tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post5771091905884286314..comments2023-05-18T10:02:56.564+02:00Comments on Pappus' plane - cricket stats: LuckDavid Barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-92019116916077893692008-05-07T06:48:00.000+02:002008-05-07T06:48:00.000+02:00Well I agree with the luck factors involved here a...Well I agree with the luck factors involved here and there but after 7 games each, I can say Rajhastan are the best team in it. So far they have played the best cricket out of the lot.<BR/><BR/>It may change over the 2nd half but till now, they do look like the best.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13947332468863567271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-6886458199488663862008-05-06T13:17:00.000+02:002008-05-06T13:17:00.000+02:00But by now whats happened in the IPL would tell yo...<I>But by now whats happened in the IPL would tell you who would win more games than others?</I><BR/>To some extent yes, but not a lot. I'm far from confident that Rajasthan are the best team in the IPL and that Deccan are the worst. They might be, and if all you had to go on were the results so far, then you'd say that, of all teams, it's most likely that Rajasthan are the best and Deccan the worst. The difference between first and fourth (and fifth and eighth) is only one win in six matches.<BR/><BR/>The luck involved in cricket results is spread out randomly in games. An LBW decision here, a lucky slog there, a scrambled seam luckily biting on the pitch, etc. Or a bowler just having a rare good day and bowling an excellent length. All sorts of little events can turn matches.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-41568113473818170432008-05-06T13:12:00.000+02:002008-05-06T13:12:00.000+02:00But by now whats happened in the IPL would tell yo...But by now whats happened in the IPL would tell you who would win more games than others?<BR/><BR/>Did Warne get lucky against Symonds with those 17 runs or did he bat outstandingly? or did Symonds bowl poorly?Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13947332468863567271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-22995462409361855042008-05-06T13:07:00.000+02:002008-05-06T13:07:00.000+02:00I agree that the best team on paper is not always ...I agree that the best team on paper is not always the best team. When I refer to the best team, I'm talking about the team that would win the most matches in a suitably long tournament (that might be fifty or a hundred games each).David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-68202154662034559402008-05-06T13:03:00.000+02:002008-05-06T13:03:00.000+02:00Hmm.. I would say Rajhastan are the best team in t...Hmm.. I would say Rajhastan are the best team in the IPL because they have played better and smarter cricket than the others.<BR/><BR/>There is a difference between a team looking strong on paper and actually perorming well in their roles.<BR/><BR/>Holds true for tests, ODIs, and T20.<BR/><BR/>I hope I haven't confused it further..Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13947332468863567271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-30069709772167558262008-05-06T12:59:00.000+02:002008-05-06T12:59:00.000+02:00Q, I think you're confusing the teams that play "b...Q, I think you're confusing the teams that play "better cricket on the day" with the "best cricket teams". The team that plays the best cricket on the day will usually win. Teams that win usually look good, and teams that lose usually look bad. <BR/><BR/>If the teams are evenly matched, then the team that plays best on the day looks a pretty random thing.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-30837067686971642032008-05-06T12:51:00.000+02:002008-05-06T12:51:00.000+02:00In agree DB to a large extent. But you would have ...In agree DB to a large extent. But you would have to agree that at the end of the day the teams that have played better cricket have won. As Nesta has pointed out in his latest post the batsman with the better technique / hand-eye coordination have done better than others. Same for bowlers who have varied their line and length.<BR/><BR/>Luck is definitely involved but we can still say that Rajhastan have looked like the best team because they have played better and smarter cricket than others.<BR/><BR/>While Bangalore and Mumbai have played poor cricket.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13947332468863567271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-58911220273776107932008-05-05T10:01:00.000+02:002008-05-05T10:01:00.000+02:00luck do play part in sport...i also agree that t20...luck do play part in sport...<BR/><BR/>i also agree that t20 narrows the gap of skill to the level that even zim can beat oz...<BR/><BR/>but can they do it consistently is the question...? no...<BR/><BR/>so the team who is wining 'consistently' with different teams...seizing the initiative at crucial moments cant be just lucky everytime...straight pointhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08309030423887849171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-37184718763753466772008-05-05T09:21:00.000+02:002008-05-05T09:21:00.000+02:00Arjwiz, in general I agree that there's less luck ...Arjwiz, in general I agree that there's less luck involved in cricket than in some (most?) other sports. But there are a few factors at play, one of which I perhaps should have mentioned in my post. That is the talent distribution. The gap between Australia and Namibia is so huge that you only need one game to work it out, cricket being the way it is. It's hard to say exactly what the football equivalent is (Man U v a third division side?), but yes, the weak team can play a 10-1 and scrape out a draw or something. You'd need a few games to work out which is the stronger team, even if the two sides are mismatched.<BR/><BR/>But if you have a relatively narrow talent distribution, then it changes. Amongst the top eight cricket nations, the worst recently has been the Windies, and they still win about a third of their ODI's. The luck factor in Test cricket is even smaller, of course - only for teams close to each other in strength do you really need more than a three-Test series to tell them apart.<BR/><BR/>The IPL should have a talent distribution that looks more like Australia-to-Windies rather than Australia-to-Namibia (if the bidding had been uniformly good, it would be even narrower than that). And T20 being the way it is, the results should be even more evened out.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-21715232740183450332008-05-05T09:03:00.000+02:002008-05-05T09:03:00.000+02:00Have to say I agree with your post and have though...Have to say I agree with your post and have thought of similar things (and tried out the coin toss example on my own) several times.<BR/><BR/>However, I have found, by logic and testing, that the "luck" factor is much lower in cricket than it is in other games, most notably football.<BR/><BR/>For example, how often can we expect a team like Bolton or Reading to beat a team like Liverpool or Arsenal? Man United lost to teams like Stoke, Bolton, Southend, Portsmouth, West Ham recently. Chelsea lost to Cardiff (was it?)<BR/><BR/>The point is, we can expect such results in football every now and then. But can we expect such results in cricket very often? When Australia or India plays Namibia or Scotland (or even Kenya or Ireland), do we really "expect" an upset?Arjunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03477098595718141900noreply@blogger.com