 have been good, so let's hope! Remembering that an away average of 45 puts you among the greatest of your era.
Does Warner get to take out some outlying poor series as well? Or is that not allowed using these statistics?
Will do.Keep chugging along roscreasl98 this all started because of another boneheaded Brades comment.
You mean, Brades made a comment I disagree with therefore he's stupid because only I can be right and I won't argue with facts, I'll just sling insults like an uneducated moron who voted for one nationKeep chugging along roscreasl98 this all started because of another boneheaded Brades comment.
Nah that's not right and nor is this. You do pick on some weird targets I must say. How about those that are not god enough as opposed to those that are...You mean, Brades made a comment I disagree with therefore he's stupid because only I can be right and I won't argue with facts, I'll just sling insults like an uneducated moron who voted for one nation
I pick on players who underperform and get gifted positions in the boys club.
Hence picking on Sarc and YawnerNah that's not right and nor is this. You do pick on some weird targets I must say. How about those that are not god enough as opposed to those that are...
Hence picking on Sarc and Yawner
Warne: "How do you not like Swepson? He's bubbly, he's refreshing!"
Ah ok. Mitchell Johnson, pretty average bowler if you take out the summer where he completely destroyed 2 separate test teams. Otherwise not really impressive, so overall he's not very good. Am I doing this right?Barry_Badrinath made a good point along this path earlier. Stats are easy to manipulate. I stand by my selectivity, though. Being that I'm only excluding one series, not every favourable series
Ah ok. Mitchell Johnson, pretty average bowler if you take out the summer where he completely destroyed 2 separate test teams. Otherwise not really impressive, so overall he's not very good. Am I doing this right?
Ah ok. Mitchell Johnson, pretty average bowler if you take out the summer where he completely destroyed 2 separate test teams. Otherwise not really impressive, so overall he's not very good. Am I doing this right?
Johnsons overall figures are pretty good overall, and he's rated quite highly because of that. We don't just take out part of the record of Laxman and say he was average based on his remaining batting average. You still take the removed part into account and so overall he was a good player capable of great innings, not just an ordinary good playerKind of. Johnsons overall figures were good not great which accentuates the impact of those two summers.
In the same way that Pietersen was a player of great innings rather than a great player, so too was Johnson a player of great bursts of form rather than a great player.
Taking out certain stats or periods of players career is a quite reasonable means of arguing IF it is an outlier in comparison to the rest of their career. It's why Australians think Laxman was a world beater but few other nations get what the fuss was all about because against MOST teams he was a good but not great player.
Johnsons overall figures are pretty good overall, and he's rated quite highly because of that. We don't just take out part of the record of Laxman and say he was average based on his remaining batting average. You still take the removed part into account and so overall he was a good player capable of great innings, not just an ordinary good player
My point is you take the good with the bad. You don't just take out the good, say it's all bad and the person is a spud.I do think Johnson was too inconsistent and wayward to be classed as a "great player". Even within series, he could go from spearhead to spud; e.g. the 2010-11 Ashes where he destroyed England in Perth, then couldn't land it on the cut strip for the other Tests.
If people are going to play the "take out series X and Y" game, Johnson is probably a fair target tbh.
My point is you take the good with the bad. You don't just take out the good, say it's all bad and the person is a spud.
Except the original quote was calling Warner a spudI don't think anyone has said he's a spud.
But when the good skews things so much it isn't unreasonable to use that as a means of tempering the hype about someone.