Shoaib Malik Support & Performance Watch

[Amjid Javed]

Lot of pressure on Malik and historically he performs better when under pressure.

But it may also a negative effect when you can not play your natural game.

No, he only performs when his place is up for grabs and he needs to save his own **** from been booted out of the team!

 

[Black Zero]

No, he only performs when his place is up for grabs and he needs to save his own **** from been booted out of the team!

Thats really a great compliment.
You mean that Malik can perform whenever he likes, doesn't depend on pitches, circumstances, opposition etc. except one factor.

Just when Malik thinks that his position is for grab, he just goes for batting and performs well, truly based on his personal desire.. Thats called skills, commitment and talent.

We must play such a talented and strong willed player in every single match. (by the way, thats already in PCB's current and future plans)

 

[Amjid Javed]

Thats really a great compliment.
You mean that Malik can perform whenever he likes, doesn't depend on pitches, circumstances, opposition etc. except one factor.

Just when Malik thinks that his position is for grab, he just goes for batting and performs well, truly based on his personal desire.. Thats called skills, commitment and talent.

We must play such a talented and strong willed player in every single match. (by the way, thats already in PCB's current and future plans)

I suggest you check Maliks test record. Hes reserves all his best performances for Sri lanka on flat wickets!

Not really much to be proud of!

 

[Black Zero]

I suggest you check Maliks test record. Hes reserves all his best performances for Sri lanka on flat wickets!

Not really much to be proud of!

You contradicting yourself now.

Before you were saying that He scored when his slot's for grab.

Now saying something different.

Why this change of heart?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Anwaar is Shoaib Malik

 

[FastBowler]

Anwaar is Shoaib Malik

Then the whole rest of this forum is Younus Khan

 

[Black Zero]

To get your attention. You quote X numbers, I debunk X numbers, and you pull out your "excuses" excuse and disappear.

Now, I'll start posting some relevant Malik stats this weekend as well. Stay tuned.

Stay Tuned???
This is second weekend already!.

 

[Black Zero]

Expect few more data sets, (already provided three in this thread), maybe this week end.

Ok, here is another one.

We all already are well aware of disadvantages of using "averages" as a benchmark for batsman's performance.

In cricket where sample set have values from very low to very high, arithmetic mean (averages) become a poor measure of batsman's performance, quality and reliability.

To counter these disadvantages, statistician use standard deviation and coefficient of variation to determine the reliability/consistency of sample data.


Coefficient of Variation = Standard Deviation / Mean
Lower the Coefficient of Variation, the more consistent a batsman would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation

I am not surprised to see Malik in top few reliability-wise.

 

[iafzal]

Interesting but here is the question

Who will you pick between the two somone who is somewhat more consistant in scoring 30 odd runs and hence has an average of 31/innings or someone who is not as consistant but scores 47/innings?

So by the standard deviation a tailended with an average of 15 can be better than Malik if he is more consistant so we should choose him over Malik.

Standard deviation or reliability of ones batting can only be taken into account if we are talking about players with similar averages.
For Malik, good comparision will be Farhat or Hafeez (not Minadad, Inzi or YK as they had 14/innings better avg) as they are in low to mid 30 avg.

 

[Black Zero]

Interesting but here is the question

Who will you pick between the two somone who is somewhat more consistant in scoring 30 odd runs and hence has an average of 31/innings or someone who is not as consistant but scores 47/innings?

So by the standard deviation a tailended with an average of 15 can be better than Malik if he is more consistant so we should choose him over Malik.

Standard deviation or reliability of ones batting can only be taken into account if we are talking about players with similar averages.
For Malik, good comparision will be Farhat or Hafeez (not Minadad, Inzi or YK as they had 14/innings better avg) as they are in low to mid 30 avg.

This is coefficient of variation (SD over Mean). A dimensionless index.

To answer your question, i'll take a reliable player with average 35 over unreliable player with avg 47. Reason is simple as reliable player would contribute toward team lot more often than unreliable player.

With reliable players of avg of 35, team would score 550+ per test (enough to save, draw or win). With unreliable players, you may score 700+ or 400- and that will hurt you a lot. (Pakistan team is an ideal example of this phenomenon called "collapse")

An example (extreme to convey the inherent flaws on arithmetic mean):
3 test series:

Batsman A: 0,0,300,0,0,0 Avg: 50
Batsman B: 35,35,35,35,35,35 Avg: 35

So a player with a high average with low reliability will actually hurt team more than he would benefit it.

To make it more universal, we can start with following value:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=team_average;template=results;type=aggregate

Avg: ~32 per wicket and ~979 runs per match. ~245 per innings.

so we can safely say that cut off value is around 32 +-3

so reliable player with avg of 35 is good enough to produce satisfactory results for team.

In-case you have a player with higher average and also with great reliability then we must choose that player.

Otherwise if average is above ~35 than I'll go with a player with higher reliability. (Though this also depends how much difference they have between their reliabilities)

i.e. I'll pick Wasim Raja over Zaheer Abbas (the Asian "Bread"man)

Hope I am clear enough.

 

[taaveez]

This is coefficient of variation (SD over Mean). A dimensionless index.

To answer your question, i'll take a reliable player with average 35 over unreliable player with avg 47. Reason is simple as reliable player would contribute toward team lot more often than unreliable player.

With reliable players of avg of 35, team would score 550+ per test (enough to save, draw or win). With unreliable players, you may score 700+ or 400- and that will hurt you a lot. (Pakistan team is an ideal example of this phenomenon called "collapse")

An example (extreme to convey the inherent flaws on arithmetic mean):
3 test series:

Batsman A: 0,0,300,0,0,0 Avg: 50
Batsman B: 35,35,35,35,35,35 Avg: 35

So a player with a high average with low reliability will actually hurt team more than he would benefit it.

To make it more universal, we can start with following value:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=team_average;template=results;type=aggregate

Avg: ~32 per wicket and ~979 runs per match. ~245 per innings.

so we can safely say that cut off value is around 32 +-3

so reliable player with avg of 35 is good enough to produce satisfactory results for team.

In-case you have a player with higher average and also with great reliability then we must choose that player.

Otherwise if average is above ~35 than I'll go with a player with higher reliability. (Though this also depends how much difference they have between their reliabilities)

i.e. I'll pick Wasim Raja over Zaheer Abbas (the Asian "Bread"man)

Hope I am clear enough.

This is very poor logic.

1. Just look at your list and tell me how many commonly agreed upon greats are in the top of that list.

2. Consistency of a mediocre average means you have little potential to increase your game from there. Your argument will have some weight only if the underlying average was high. And then if you were comparing two players with similar averages but different consistencies.

3. Your are clearly forgetting the virtue of the upward volatility or deviation from the average. Kind of like comparing MSFT and AAPL stocks. MSFT was a 20-something stock 5 years ago and is a 20-something stock today, and if you notice has lower beta/volatility (and a lower CV) than AAPL:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=^SPX
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=^SPX

4. Your argument about "average runs per wicket" is also very poor. That number tells you nothing about the dispersion of the average among the batsmen. If 4 or 5 tailenders brought the average down by 10 or 15 runs, Malik is clearly the mediocre batsman.

In fact, over the last 10 years, the batting average of top 1 to 6 position players has been 42. Malik is clearly below average. Here is the proof:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting
In the entire history of cricket, the average of the top 6 position players has been 37. Malik is clearly below average even pulling up (wrongly, BTW) the entire history.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

4. Your analysis proves that Malik is a mediocre performer who will rarely be able to raise his game to score a 100 and as a result hardly ever win a game for his team. Thanks for the work.

Now, I assume you'll conveniently run away from several arguments in my post and instead bring up a new, irrelevant stat.

 

[talha3]

wow - high quality hardcore stats analysis going on above, interesting reading.

if only malik knew he was being analysed like this

 

[iafzal]

Taveez has done a good job addressing the points raised.

I will make 2 points.

1. The standard deviation assumes swings of scores on both side of the average. That is wrong for comparing players, why should a batsman be penalized for scoring more than his avg?
When comparing two batsman with different averages one way is to compare apples to apples is to only consider those scores part of the std. deviation which are below the player with lower avg. between the two. Btw, Having someone with a tighter std. devaition is not a positive in my opinion in fact it also tells the limitation that they do not have much potential to score more than their avg capability that the avg represents. No wonder player like Rameez is on top and greats like Miandad, Yousuf, Yonus are on the mid to bottom.

2. Your example is very unrealisitic
Batsman A: 0,0,300,0,0,0 Avg: 50
Batsman B: 35,35,35,35,35,35 Avg: 35
it will never happen so why give such an example even if to make a point it makes the wrong point.

 

[saeed-sohail]

wow - high quality hardcore stats analysis going on above, interesting reading.

if only malik knew he was being analysed like this

Mate this is not for me and you only intellectuals understand this sort of high quality stuff.As for malik knowing this plz dont confuse an already confused soul.

 

[Black Zero]

This is very poor logic.
Ad hominem

1. Just look at your list and tell me how many commonly agreed upon greats are in the top of that list.
Argument from omniscience

2. Consistency of a mediocre average means you have little potential to increase your game from there.
How?

Your argument will have some weight only if the underlying average was high.
Its high enough as per stats (already posted above and one more below)

And then if you were comparing two players with similar averages but different consistencies.

3. Your are clearly forgetting the virtue of the upward volatility or deviation from the average. Kind of like comparing MSFT and AAPL stocks. MSFT was a 20-something stock 5 years ago and is a 20-something stock today, and if you notice has lower beta/volatility (and a lower CV) than AAPL:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=^SPX
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=^SPX

^^ I'll check these links and will respond in due course.

4. Your argument about "average runs per wicket" is also very poor. That number tells you nothing about the dispersion of the average among the batsmen. If 4 or 5 tailenders brought the average down by 10 or 15 runs, Malik is clearly the mediocre batsman.

If you don't like avg run per wht you can pass it go to avg runs per match or avg runs per innings, I hope something suits your taste.

In fact, over the last 10 years, the batting average of top 1 to 6 position players has been 42. Malik is clearly below average. Here is the proof:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting
In the entire history of cricket, the average of the top 6 position players has been 37. Malik is clearly below average even pulling up (wrongly, BTW) the entire history.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

Sorry, the correct cutoff number for Top Order is 35.82 (Malik is above this cut-off level)

Check this out a smarter way to query as compared to your cumbersome method.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...ll;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting


4. Your analysis proves that Malik is a mediocre performer who will rarely be able to raise his game to score a 100 and as a result hardly ever win a game for his team.
Composition fallacy

Thanks for the work.

My pleasure

Now, I assume you'll conveniently run away from several arguments in my post and instead bring up a new, irrelevant stat.

I am disappointed if you think so. I promise i'll try harder.
Could you also promise to bring real arguments on table?
Just a reminder you made a promise two weeks ago.

 

[Black Zero]

Taveez has done a good job addressing the points raised.

I will make 2 points.

1. The standard deviation assumes swings of scores on both side of the average. That is wrong for comparing players, why should a batsman be penalized for scoring more than his avg?
When comparing two batsman with different averages one way is to compare apples to apples is to only consider those scores part of the std. deviation which are below the player with lower avg. between the two. Btw, Having someone with a tighter std. devaition is not a positive in my opinion in fact it also tells the limitation that they do not have much potential to score more than their avg capability that the avg represents. No wonder player like Rameez is on top and greats like Miandad, Yousuf, Yonus are on the mid to bottom.

2. Your example is very unrealisitic
Batsman A: 0,0,300,0,0,0 Avg: 50
Batsman B: 35,35,35,35,35,35 Avg: 35
it will never happen so why give such an example even if to make a point it makes the wrong point.

Please accept "Thank You" on Taveez's behalf.

Re: Point 1, Batsmen with high average tend to have higher SD thats why Coefficient is being used to counter it so your objection is addressed already.

Here are two sample sets:

Set1:
30,35,40
SD = 5
Avg= 35
co-ef= 0.14

Set2:
43,50,57
SD=7
Co-Ef= 0.14

Re: Rameez average's below cutoff value but yoyu can compare him with Aamer sohail who got little better avg than Ramiz but was not as reliable.

Re: 2. Thats to bring the issue to fore but maybe you are already aware of Pakistani player with triple hundred who failed to cross score 25 45% of times of their innings still got career average of 50+. Not that unrealistic in some cases, thats why to be double careful with averages.

I'll bring another perspective (hopefully next week) in search of a better (or less flawed) methodology to rate a player.

 

[ali110]

Ok, here is another one.

We all already are well aware of disadvantages of using "averages" as a benchmark for batsman's performance.

In cricket where sample set have values from very low to very high, arithmetic mean (averages) become a poor measure of batsman's performance, quality and reliability.

To counter these disadvantages, statistician use standard deviation and coefficient of variation to determine the reliability/consistency of sample data.


Coefficient of Variation = Standard Deviation / Mean
Lower the Coefficient of Variation, the more consistent a batsman would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation

I am not surprised to see Malik in top few reliability-wise.

No it's not a surprise, the surprising aspect of your **** licking of moon babu (or may be yourself) is that when you are putting Hanif Mohd. and Zaheer Abbas at the bottom of your so called statistics.

Only a messed up mind like yours can put Rameez Raja at the top of this reliability index of yours.

Do you even know who the hell Rameez Raja was in his playing days? or even heard of Asian Breadman and a little master? or you just live in Malik's hole ?

 

[Mujahid27]

Guys Please stop supporting this guy. he is a waste for pakistani team. He will score maybe two 50's in all the 6 test matches this summer. he is not a quality batsman. give a chance to someone like azhar ali or umar amin an i am very sure they will score more runs than him.

 

[Black Zero]

No it's not a surprise, the surprising aspect of your **** licking of moon babu (or may be yourself) is that when you are putting Hanif Mohd. and Zaheer Abbas at the bottom of your so called statistics.

Only a messed up mind like yours can put Rameez Raja at the top of this reliability index of yours.

Do you even know who the hell Rameez Raja was in his playing days? or even heard of Asian Breadman and a little master? or you just live in Malik's hole ?

Sorry, those were not for you. Please ignore them.

This is for you:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=innings;team=7;template=results;type=batting

 

[Black Zero]

Guys Please stop supporting this guy. he is a waste for pakistani team. He will score maybe two 50's in all the 6 test matches this summer. he is not a quality batsman. give a chance to someone like azhar ali or umar amin an i am very sure they will score more runs than him.

If this is the case then we must stop supporting him.
But is this really the case?

 

[Black Zero]

Similar work is done by S Rajesh in 2006
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/245575.html

He used averages instead of Runs per Innings and used index of (Avg/SD) instead of (SD/Runs per innings)

 

[LG]

A low SD can also mean a lack of significantly high scores.

Actually, there was a post on the It Figures blog on Cricinfo about this very stat: http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2010/06/achieving_the_right_consistenc.php

And here's what the article says about the most consistent batsman according to this stat:

Top of the lot is Kiwi opener Mark Richardson. He may not have set the world alight compared to some of his dashing contemporaries, but his solidity as an opening batsman can easily be overlooked: he reached double figures in 80% of his Test innings (a very high proportion, as noted in another Numbers Game a few years ago), and only ever registered one duck. What stopped him from threatening the real top rank of the game was that, though he’d seldom get out cheaply, he was also pretty unlikely to score very heavily, as a total of four centuries from 65 innings and a top score of 145 attests. These characteristics are perfect for a low CoV, because they imply that a large majority of his innings fell in a relatively tight range in the middle of possible scores. Cricket will always find a way of surprising you but, to a greater extent than with any other batsman, you knew what you were going to get from Richardson.

 

[Black Zero]

A low SD can also mean a lack of significantly high scores.

Actually, there was a post on the It Figures blog on Cricinfo about this very stat: http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2010/06/achieving_the_right_consistenc.php

And here's what the article says about the most consistent batsman according to this stat:

Doesn't this article validate my point?

But this is not just SD, its ratio. I already addressed above replying to iafzal.

If a players scores high then his SD would be high but then for co-efficient its also gets divided by average (which is high).


There is a link in article, again to S Rajesh about Richardson

Quote "Smooth starter
Mark Richardson had a modest match at Hamilton, but once again showed his ability to get off to a start, scoring 44 and 15. In 45 innings as an opener, Richardson has been dismissed for less than ten only nine times - that's 20% of the innings he has opened in (include his knock in the first innings at Wellington, and the figure drops further). Among all openers since 1995, that is the lowest percentage - a figure he shares with Michael Vaughan."


"These characteristics are perfect for a low CoV, because they imply that a large majority of his innings fell in a relatively tight range in the middle of possible scores. Cricket will always find a way of surprising you but, to a greater extent than with any other batsman, you knew what you were going to get from Richardson."

Thats the reliability or confidence in the mean.

For a player with an avg of 50, for each double century, there would be 2-3 extremely low scoring innings. This player would have low reliability, naturally.

 

[waqar_ahmad]

It is amazing how some people would go to such lengths for defending the likes of malik, a player who refused to play up the order coz he was scared of the new ball, is always at bay against fast bowlers, is in the team for his PPP connections otherwise he wouldnt even have been selected.

I guess to these fans, coefficients and standard deviations are more important than the above.

 

[talha3]

Sorry, those were not for you. Please ignore them.

This is for you:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=innings;team=7;template=results;type=batting

sorry but these are not convincing statistics...

1. his average of 42 only covers 7 matches with a 148 not out (his best score) skewing the average.

2. the stats only cover the years 2005-2006. we don't care how good he was 5 years ago, the debate is how good he is NOW.

 

[Black Zero]

sorry but these are not convincing statistics...

1. his average of 42 only covers 7 matches with a 148 not out (his best score) skewing the average.

2. the stats only cover the years 2005-2006. we don't care how good he was 5 years ago, the debate is how good he is NOW.

For Point#2: This is for other thread "Shoaib Malik Performance Log"

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=99606

For Point#1: He played only 29 test matches on various position. He played new ball 25% of his career.

Regarding your objection of skewing the average, this is universal for everyone and not specific to Malik only.

Another angle to tackle this:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2703586&postcount=488

 

[Black Zero]

It is amazing how some people would go to such lengths for defending the likes of malik, a player who refused to play up the order coz he was scared of the new ball, is always at bay against fast bowlers, is in the team for his PPP connections otherwise he wouldnt even have been selected.

I guess to these fans, coefficients and standard deviations are more important than the above.

Kindly feel free to ignore, "coefficient of variance".

Lets come to your point.

Yes, he is scared to death of new ball and here is the evidence (stating gazillionith time):

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=innings;team=7;template=results;type=batting

 

[saeed-sohail]

Kindly feel free to ignore, "coefficient of variance".

Lets come to your point.

Yes, he is scared to death of new ball and here is the evidence (stating gazillionith time):

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=innings;team=7;template=results;type=batting

You have posted this so many times that most of us will remember this 42 number for rest of our lives.

 

[taaveez]

Ad hominem

Argument from omniscience

How?

Its high enough as per stats (already posted above and one more below)

^^ I'll check these links and will respond in due course.

If you don't like avg run per wht you can pass it go to avg runs per match or avg runs per innings, I hope something suits your taste.

Sorry, the correct cutoff number for Top Order is 35.82 (Malik is above this cut-off level)

Composition fallacy

Thanks for the work.

My pleasure

I assume you are actually going to respond to the post rather than type out incomprehensible one-liners as your preamble? Or that was your attempt at checking the boxes? Pls enlighten.

 

[taaveez]

Check this out a smarter way to query as compared to your cumbersome method.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...;type=bat ting

Do you even know what I calculated in my post?

 

[waqar_ahmad]

Kindly feel free to ignore, "coefficient of variance".

Lets come to your point.

Yes, he is scared to death of new ball and here is the evidence (stating gazillionith time):

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=innings;team=7;template=results;type=batting

I guess between making those worthless calculations, and trying to impress us with your statistical prowess, you forgot to read to moon's own statements, that he does not like playing in the top order.

 

[taaveez]

Please accept "Thank You" on Taveez's behalf.

Re: Point 1, Batsmen with high average tend to have higher SD thats why Coefficient is being used to counter it so your objection is addressed already.
...
Re: 2. Thats to bring the issue to fore but maybe you are already aware of Pakistani player with triple hundred who failed to cross score 25 45% of times of their innings still got career average of 50+. Not that unrealistic in some cases, thats why to be double careful with averages.

I'll bring another perspective (hopefully next week) in search of a better (or less flawed) methodology to rate a player.

You actually didn't even try and understand what he said. Or maybe you tried but that's as far as you got. He isn't talking about "size" of the variation. He's referring to its sign. And there's a difference between the two of more than just a couple of alphabets.

 

[taaveez]

Similar work is done by S Rajesh in 2006
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/245575.html

He used averages instead of Runs per Innings and used index of (Avg/SD) instead of (SD/Runs per innings)

There's a reason why the only job the guy can find is being a third-page writer for cricinfo....

 

[Black Zero]

You have posted this so many times that most of us will remember this 42 number for rest of our lives.

Well you must feel for me who is actually copying pasting but PPers still saying that SM cant play new ball

 

[Black Zero]

There's a reason why the only job the guy can find is being a third-page writer for cricinfo....

I do recall that 3-4 months ago I presented S.Rajesh's data set to support something (that I do not recall) and you rejected straight away.

Then, once I presented a TED talk and later a paper to support against MoYo's claim that more money will produce better test cricketers*. You refused to read that piece.

Why such mind set?



* (My position is that money isn't the top 3/5 reason for that).

 

[Black Zero]

I guess between making those worthless calculations, and trying to impress us with your statistical prowess, you forgot to read to moon's own statements, that he does not like playing in the top order.

Sire, no need to get impressed as 99.99% are just queries and already used concepts. Nothing to do with me or my so called "statistical prowess".

Regarding SM's statement, be fair and paste his complete statement without editing.
Saj had a telephonic conversation with Malik and there was sticky thread on it. You may refer to it.

 

[waqar_ahmad]

Sire, no need to get impressed as 99.99% are just queries and already used concepts. Nothing to do with me or my so called "statistical prowess".

Regarding SM's statement, be fair and paste his complete statement without editing.
Saj had a telephonic conversation with Malik and there was sticky thread on it. You may refer to it.

It is an old statement that he gave after scoring a 100 against india in the CT. It was discussed in detail even here on PP. Look for it on here if you want.

And that was just one such statement.

Everyone knows why Fawad Alam was made to open against the lankans. It was all over the papers.

Whether you chose to close your eyes to all this, is another issue

 

[Black Zero]

I assume you are [U]actually going to respond to the post[/U] rather than type out[U] incomprehensible one-liners[/U] as your preamble? Or that was your attempt at checking the boxes? Pls enlighten.

Actually I thought I did.
Thats the best I can offer at the moment.

OK

 

[Black Zero]

It is an old statement that he gave after scoring a 100 against india in the CT. It was discussed in detail even here on PP. Look for it on here if you want.

And that was just one such statement.

Everyone knows why Fawad Alam was made to open against the lankans. It was all over the papers.

Whether you chose to close your eyes to all this, is another issue

I am not denying that he might (or might not) have refused to play at #3.
But I can understand his position, he has been move around different slots during his ~10 years (and only 29 tests) so if he demands a long run at #3 then it's justifiable. (suppose if he performs ok at #3/#4 and YK/MY return then would they surrender their slots? I do not think so.

Plus in Pakistan team these slot positioning are less to do with strategic and/or tactical decisions and more to with in-house politics. (How Kami reacted when UA was asked to bat @#3 in NZL!, Kami blamed captain of risking the career of UA)
Now think about a player(SM) who was captain few months back and with the help of PCB (Saeed and Inti) 7/8 of his colleagues rebelled against him and flatly refused to play under him and in result he was labelled "loner" and sacked. Why would he trust same guys?

Hence not playing up the order has nothing to do with him being "scared of new ball"

 

[taaveez]

I do recall that 3-4 months ago I presented S.Rajesh's data set to support something (that I do not recall) and you rejected straight away.

Then, once I presented a TED talk and later a paper to support against MoYo's claim that more money will produce better test cricketers*. You refused to read that piece.

Why such mind set?.

That's your problem right there. Bolded above for you. For some reason, you seem to only remember what you presented but not how someone took it apart or addressed it in full. An example is your SM opener reference which was addressed and nullified in full in posts leading up to # 500:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2707217&postcount=500)

I, for one, don't recall the previous Rajesh piece, but the TED piece was just a random video clip about some guy purporting to reveal HR secrets to the world in a talk show. Or something. Your "paper" reference was completely turned upside down - you made your disappearance act immediately after.

 

[Black Zero]

You actually didn't even try and understand what he said. Or maybe you tried but that's as far as you got. He isn't talking about "size" of the variation. He's referring to its sign. And there's a difference between the two of more than just a couple of alphabets.

Why don't you suggest him to churn-out some examples for us mortals who cannot go that far?

 

[taaveez]

Why don't you suggest him to churn-out some examples for us mortals who cannot go that far?

Run your "consistency" / CV trials on this data:

Player 1: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
Player 2: 30, 30, 30, 30, 31

Tell us which player you will pick in your team. And why.

Now might be a good time to read point # 3 in my post # 589:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2737026&postcount=589

 

[Black Zero]

That's your problem right there. Bolded above for you. For some reason, you seem to only remember what you presented but not how someone took it apart or addressed it in full. An example is your SM opener reference which was addressed and nullified in full in posts leading up to # 500:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2707217&postcount=500)

I, for one, don't recall the previous Rajesh piece, but the TED piece was just a random video clip about some guy purporting to reveal HR secrets to the world in a talk show. Or something. Your "paper" reference was completely turned upside down - you made your disappearance act immediately after.

#498,#525
More to do with my work and my nature of moving forward (why sticking to cyclic rebuttals, when new arguments can be presented).

Like now, I lost interest in CoV or as S. Rajesh say it's inverse as Reliability index.

 

[taaveez]

#498,#525

I already identified these two posts as data manipulation. #500, on the other hand, concluded from comparing apples to apples.

More to do with my work and my nature of moving forward (why sticking to cyclic rebuttals, when new arguments can be presented).

Like now, I lost interest in CoV or as S. Rajesh say it's inverse as Reliability index.

Your explanation would make sense if you didn't make a follow-up reference 50 posts later to what you claimed you had lost interest in. As it is, it doesn't jibe.

 

[Black Zero]

Run your "consistency" / CV trials on this data:

Player 1: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
Player 2: 30, 30, 30, 30, 31

Tell us which player you will pick in your team. And why.

Now might be a good time to read point # 4 in my post # 589:
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2737026&postcount=589

Player 1: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
Player 2: 30, 30, 30, 30, 31

P1: Avg: 50, SD 15.81, CoV: .32
P2: Avg: 30.2, SD .45, CoV: .02

P1 as Avg of P2 is below cutoff ~35


Player 1: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
Player 3: 41, 41, 41, 41, 41

P3: Avg: 41, SD 0, CoV: 0

Here, I'll take P3 as there are 20% chance that P1 may hurt team cause of one sample below cutoff.

Good night.

 

[taaveez]

Player 1: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
Player 2: 30, 30, 30, 30, 31

P1: Avg: 50, SD 15.81, CoV: .32
P2: Avg: 30.2, SD .45, CoV: .02

P1 as Avg of P2 is below cutoff ~35

So, after all, your CV argument had no basis. You were only hiding behind another argument where you artificially used a cutoff to define what you would pick or drop.

Player 1: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
Player 3: 41, 41, 41, 41, 41

P3: Avg: 41, SD 0, CoV: 0

Here, I'll take P3 as there are 20% chance that P1 may hurt team cause of one sample below cutoff.

Once again, your CV argument had no basis. You were only hiding behind another argument where you artificially used a cutoff to define what you would pick or drop.

Officially, we have now debunked another one of Anwaar's data manipulative arguments. Note to the file: ineffective use of the coefficient of variation to project reliability and selection preferences.

Signed,
taaveez

 

[ali110]

Oh yaar Anwaar why are you wasting your time here, you should go and defend Zardari/Ganja and other corrupts, you will be making a million in no time. Trust me, when you can defend Malik, you can defend anyone, I literally mean, anyone.

 

[LG]

Doesn't this article validate my point?

What really is your point? Is it that a player who averages around 35 and has a low CoV better or more reliable than a player who averages around 50 and but has a higher CoV? If so, no, this article doesn't validate your point.

But this is not just SD, its ratio. I already addressed above replying to iafzal.

If a players scores high then his SD would be high but then for co-efficient its also gets divided by average (which is high).

The CoV shows the percentage deviation around the average. So if a player has a relatively low average (around 35) and barely ever scores big he will naturally have a low Cov. It shows that you more or less knew exactly what you'd get from that batsman, i.e. a score of around 35. He will usually get starts, but will almost surely not go on and score big.

There is a link in article, again to S Rajesh about Richardson

Quote "Smooth starter
Mark Richardson had a modest match at Hamilton, but once again showed his ability to get off to a start, scoring 44 and 15. In 45 innings as an opener, Richardson has been dismissed for less than ten only nine times - that's 20% of the innings he has opened in (include his knock in the first innings at Wellington, and the figure drops further). Among all openers since 1995, that is the lowest percentage - a figure he shares with Michael Vaughan."

I don't know why you're referring to the article by S Rajesh, when the article I posted is an improvement on that article. Anyway, this again proves my point. Richardson gets starts almost 80% of the time, but rarely goes on further.

For a player with an avg of 50, for each double century, there would be 2-3 extremely low scoring innings. This player would have low reliability, naturally.

That's a wrong assumption. A player who averages 50 DOES NOT necessarily have to score 2-3 extremely low scores after a double century. But, any low scores he makes, even if he makes the same number of such scores as the batsman who averages 35, will significantly his SD. And if he makes big scores, it further increases his SD, hence giving him a high CoV. It does not mean that he WILL score more low scores than the batsman who averages 35. What it does mean is that he scores big, so the range of scores he makes is much wider than the batsman who averages 35. In fact, if you see table 1 in the article I posted, 7 of the top 10 average below 45, and 3 of them below 40. They consistently scored around their average. The first major batsman on the list comes in at no. 32 (Kallis).

 

[Black Zero]

Oh yaar Anwaar why are you wasting your time here, you should go and defend Zardari/Ganja and other corrupts, you will be making a million in no time. Trust me, when you can defend Malik, you can defend anyone, I literally mean, anyone.

No one is defending no one.
This is just a support thread.

Re: Wasting time, thats very true. I have some time to kill atm, but wont after 5 weeks, so bear me for few more weeks.

 

[Black Zero]

So, after all, your CV argument had no basis. You were only hiding behind another argument where you artificially used a cutoff to define what you would pick or drop.


Once again, your CV argument had no basis. You were only hiding behind another argument where you artificially used a cutoff to define what you would pick or drop.

Officially, we have now debunked another one of Anwaar's data manipulative arguments. Note to the file: ineffective use of the coefficient of variation to project reliability and selection preferences.

Signed,
taaveez

Thats I hate where one has to explain same thing multiple times. This is already presented in iafzal's original objection.

 

[Black Zero]

That's a wrong assumption. A player who averages 50 DOES NOT necessarily have to score 2-3 extremely low scores after a double century.

Then wouldn't that big score increase his Mean?

But, any low scores he makes, even if he makes the same number of such scores as the batsman who averages 35, will significantly his SD. And if he makes big scores, it further increases his SD, hence giving him a high CoV.

Not Necessarily:
S1: 10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45 (45-10=35)
Mean: 27.5
SD: 13.1, CoV: 0.48

S2: 40, 47, 54, 61, 68, 75 (75-40=35)
Mean: 57.5
SD: 13.1, CoV:0.23


S3: 25, 55, 58, 64, 68, 75
Mean: 57.5
SD: 17.44, CoV: 0.30

It does not mean that he WILL score more low scores than the batsman who averages 35. What it does mean is that he scores big, so the range of scores he makes is much wider than the batsman who averages 35. In fact, if you see table 1 in the article I posted, 7 of the top 10 average below 45, and 3 of them below 40. They consistently scored around their average. The first major batsman on the list comes in at no. 32 (Kallis).

...

 

[taaveez]

Thats I hate where one has to explain same thing multiple times. This is already presented in iafzal's original objection.

I presented major problems with this argument in my post above, and here it is again:

4. Your argument about "average runs per wicket" is also very poor. That number tells you nothing about the dispersion of the average among the batsmen. If 4 or 5 tailenders brought the average down by 10 or 15 runs, Malik is clearly the mediocre batsman.

In fact, over the last 10 years, the batting average of top 1 to 6 position players has been 42. Malik is clearly below average. Here is the proof:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...ts;type=batting
In the entire history of cricket, the average of the top 6 position players has been 37. Malik is clearly below average even pulling up (wrongly, BTW) the entire history.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...ts;type=batting

 

[Black Zero]

As Malik is rested for Azhar Ali and I support the move if this fits in Afridi's plan.
This has bearing on the context of this thread.
So for me it's kind of paradox to support Malik and also support Afridi's decision.

Sad news for Malik apparently but then you expect the best of comebacks from him.

 

[Gollum]

As Malik is rested for Azhar Ali and I support the move if this fits in Afridi's plan.
This has bearing on the context of this thread.
So for me it's kind of paradox to support Malik and also support Afridi's decision.

Sad news for Malik apparently but then you expect the best of comebacks from him.

I support new players, but Malik may not be the first player I would replace. He may come handy at #5 or 6 with the bat. He is a more than a useful fielder (the best in this team easily). And if Afridi chooses to play a leggie, he may very well have a few useful overs of offspin for the team. Last but not least his experience as a test place is worth its weight in gold.

I can't believe I listed so many positives in favour of Malik, but can't be denied

 

[Black Zero]

I support new players, but Malik may not be the first player I would replace. He may come handy at #5 or 6 with the bat. He is a more than a useful fielder (the best in this team easily). And if Afridi chooses to play a leggie, he may very well have a few useful overs of offspin for the team. Last but not least his experience as a test place is worth its weight in gold.

I can't believe I listed so many positives in favour of Malik, but can't be denied

But afridi needs more support atm (i supported MoYo too till that "day")

If Afridi fails to deliver personally, his test career may be at risk.

 

[LG]

Errrrr... I don't understand what you are saying in that post, Anwaar.

Anyway, I'll quote again something you said that shocked me. Do you really mean this? You seem to be implying that a player who scores big will without a doubt make more low scores than a player who doesn't usually score big.

For a player with an avg of 50, for each double century, there would be 2-3 extremely low scoring innings. This player would have low reliability, naturally.

 

[Black Zero]

Errrrr... I don't understand what you are saying in that post, Anwaar.

Anyway, I'll quote again something you said that shocked me. Do you really mean this? You seem to be implying that a player who scores big will without a doubt make more low scores than a player who doesn't usually score big.

If he doesn't then he will get a low CoV, won't he, cause of High mean and low SD?

If you score big, wont it change your mean in upward? and If you want to keep average constant you would need low scores to counter big score to have the same CoV. If thats not the case then that player would have a high average and a low CoV. In that case you can pick that player without doubt.

Whats so complex?

 

[Black Zero]

I presented major problems with this argument in my post above, and here it is again:

Could you pls clarify that you have issue with the value of cutoff or with cutoff itself.

From the value you have given 42, indicates that you have accepted the cutoff itself but think that 35 is too low a value?

 

[taaveez]

Could you pls clarify that you have issue with the value of cutoff or with cutoff itself.

From the value you have given 42, indicates that you have accepted the cutoff itself but think that 35 is too low a value?

(1) The 35 run cutoff is too low if you want to use one in the first place;

(2) I can't use it since I don't see a binomial calculation where once you are above the cutoff, you forget the average and focus solely on the CV; and

(3) You are concluding something that isn't there:

Correct statement:
SM is more consistent in scoring 36 runs per test inning than YK is in scoring 50 runs per test inning.

Incorrect statement:
SM is a more reliable player than YK. Or, SM is a more valuable player than YK (and hence you'll pick SM, etc).

Why? Simple example by way of scores (a repeat from above):

SM: 36, 36, 36, 36, 36
YK: 36, 43, 50, 57, 64

Whether YK actually scores a 200 and 3 ducks is (A) not supported by just the CV calculation and, thus, unproven so far, and (B) even if true doesn't yet prove that 36, 36, 36, 36 is more valuable than 200, 0, 0, 0. (That is, (B) is a separate, likely subjective, discussion.)

 

[saeed-sohail]

Soon I will start an Anwaar support thread that he richly deserves.

 

[ahmed16]

What is the point of this thread, its a thread to "support" Malik, yet all it consists of is Malik getting shitted upon by every tom, dick and harry. Why is it even still called the Malik "support" thread.

 

[Black Zero]

(1) The 35 run cutoff is too low if you want to use one in the first place;

(2) I can't use it since I don't see a binomial calculation where once you are above the cutoff, you forget the average and focus solely on the CV; and

(3) You are concluding something that isn't there:

Correct statement:
SM is more consistent in scoring 36 runs per test inning than YK is in scoring 50 runs per test inning.

Incorrect statement:
SM is a more reliable player than YK. Or, SM is a more valuable player than YK (and hence you'll pick SM, etc).

Why? Simple example by way of scores (a repeat from above):

SM: 36, 36, 36, 36, 36
YK: 36, 43, 50, 57, 64

Whether YK actually scores a 200 and 3 ducks is (A) not supported by just the CV calculation and, thus, unproven so far, and (B) even if true doesn't yet prove that 36, 36, 36, 36 is more valuable than 200, 0, 0, 0. (That is, (B) is a separate, likely subjective, discussion.)

By the way YK has failed to cross 25 45%+, and 35 55%+ of the times, SM 60%+ and Zaheer Abbas 63%+ (Zaheer got avg of 44+ while Malik has 36+ and that reflects in the respective CoV)

The idea that I am forwarding is you put it in (2) but you think its not possible to have such numbers.

On the other hand, I am for such values, and in result can determine safe, low risk, high risk zones. And then able to compare players with high avg low reliability with a player of low avg high reliability from risk minimization perspective.

 

[Black Zero]

Soon I will start an Anwaar support thread that he richly deserves.

serious?

No, you joking

 

[Black Zero]

What is the point of this thread, its a thread to "support" Malik, yet all it consists of is Malik getting shitted upon by every tom, dick and harry. Why is it even still called the Malik "support" thread.

You look like Tom.

 

[iafzal]

Soon I will start an Anwaar support thread that he richly deserves.

 

[iafzal]

By the way YK has failed to cross 25 45%+, and 35 55%+ of the times, SM 60%+ and Zaheer Abbas 63%+ (Zaheer got avg of 44+ while Malik has 36+ and that reflects in the respective CoV)

The idea that I am forwarding is you put it in (2) but you think its not possible to have such numbers.

On the other hand, I am for such values, and in result can determine safe, low risk, high risk zones. And then able to compare players with high avg low reliability with a player of low avg high reliability from risk minimization perspective.

I think we should end this discussion here.
You have quoted
YK has failed to cross ....35 55%+ of the times, SM 60%+ and Zaheer Abbas 63%+

The above facts prove two things:
1. YK will have a better probability of scoring above 35
2. Based on the 14 runs higher avg of YK, he is much more likely to score high score when ever he crosses 35.

I think it is now easy to conclude despite lower SD of SM he is less reliable than YK terms of cricket since he will score less times above 35 and when he does he will not score a very high score otherwise his avg would have been better.

 

[Black Zero]

I think we should end this discussion here.
You have quoted
YK has failed to cross ....35 55%+ of the times, SM 60%+ and Zaheer Abbas 63%+

The above facts prove two things:
1. YK will have a better probability of scoring above 35
2. Based on the 14 runs higher avg of YK, he is much more likely to score high score when ever he crosses 35.

I think it is now easy to conclude despite lower SD of SM he is less reliable than YK terms of cricket since he will score less times above 35 and when he does he will not score a very high score otherwise his avg would have been better.

Forget YK for a while, compare SM with Zaheer. Zaheer got 8 avg run advantage on SM, but he's 2% riskier than SM to harm team's chances.
(Here we are assuming that 35 run by each top order player would win/save team a match. Winning by one run, 500 runs or by an innings got same value here).

You may disagree with number 35, it could be "X", but once a player gets X with high reliability then team doesn't need higher scores. Those additional runs may contribute to player's personal records and milestones but you can't double-win a match.

To your satisfaction, I never presented this data set to pick SM over YK as difference of their CoV is not big enough at the moment.

 

[taaveez]

On the other hand, I am for such values, and in result can determine safe, low risk, high risk zones. And then able to compare players with high avg low reliability with a player of low avg high reliability from risk minimization perspective.

I think the point you are trying to put forth is that since SM can be expected to score 36 more consistently he has a place in the team for his 36. The logical question you need to answer then is whether 36 is enough.

It's kind of like saying Pakistan, on average, and in their current setting, are very consistent in losing a match, and you can minimize the risk of an unexpected outcome by having Pakistan play (for example, against Australia). I'm questioning whether the "volatility risk" minimized actually helped you at all. Returning to the subjective discussion, you should end up losing a game whether with three ducks or with three 36's, but you might win one with 200. And so forth.

 

[DW44]

I have never seen more ridiculous stats being thrown around. Seriously? Percentage number of times a batsman has crosses 35? Does anyone even care about the existence of such an absolutely pointless stat?

 

[iafzal]

Forget YK for a while, compare SM with Zaheer. Zaheer got 8 avg run advantage on SM, but he's 2% riskier than SM to harm team's chances.
(Here we are assuming that 35 run by each top order player would win/save team a match. Winning by one run, 500 runs or by an innings got same value here).

You may disagree with number 35, it could be "X", but once a player gets X with high reliability then team doesn't need higher scores. Those additional runs may contribute to player's personal records and milestones but you can't double-win a match.

To your satisfaction, I never presented this data set to pick SM over YK as difference of their CoV is not big enough at the moment.

True but let me tell you if 35 is the score someone who is your best batsman score reliably then this team will not win much. You need big time player who may fail but when they do score (at a good ratio) then they are match winner. A person with avg of 35 and low SD is no match winner and we should get rid of this medicore state of mind and players.

 

[LG]

If he doesn't then he will get a low CoV, won't he, cause of High mean and low SD?

If you score big, wont it change your mean in upward? and If you want to keep average constant you would need low scores to counter big score to have the same CoV. If thats not the case then that player would have a high average and a low CoV. In that case you can pick that player without doubt.

Whats so complex?

If the guy is averaging 50, hasn't the average already had an upward movement?? The big scores doesn't cause the SD and average to change by the same amount. So unless you're as consistent with big scores as Bradman, your CoV will be lower than a batsman who averages around 35, and consistently scores around his average. Heck, even Bradman is on 56 on that list. Does that mean he was inconsistent?

It's easier for a batsman who averages around 35 to score consistently around his average, than it is for someone who averages around 50.

You are only drawing one conclusion from Malik's relatively low CoV, and ignoring any other conclusions that can be made.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Im looking forward to seeing malik sitting on balcony and carrying drinks

 

[Amjid Javed]

Skipping practice, again showing poor attitude.

Hope he gets sent home in disgrace!

 

[Black Zero]

I have never seen more ridiculous stats being thrown around. Seriously? Percentage number of times a batsman has crosses 35? Does anyone even care about the existence of such an absolutely pointless stat?

Ok.

 

[Black Zero]

Im looking forward to seeing malik sitting on balcony and carrying drinks

There is a better option, use him as a substitute and put him at in slips

 

[Oxy]

I would rather him be practicing in the nets - tennis nets for mixed doubles with Saarnia

 

[Black Zero]

If the guy is averaging 50, hasn't the average already had an upward movement?? The big scores doesn't cause the SD and average to change by the same amount. So unless you're as consistent with big scores as Bradman, your CoV will be lower than a batsman who averages around 35, and consistently scores around his average. Heck, even Bradman is on 56 on that list. Does that mean he was inconsistent?

It's easier for a batsman who averages around 35 to score consistently around his average, than it is for someone who averages around 50.

You are only drawing one conclusion from Malik's relatively low CoV, and ignoring any other conclusions that can be made.

I suppose you mean higher.

Re: "It's easier for a batsman who averages around 35 to score consistently around his average, than it is for someone who averages around 50"
Then I happen to disagree:
this guy has avg of 60 with v.v.low CoV:
http://www.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/20413.html

few more name with High Avg and Low CoV:
Katich
Hobbs
Barrington
Kallis


and here are few players with Low average and High CoV:
Mohsin
Mudassar
Gatting
Flower
Ijaz
Whittal


Re: "Heck, even Bradman is on 56 on that list. Does that mean he was inconsistent"

Ranking isn't important. Focus on the value instead that shows him consistent. (ironically his value is pretty similar to SM's )


Re: "You are only drawing one conclusion from Malik's relatively low CoV, and ignoring any other conclusions that can be made"

I am not (i hope). Please read the other posts on the topic.

now in your own words, low CoV means you get what you see.
so for high CoV means you don't get what you see.

 

[Black Zero]

True but let me tell you if 35 is the score someone who is your best batsman score reliably then this team will not win much. You need big time player who may fail but when they do score (at a good ratio) then they are match winner. A person with avg of 35 and low SD is no match winner and we should get rid of this medicore state of mind and players.

We are not in same wave-length as my argument is for match-winning team and not match-winning player who play big innings few times and fails most of time. Too much risk involved.

By the way requirement for winning would be 38.86 with high reliability.

And this will ensure team high win ratio than that you can ever hope from high average less reliable match winners.

 

[Amir]

We are not in same wave-length as my argument is for match-winning team and not match-winning player who play big innings few times and fails most of time. Too much risk involved.

Anwaar bro, sorry to hear about Malik. I know you must be devastated and must be a difficult time for you. Just so you know, you have a shoulder to lean on. Hope you feel better.

Sincerely,

Amir

 

[saeed-sohail]

Anwaar bro, sorry to hear about Malik. I know you must be devastated and must be a difficult time for you. Just so you know, you have a shoulder to lean on. Hope you feel better.

Sincerely,

Amir

Thats harsh.