The Misbah-ul-Haq Captaincy Analysis Thread

[Ironcat]

I'm sorry, I should have said interview. To even get an interview, an A grade point average won't always get you the interview. They want to see your experiences as well.

For getting interviews, numbers become even more important. Your interviewer can only rely on data available without any color. They can look at your GPA, your years of experience, keywords in your CV, etc. All scientific and numbers-driven.

Again, how does this even relate to sport which is a public display and grades are really only for yourself?

Because numbers are everywhere in your life. Is it really that hard to understand?

No I wasn't. Now answer the question. Schooled, yet again for making stupid assumptions

The only person being schooled here is you. So you might as well give the lame version of schooling a rest.

And what was your question?

 

[iZeeshan]

Where did I say that? You need to prove that Misbah has no public support.

Honestly, I tried looking for an article but I couldn't find one. But I'm just speaking from my experience with my cousins/uncles/Pakistani friends and most of them don't like Misbah's presence in the team and the kind of mentality he has brought to everyone. That's where I got the idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

LOL. Facebook. Parodies. That's all they teach you in colleges these days to do research with?

Actually, social media is huge these days and that's where a lot of people let their feelings out. I mean, let's be real, what's wrong with that?

We're talking about the public right? Well, Facebook is a public outlet where people throw around their opinions. It's not the best example, but it's better than anything you've got on Misbah's rep in Pakistan.

I can't even fathom what your future employer's face will look like, when you respond to his or her research task with, "Hey, I found a Youtube video..."

It's a video made by a Pakistani enjoyed by many hence representing an opinion. If I was in this situation, my employer would certainly enjoy that video.

Social media is quite a reputable source for information, just like the internet is. Why do companies advertise on Facebook/Twitter and look at that for advertising techniques? Because, it's PUBLIC opinion.

Check your post again. Your point was, prove that she didn't have large public support. That point was tossed a pie in the face.

I gave you both the professional opinion as well as the opinion of the local "academy".


You really have no clue how to do even a simple piece of research. Kareena has got hundreds of award and all you can find us is a bunch of comments to an article.

Pitiful.

Arite, well I didn't know she's gotten awards. If she's got public support, touted as a good actor by some, and has won awards, then she could be a legend in some time. She's gotta keep it up for a while though, just like Amitabh and Shahrukh have who are given legends of Bollywood.

Honestly, how can you discredit my opinions on an article. We are talking about the public here right? That's public opinion on who the Indian public respect as an actress. Considering EVERY SINGLE comment is about Madhuri, don't see how that's not worth something. It's not worth anymore than your WIKIPEDIA article and quote from Saif Ali Khan, who's not even a commoner.

A cop-out. Depends on this, depends on that.

Tells me you have no real definition of a legend.

What a joke of a post. I give you a definition and you ask a question about it and then I don't have a definition? There's no specific weight to each factor - it's just a factor in regarding a legend. Not everything has to be assigned a number.

Clearly, then, legends have nothing to do with winning public hearts. They may even be public enemies and only later once public realizes what they were, they are termed legends. No?

I'm not really sure how this makes sense or relates to what I said - please explicate.

Winning public hearts is a factor in making someone a legend. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only troll here is the one who can't even present a single piece of evidence of his own from his past 27K posts.

There it is again. I just presented you evidence earlier with my article and a Youtube video. ON MY OWN. Get over it.

 

[iZeeshan]

For getting interviews, numbers become even more important. Your interviewer can only rely on data available without any color. They can look at your GPA, your years of experience, keywords in your CV, etc. All scientific and numbers-driven.

That's not true at all. These days, a lot of employers pay much more attention to a cover letter than a resume. Your years of experience mean nothing if they're 20 years at McDonald's hence noting that you need context.

Because numbers are everywhere in your life. Is it really that hard to understand?

And each number has a story behind it. Is it really that hard to understand?

The only person being schooled here is you. So you might as well give the lame version of schooling a rest.

And what was your question?

How have I been schooled? and LOL Ironcat, you've dodged it 16 times now, I'm sure it's etched in memory.

But I'm feeling generous today.

Player A scores 81, Player B scores 51 - who's better?

 

[iZeeshan]

Also, we're talking about "public opinion" aren't we?

Then how are quoting articles about what writers, actors, ex-celebrities going to prove that?

Public opinion = general population = comments on Forums, blogs, Facebook, Twitter

 

[Ironcat]

Honestly, I tried looking for an article but I couldn't find one. But I'm just speaking from my experience with my cousins/uncles/Pakistani friends and most of them don't like Misbah's presence in the team and the kind of mentality he has brought to everyone. That's where I got the idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Most "cousins/uncles/Pakistani friends" also believe that Afridi is a clown and a bits and pieces cricketer.

Actually, social media is huge these days and that's where a lot of people let their feelings out. I mean, let's be real, what's wrong with that?

Err, you need to prove a social media poll result here. Not just random comments. In social media, you will see what you want to see.

We're talking about the public right? Well, Facebook is a public outlet where people throw around their opinions. It's not the best example, but it's better than anything you've got on Misbah's rep in Pakistan.

Like I said, you need to prove a social media poll result here. Not just random comments. In social media, you will see what you want to see.

It's a video made by a Pakistani enjoyed by many hence representing an opinion. If I was in this situation, my employer would certainly enjoy that video.

But your employer will also fire you because the video has no relevance when it comes to research.

Social media is quite a reputable source for information, just like the internet is. Why do companies advertise on Facebook/Twitter and look at that for advertising techniques? Because, it's PUBLIC opinion.

Like I said, you need to prove a social media poll result here. Not just random comments. In social media, you will see what you want to see.

Honestly, how can you discredit my opinions on an article. We are talking about the public here right? That's public opinion on who the Indian public respect as an actress. Considering EVERY SINGLE comment is about Madhuri, don't see how that's not worth something. It's not worth anymore than your WIKIPEDIA article and quote from Saif Ali Khan, who's not even a commoner.

Unfortunately, you got 0 in your research assignment because random comments will be seen only in the light you want to see them.

Examples:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/552459.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/553354.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/content/story/550927.html

Read the comments. Most of everyone is praising Misbah, but this is a childish way to prove a point.

What a joke of a post. I give you a definition and you ask a question about it and then I don't have a definition? There's no specific weight to each factor - it's just a factor in regarding a legend. Not everything has to be assigned a number.

Tells me you have no clue how to define a legend. Without even roping in numbers, you don't even know which factor is mor important than the other. Simply tells me when time coems, you won't be able to reproduce a legend because you have no criteria.

There it is again. I just presented you evidence earlier with my article and a Youtube video. ON MY OWN. Get over it.

Err, the challenge was to give us a post from the past. We have schooled you in this thread and now you have learnt some of the basics. But you have no such post to bring out from the past - i.e. before we challenged you.

 

[Ironcat]

That's not true at all. These days, a lot of employers pay much more attention to a cover letter than a resume. Your years of experience mean nothing if they're 20 years at McDonald's hence noting that you need context.

Is that what they tell you at your career centers these days?

Do you know why you need to submit your application electronically now?

Because a computer goes through the submission (incl. the cover), picks out keywords, and checks them against the job description or specs. The counts of keywords are the first hurdle. Then all other numbers become important. GPA, years of work experience, achievements such as growth in revenues at past employers, etc.

And each number has a story behind it. Is it really that hard to understand?

The numbers encapsulates the result. You can lie or frame a story your way around your poor GPA, but a poor GPA is a poor GPA.

Player A scores 81, Player B scores 51 - who's better?

Is that all the information that you have provided? All the numbers? If you have, then all else being equal, player A is better.

Now watch how you come back and post a SR - another number - to prove something. Go on. I can see your next 20 moves from here.

 

[Ironcat]

Also, we're talking about "public opinion" aren't we?

Then how are quoting articles about what writers, actors, ex-celebrities going to prove that?

Public opinion = general population = comments on Forums, blogs, Facebook, Twitter

And only someone who knows nothing about research would go on and post random comments from Facebook.

 

[iZeeshan]

And only someone who knows nothing about research would go on and post random comments from Facebook.

I'm confused.

How does that discredit the fact that that's public opinion and Facebook is used by the public?

What makes them anymore random then the articles you gave me?

 

[iZeeshan]

Is that what they tell you at your career centers these days?

Do you know why you need to submit your application electronically now?

Because a computer goes through the submission (incl. the cover), picks out keywords, and checks them against the job description or specs. The counts of keywords are the first hurdle. Then all other numbers become important. GPA, years of work experience, achievements such as growth in revenues at past employers, etc.

The numbers encapsulates the result. You can lie or frame a story your way around your poor GPA, but a poor GPA is a poor GPA.

Yes there is a filter for specific numbers, but that still leaves a HUGE pool of applicants. What gets people the interview are their specific experiences and achievements like you said. What they did and where they worked.

And I actually know people who have gotten top level jobs despite low GPA, in fact there are even articles about how GPA isn't everything and not what employers look for all the time.

Not to mention, to actually get hired, you have to destory the interview - nothing to do with numbers (aka, get selected in the team you have to show your performances of worthy of being considered)

Is that all the information that you have provided? All the numbers? If you have, then all else being equal, player A is better.

Now watch how you come back and post a SR - another number - to prove something. Go on. I can see your next 20 moves from here.

Nope both have 100 SR. The 51 was by a player playing at number 6 against Australia in Australia, while the 81 was by a player opening at home against Ireland.

Different teams, different venues, different circumstances

Now I'm not saying that automatically makes Player B better, but it makes you think doesn't it? There's no guarantee that Player A is better.

 

[Ironcat]

Yes there is a filter for specific numbers, but that still leaves a HUGE pool of applicants. What gets people the interview are their specific experiences and achievements like you said. What they did and where they worked.

Disagreed. All those experiences and color come out in the interviews themselves. Your CV doesn't add any color. In fact, if it does, it will be dinged.

And I actually know people who have gotten top level jobs despite low GPA, in fact there are even articles about how GPA isn't everything and not what employers look for all the time.

I didn't say GPA was everything. I said that the employers want to look at objective information - and numbers provide that objectivity. Be it with GPAs or years of experience or your objectively defined achievements at your previous workplace.

And, sure, there will always be people who are great at interviews, but we are talking about the broader population.

Not to mention, to actually get hired, you have to destory the interview - nothing to do with numbers (aka, get selected in the team you have to show your performances of worthy of being considered)

And you "destroy" an interview by providing objective and relevant information. So that no one can find a reason to ding you. Sure, there is all the color you can add, but the color doesn't get you the job. An objective summary of your past achievements does.

Nope both have 100 SR. The 51 was by a player playing at number 6 against Australia in Australia, while the 81 was by a player opening at home against Ireland.

Different teams, different venues, different circumstances

Now I'm not saying that automatically makes Player B better, but it makes you think doesn't it? There's no guarantee that Player A is better.

Not quite. Like I said, you haven't given us the complete information. Even if a player scores 151 against Australia (forget 51), but if Australians score much more, it's a valiant but pointless inning.

Your team wins when it scores more than the other team. That result is ONLY determined with numbers. No color, no "wishy washy" stuff, no opinions.

 

[Ironcat]

I'm confused.

How does that discredit the fact that that's public opinion and Facebook is used by the public?

What makes them anymore random then the articles you gave me?

Because the articles provided are well reasoned and analyzed. The overall population is also well reasoned and, in aggregate, has done its homework.

Random comments by individuals without any arguments, on the other hand, do not represent the broader population. Unless you do a poll of some sort.

 

[iZeeshan]

Most "cousins/uncles/Pakistani friends" also believe that Afridi is a clown and a bits and pieces cricketer.


Err, you need to prove a social media poll result here. Not just random comments. In social media, you will see what you want to see.


Like I said, you need to prove a social media poll result here. Not just random comments. In social media, you will see what you want to see.

Your word against mine - I wish I could post the links here but I can't exactly do it.

Facebook has an official "Pakistan Cricket" page that posts pictures/stats/questions et cetra, and one of them ask about Afridi. They receive the most likes and comments and praise = hence people praising Afridi and don't care about his "clownship".

It sounds trivial but that is the public opinion Pakistan has. Pakistan loves Afridi, not Misbah. Many posts take every opportunity to ridicule Misbah. Of course there are those that defend him, but they are few in number hence not of public opinion.

But your employer will also fire you because the video has no relevance when it comes to research.

How's the video irrelevant? It shows a public opinion of Misbah. Go look at the comments under that video.

Unfortunately, you got 0 in your research assignment because random comments will be seen only in the light you want to see them.

Examples:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/552459.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/553354.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/content/story/550927.html

Read the comments. Most of everyone is praising Misbah, but this is a childish way to prove a point.

Yeah do read the comments. They're not unanimous in anyway. I actually did read them, in case you thought I wouldn't.

If you're looking to prove a point using public opinion, there's no other way to do it then study social media outlets and forums. Like I said, that's how big companies and firms advertise now.

Tells me you have no clue how to define a legend. Without even roping in numbers, you don't even know which factor is mor important than the other. Simply tells me when time coems, you won't be able to reproduce a legend because you have no criteria.

But I have already for you, so you fail. I told you - Sachin Tendulkar, Imran Khan, Steve Waugh are all legends because they hit each point on the checklist.

Err, the challenge was to give us a post from the past. We have schooled you in this thread and now you have learnt some of the basics. But you have no such post to bring out from the past - i.e. before we challenged you.

And I already told you:

1. You provided the stats, I diffused them using the situation
2. I have provided stats numerous times before, I don't need to prove it to you, you're insane if you keep repeating yourself thinking you're making a point
3. If I have been schooled, then why are we still here and why are you still arguing?

 

[iZeeshan]

Disagreed. All those experiences and color come out in the interviews themselves. Your CV doesn't add any color. In fact, if it does, it will be dinged.

That's not what I've learned at my business school. And it's top 5 in the world. So you're really not proving anything here.

I didn't say GPA was everything. I said that the employers want to look at objective information - and numbers provide that objectivity. Be it with GPAs or years of experience or your objectively defined achievements at your previous workplace.

And, sure, there will always be people who are great at interviews, but we are talking about the broader population.

In addition to rec letters, descriptions of past experiences, references, the list goes on. Everytime I add a new criteria, you just attach a random numeric possibility to it. The point is, it's not just numbers the list keeps going.

And before you said just numbers, but now we're adding "objective" information to it too? Just because information is objective doesn't mean it contains numbers.

And you "destroy" an interview by providing objective and relevant information. So that no one can find a reason to ding you. Sure, there is all the color you can add, but the color doesn't get you the job. An objective summary of your past achievements does.

Right an objective summary, not just numbers. And sometimes, the color is what gives you the job.

Not quite. Like I said, you haven't given us the complete information. Even if a player scores 151 against Australia (forget 51), but if Australians score much more, it's a valiant but pointless inning.

Your team wins when it scores more than the other team. That result is ONLY determined with numbers. No color, no "wishy washy" stuff, no opinions.

Doesn't matter. The point is that I gave you a situation with numbers, and you can't answer unless you have complete information. You need to know the situation, such as which game of the series was it, who was playing alongside them, the rankings of the team at the time, to completely make an assessment on someone.

And it doesn't even matter about this point because I know you are a hypocrite. In another thread, you are diffusing a stat using the situation, but are saying something else here because it suits you.

Plain and simple: NUMBERS alone are NOT conclusive. And I'm sure everyone on this forum would agree.

 

[iZeeshan]

Now watch how you come back and post a SR - another number - to prove something. Go on. I can see your next 20 moves from here.

You saw the next 20 moves alright.

You keep changing your criteria and expect to school people.

 

[insaan]

The things people are discussing in this thread

But you have to accept that this thread has defied Godwin's law so far. In fact, has disproved it.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ironcat]

That's not what I've learned at my business school. And it's top 5 in the world. So you're really not proving anything here.

Have you applied for a job yet? Did your employer ask you to submit your GPA/grade information? Did most of your class mates end up trying to get better grades to get a job?

There is your answer.

]In addition to rec letters, descriptions of past experiences, references, the list goes on. Everytime I add a new criteria, you just attach a random numeric possibility to it. The point is, it's not just numbers the list keeps going.

You are the one who wants to run away from objective information and pointlessly rope in subjective stuff. Read the rec letters that your recommenders write for you. Notice how they do a better job by writing an objective piece of information? And that objective piece of information is best defined by a number?

]And before you said just numbers, but now we're adding "objective" information to it too? Just because information is objective doesn't mean it contains numbers.

Err, the only point of numbers is objectivity. Which is what makes them indisputable. That's what my point has always been.

Here is the minimum admission criteria to the MBA program at your school:

The minimum requirements to be eligible to apply for admission to the MBA program are as follows:

1. Completion of an undergraduate program in an accredited U.S. college or its equivalent in another country
2. Results of the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) or the Graduate Record Examination (GRE)
3. Submission of the Wharton application
4. Results of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) unless you have earned an undergraduate or master's degree in an English-speaking country or from an institution in which English is the language of instruction. To waive the TOEFL, you must include a letter requesting the waiver in your application AND documentation that your education was in English

Every single item on that list is objective and, as much as possible, numeric. Simples.

]Right an objective summary, not just numbers. And sometimes, the color is what gives you the job.

Sometimes, we have venus doing a traverse across the sun. Sometimes.

And trying convincing your employer of objectivity by posting a Youtube video link.

]Doesn't matter. The point is that I gave you a situation with numbers, and you can't answer unless you have complete information. You need to know the situation, such as which game of the series was it, who was playing alongside them, the rankings of the team at the time, to completely make an assessment on someone.

Now that your argument has been busted, you now resort to "incomplete" information. Well done.

All the information you are quoting above is objective / numerical.

It's your own problem if you can't process a piece of information beyond 81 and 51 in numbers.

And it doesn't even matter about this point because I know you are a hypocrite. In another thread, you are diffusing a stat using the situation, but are saying something else here because it suits you.

Read that thread and respond in that thread. Don't do your usual chickening out in another thread.

Plain and simple: NUMBERS alone are NOT conclusive. And I'm sure everyone on this forum would agree.

Doesn't matter. Even on their own if they don't give you a conclusion, they are still objective and indisputable. You may need more information - more numbers - to make a decision, but you can't question them.

 

[LastLaugh_PK]

But you have to accept that this thread has defied Godwin's law so far. In fact, has disproved it.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

In respect of Mr. Godwin's observation, my question to you is, what is your opinion on Hitler and Nazis.

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Why should we overlook Misbah's ODI's tenure?

Give me one good reason.

Nobody is overlookig it. Criticize it if you want. Misbah uses Saeed Ajmal poorly only in defense for Powerplays, very tactically stupid move

But you pretend that Misbah has nothing to do with Test success but everything to do with one day failure (and happily ignore the Asia Cup and the 4-1 win against Sri Lanka last year while you are at it)

Even Imran Khan our best leader had some bad one day series.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Nobody is overlookig it. Criticize it if you want. Misbah uses Saeed Ajmal poorly only in defense for Powerplays, very tactically stupid move

Criticise it if I want? Then what's your problem when I do? And if you had been following this Misbah saga for 5 weeks, you would have known that Misbah's captaincy was one of the focal points, again a point which you seem to be warming to.

Plus, you would also realise that Misbah fans are overlooking his ODI tenure. This is not to say anything of Misbah’s playing style which suits Tests. (A point which you obviously missed).

But you pretend that Misbah has nothing to do with Test success but everything to do with one day failure (and happily ignore the Asia Cup and the 4-1 win against Sri Lanka last year while you are at it)

Wrong. The debate between Ironcat and myself primarily revolved around the ascent of Pakistani cricket up to the 3-0 victory in UAE. I say it’s down to corruption free cricket/mind-set, Ironcat believes it was his captaincy.

Secondly, The Asia Cup beat against Bangladesh is nothing to be proud of, 2 run victory should be raising alarms if anything.

Thirdly, why is it when Misbah fans are pulled up on the ODI whitewash at the hands of England suddenly ODIs do not matter but Asia Cup does?

Last – Misbah has not been tested thoroughly, playing Zimbabwe/Bangladesh according to the FTP is fine, but to claim Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are not minnows to bolster Misbah’s captaincy is a joke beyond a joke. Do you think Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Minnows?

Even Imran Khan our best leader had some bad one day series.

Yup, and no one is dumb enough to expect a team to win 100% etc, but the fact that Misbah’s tenure has yet to be tested both in ODI and Tests, compounded by his most recent surrender in the 3rd Test match tells me that Misbah is not the future of Pakistan cricket, not at 38, not with a defensive and defeatist mind-set.

I have never been vocal on Misbah, ever, until now that is, PP users will testify to this fact, but when you have muppets ranking Misbah with Imran Khan, Steve Waugh, and Sir Clive Lloyd then I will speak out.

Ironcat and I had a wonderful debate on the cause of Pakistan’s rise of late, which evolved into Misbah’s minions riding the coat-tails of Ironcat during the recent SL/PAK series.

I don’t care what you believe, what planet you live on, what your opinions are, but as far as I am concerned, W/L ratios at face value do not tell us the entire picture, stats do not reveal value or context, which is why if you subtract Zim and Bang from Misbah’s ODI tenure as captain it reveals the difference between quality and quantity. Not to mention, in Tests, Misbah surrendering an opportunity reeks of defeatism, and if you think such a mentality is accommodating of Pakistan’s success then you must have low standards too.

99% of your accusations/interpretations are woefully incorrect but I do not blame you, with sycophant supporters on either side in Sharukh619 and DV you have less class than Misbah.

I suggest you read up on the 3500+ responses for CONTEXT before jumping in at the tail end of a conversation.

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

You are living in a fools paradise if you think that the match fixing inquiry was the reason that Pakistan perked up after 2010. The match fixers in that team--Butt, Asif and Aamir--had only begun on that summer. In 2009 Butt met Mazhar Majeed for the first time, in 2010 he introduced Aamer and Asif during the World T20.

It is ridiculous to suggest that our underachievement from 2007 to 2009 and for much of the 2000s like 2003 world cup was because of corruption. Match fixing was in its prime during the 90s, in the 2000s there were incidents of spot fixing as reported by Rashid Latif who called it fancy fixing. But there is no indication that Pakistan'\s defeats in this time were due to anything more sinister than infighting, nepotism and instability which are the biggest problems after spot fixing for us and have been around for years and years.I suggest you look at the history before spouting fancy theories

Misbah is OK, nothing more nothing less, but his biggest asset is stability which Pakistan have never ever ever had since Imran's time. It is stability, not fear of spot fixing, that has galvanized Pakistan and broguth the best out of our players. Not to mention that even without Aamer and Asif we had a very fine attack in 2010/11 especially for one day games. Akhtar was there and still firing, Wahab Riaz was a fast young prospect, Umar Gul could be brilliant like on the England tour, Abdul Razzaq was accurate and economical seamer, Tanvir Ahmed was a useful seam bowler, Saeed Ajmal was always an excellent one day bowler (and he excelled in Tests after Misbah became captain), Abdur Rehman was a good bowler, Shahid Afridi was in fine form as a leg spinner, so what we needed with the raw ingredgients was STABILITY and that came with Waqar, Misbah and Afridi.

Hardly any of my interpretations are incorrect. You're an idiot if you think Misbah surrendered opportunities in THIS PAARTICULAR SERIES. Yes he was defensive against South Africa and New Zealand. But in THIS SERIES he made 2 excellent bold declarations in two games, plus he promoted Abdur Rehman to hit out and set Sri Lanka a tricky target. It was them who surrendered an opportunity not us.

So please don't try to bluff your way out of being proven wrong

And you are joking if you think Deadly Venom is a sycophant.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Spectators on the sideline, save your high fives.

What is your contribution?

 

[Namak_Halaal]

You are living in a fools paradise if you think that the match fixing inquiry was the reason that Pakistan perked up after 2010. The match fixers in that team--Butt, Asif and Aamir--had only begun on that summer. In 2009 Butt met Mazhar Majeed for the first time, in 2010 he introduced Aamer and Asif during the World T20.

What horse pukky. Stop pretending corruption ended with the Justice Qayuum report and resurfaced with Butt et al.

It is ridiculous to suggest that our underachievement from 2007 to 2009 and for much of the 2000s like 2003 world cup was because of corruption. Match fixing was in its prime during the 90s, in the 2000s there were incidents of spot fixing as reported by Rashid Latif who called it fancy fixing. But there is no indication that Pakistan'\s defeats in this time were due to anything more sinister than infighting, nepotism and instability which are the biggest problems after spot fixing for us and have been around for years and years.I suggest you look at the history before spouting fancy theories

Rashid Latif was discredited when he reported fancy fixing or whatever you want to call it. Not to say anything of the fact Rashid Latif never played for Pakistan again.

Misbah is OK, nothing more nothing less, but his biggest asset is stability which Pakistan have never ever ever had since Imran's time. It is stability, not fear of spot fixing, that has galvanized Pakistan and broguth the best out of our players. Not to mention that even without Aamer and Asif we had a very fine attack in 2010/11 especially for one day games. Akhtar was there and still firing, Wahab Riaz was a fast young prospect, Umar Gul could be brilliant like on the England tour, Abdul Razzaq was accurate and economical seamer, Tanvir Ahmed was a useful seam bowler, Saeed Ajmal was always an excellent one day bowler (and he excelled in Tests after Misbah became captain), Abdur Rehman was a good bowler, Shahid Afridi was in fine form as a leg spinner, so what we needed with the raw ingredgients was STABILITY and that came with Waqar, Misbah and Afridi.

Stability is utterly useless when matches are lost or drawn.

Hardly any of my interpretations are incorrect. You're an idiot if you think Misbah surrendered opportunities in THIS PAARTICULAR SERIES. Yes he was defensive against South Africa and New Zealand. But in THIS SERIES he made 2 excellent bold declarations in two games, plus he promoted Abdur Rehman to hit out and set Sri Lanka a tricky target. It was them who surrendered an opportunity not us.

Well you seem to agree with 90% of what I have been saying anyway. If I am an idiot, I wonder what it makes you.

So please don't try to bluff your way out of being proven wrong

Bluff is you pretending you have understood the debate. Bluff is pretending you are younger than stated. Bluff is you not having the sand to answer whether Zim and Bang are minnows or not.

And you are joking if you think Deadly Venom is a sycophant.

You are right, he’s much more.

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

What horse pukky. Stop pretending corruption ended with the Justice Qayuum report and resurfaced with Butt et al.



Rashid Latif was discredited when he reported fancy fixing or whatever you want to call it. Not to say anything of the fact Rashid Latif never played for Pakistan again.


Stability is utterly useless when matches are lost or drawn.



Well you seem to agree with 90% of what I have been saying anyway. If I am an idiot, I wonder what it makes you.



Bluff is you pretending you have understood the debate. Bluff is pretending you are younger than stated. Bluff is you not having the sand to answer whether Zim and Bang are minnows or not.



You are right, he’s much more.

How stupid. I never said the team was fully clean between 1999-2010. But in that time INSTABILITY was the biggest thing wrong, you can refer to Shoaib Akhtar or Mushtaq Ahmed's autobiographies or you can ask Azhar Mahmood or Saqlain Mushtaq or Wasim Akram or any cricketer---the biggest problem Pakistan have had is judging/appointing/changing players on series by series basis.

Rashid Latif was discredited but he was ultimately vindicated when the spot fixing happened, ti's the same thing as fancy fixing with a different name.

To pretend that Pakistan lost matches in the 2000s because of fixing and completely perked up when it ended is ridiculous. Fixing was our biggest problem in the 90s, in the 2000s it was instability. Only Inzamam was a stable captain

 

[Namak_Halaal]

How stupid. I never said the team was fully clean between 1999-2010. But in that time INSTABILITY was the biggest thing wrong, you can refer to Shoaib Akhtar or Mushtaq Ahmed's autobiographies or you can ask Azhar Mahmood or Saqlain Mushtaq or Wasim Akram or any cricketer---the biggest problem Pakistan have had is judging/appointing/changing players on series by series basis.

If Pakistan was not fully clean as per bold emphasis above then it adds credence to the notion Pakistan was playing in a period of corrupt free cricket after the Spot Fixing scandal.

Rashid Latif was discredited but he was ultimately vindicated when the spot fixing happened, ti's the same thing as fancy fixing with a different name.

Vindicated after what, a decade?

To pretend that Pakistan lost matches in the 2000s because of fixing and completely perked up when it ended is ridiculous. Fixing was our biggest problem in the 90s, in the 2000s it was instability. Only Inzamam was a stable captain

You yourself do not believe Pakistan cricket was corrupt free during 1999 and 2010. Read the bold red emphasis above. Need I say more?

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

If Pakistan was not fully clean as per bold emphasis above then it adds credence to the notion Pakistan was playing in a period of corrupt free cricket after the Spot Fixing scandal.





Vindicated after what, a decade?



You yourself do not believe Pakistan cricket was corrupt free during 1999 and 2010. Read the bold red emphasis above. Need I say more?

You are overstating the impact of fixing. It was a huge problem in 1990s...in 2000s it was constant chop and change that was rampant

I think fixing happened after 2000 in smaller doses every now and then but it was worldwide, why didnt Australia or England or India underachieve like Pakistan did in this timeframe?

 

[Namak_Halaal]

You are overstating the impact of fixing. It was a huge problem in 1990s...in 2000s it was constant chop and change that was rampant

I think fixing happened after 2000 in smaller doses every now and then but it was worldwide, why didnt Australia or England or India underachieve like Pakistan did in this timeframe?

No one is denying Pakistan cricket was corrupt free before the Spot Fixing scandal, no one.

The point is not about the impact of fixing; the point is the impact of Pakistan cricket in the absence of fixing.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

I think fixing happened after 2000 in smaller doses every now and then but it was worldwide, why didnt Australia or England or India underachieve like Pakistan did in this timeframe?

Are you serious or pretending again? India had their backsides handed on silver platter in 2000 with half their team banned for fixing. What happened in Pakistan's case? Saleem Malik and some other random Pakistani cricketer were banned while the real culprits were granted freedom.

Look how India progress in the 2000s after half their team was banned. During the 90s they rarely won a thing, after Cronje-Gate, in around a decade, look at what India achieved. Hit Rank#1 in Tests, Rank #1 in ODIs, won the T20 WC, and the WC.

If you think the absence of fixing makes no difference then you too are intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Ironcat]

Ayyub, the corruption argument was done and dusted with in the other thread. Feel free to use those arguments or bump that thread:
http://pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4959890&postcount=1010

 

[Bhaijaan]

Guys please stick to the point instead of indulging in petty point scoring over other members. No schooling required from any of you. Thanks

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Ironcat, stick with Izeeshan, you had your chance to disprove the corruption argument but blew it. You never did have an answer for India's success post Cronje-gate, or Italy for that matter.

 

[Ironcat]

Ironcat, stick with Izeeshan, you had your chance to disprove the corruption argument but blew it.

Feel free to bump that thread.

Or respond to any of those posts.

Though if you had had the guts, we would have seen a response three weeks ago.

 

[Ironcat]

You never did have an answer for India's success post Cronje-gate, or Italy for that matter.

And I must provide the above as the evidence of DV's lie detection theory.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Feel free to bump that thread.

Or respond to any of those posts.

Though if you had had the guts, we would have seen a response three weeks ago.

No need.

Why should I make that assumption when it isn't logical? Pakistan thrashed England in UAE. Clearly proves what the results might look like without any such events.

Quote from today.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

And I must provide the above as the evidence of DV's lie detection theory.

Great response.

I guess I can respond with your denial of making money on a bet against Pakistan only for me to quote your words where you had claimed you made money on your bet.

If that wasn't a lie I do not know what is.

Carry on at will.

 

[Ironcat]

No need.




Quote from today.

Proves a simple thing. That when there is spot fixing, the team loses. Meaning, spot fixing destroys the team.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Proves a simple thing. That when there is spot fixing, the team loses. Meaning, spot fixing destroys the team.

Okay, whatever you say.

I can predict your next 100 moves.

 

[Ironcat]

I guess I can respond with your denial of making money on a bet against Pakistan only for me to quote your words where you had claimed you made money on your bet.

When did that happen?

But, the lies DV has exposed in the last 5 pages are certainly worth a paper.

 

[Ironcat]

Like I said, feel free to bump the thread where you complain injustice has been done.

http://pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4912251&postcount=986

 

[Namak_Halaal]

When did that happen?

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4973044&postcount=2007

1/100

 

[Namak_Halaal]

like i said, feel free to bump the thread where you complain injustice has been done.:d

http://pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4912251&postcount=986

2/100

 

[Ironcat]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4973044&postcount=2007

1/100

I ask you again.

When did the bolded part of post # 2679 happen?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I think its absolutely wonderful and a real testament to Namak Halals character where for months on end he argued that the world cup was fixed. Months and months of long posts from him, written with precision and meticulous detailed ( fabricated in his own head of course).

Yet when he is backed into a corner this is what he says.

. During the 90s they rarely won a thing, after Cronje-Gate, in around a decade, look at what India achieved. Hit Rank#1 in Tests, Rank #1 in ODIs, won the T20 WC, and the WC.

Guess all those months of hard work were a waste of time Namak

This is who you are dealing with fellows.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Also Freelance bhai why did you delete my post which was in response to being called a sycophant.

I know brotherly love exists between you and Namak but when you are moderating you should be objective.

Just a tip

 

[Ironcat]

BTW, here is a recap of the corruption argument from the other thread.

THE CORRUPTION ARGUMENT

Here is a recap of the corruption argument:

Cool, now, watch how I shred these examples into pieces.

PERUGIA

Before 1980: An above-average club, an awesome season in Series A in 1979, runners up in the league
1980: Rossi found guilty (maybe wrongly) of fixing/corruption while playing for Perugia
1980: Perugia relegated to Series B due to the scandal
1980-1985: Perugia has a torrid time in Series B
1982: Rossi returns to football
1985: Perugia relegated to C2 with further scandals

Bottom line: Very good team before the scandal; an awful, awful team after the scandal >>> scandal sucked the life out of the team

JUVENTUS

2001-2005: Juventus' golden era in Series A under Lippi and Capello, seemingly endless title wins
2006: Fixing scandal, Juventus relegated to Series B
2007 onwards: Returns to Series A but only sporadic success, NO FURTHER TITLES in Series A, mid-league status, managers after manager sacked, only a shadow of its former self

Bottom line: Great team before the scandal, only a shadow of its former self after the scandal >>> scandal sucked the life out of the team

So, read the above again. Likely the most awful examples you could think of to support your supposed theory. Completely decimate your logic.

As far as the betting thing is concered, I have no clue what you straws you are clutching on, but if you want us to entertain any more examples, you'd better do some research on your own and post it here.

---------------------------------------

Now, let's turn to Pakistan.

PAKISTAN

Summer 2010: Spot fixing scandal
Post 2010: Based on the logic above, the scandal would have sucked the life out of this team as well

But, guess what happened.

Before fall 2010: A hodge-podge of banned, infighting, incompetent, fixing captains, a 3-10 losing run of test matches in the preceding 3 years, demotion to #7 in international cricket
Fall 2010 onwards: Misbah became the captain and helped get rid of all such problems above
Fall 2010 onwards: A 9-1 winnig run, culminating in a 3-0 win over the #1 team, all in international cricket

Meanwhile, Amir is YET to return to Pakistan cricket.

Bottom line: Poor team under poor captains, great team under a great captain

So, there, apples to apples. NEXT.

And then the final nail in the coffin:

Before spot fixing scandal, Butt was our test captain with a W/L ratio 0.66. (Incidentally, he was also our second best test captain in the last 5 years barring Misbah.) After scandal, Misbah became our test captain with a W/L of 6.00. That's an improvement of more than 9 times!

Before spot fixing scandal, Afridi was our ODI captain and he was also our ODI captain after the scandal. So, let's pick another best captain before the scandal. Malik? YK?

Let's pick Malik. He had a W/L of 0.81, so Afridi improved it by ~1.1 times. Well, let's pick YK. Afridi improved his by 1.5 times.

Conclusion? Misbah improved our W/L record before and after scandal by 9 times, Afridi did it 1.5 times (at best), so.... 9.0 - 1.5 = 7.5 times improvement came from captain Misbah himself.

So, sure, about 15% of our improvement came from having to play better due to the scandal. The remaining 85% was due to a superior captain. Captain Misbah. Technically, you are correct that it's somewhere in the middle, but overwhelmingly it is due to the captain. Scandals cannot make you world beaters; effective leaders can.

 

[Ironcat]

And now I predict a runaway from the above by his placing a 3/100 at the bottom.

 

[iZeeshan]

Perugia and Juventus are not apt examples because they don't share the same patriotic/nationalism pride as Pakistan.

United under one country is very different from playing for a club.

Try again

 

[Namak_Halaal]

I ask you again.

When did the bolded part of post # 2679 happen?

3/100

------------------

Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal
That's funny, you were laughing with Ironcat when he was bragging about making money on his bets against Pakistan and how my prediction of 3-0 and Hafeez scoring a 100 in the 1st Test turned out to be false.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4973032&postcount=2006

Well, well, well, it looks like you will lie about anything to pad your post count here.

And now I know why you want to stop posting once Ramadan starts.

Ironcat denying he made money on betting against Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Ironcat

There is only one schoolboy prediction in this thread, and that's your slime.

Here is mine in this thread:

Not going to happen. At least the 3-0 in SL part. Mahela is a real captain. He will cajole at least a draw out of Misbah and maybe a win out of his replacement.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...&postcount=131

Originally Posted by Ironcat
My bet made me money. Yours lost you yours. Simples.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=1052

Originally Posted by Ironcat
My bet made me money. Yours lost you money. What part of it did you not understand? You are poorer after the bet. Count your pennies.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=1063

(Notice the LOL at the end)

Some one pass this Ghaddar a rope.

Good night.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4973044&postcount=2007

Subsequent posts 2006 & 2007.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Perugia and Juventus are not apt examples because they don't share the same patriotic/nationalism pride as Pakistan.

United under one country is very different from playing for a club.

Try again

Juventus apparently played in the World Cup

No sign of Italy winning 2 WCs after betting scandals.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Namak Bhai why did you post 10000000000000s of posts saying the world cup was fixed but now you use Indias winning of the world cup as proof of their improvement after a fixing scandal?

 

[Ironcat]

3/100

------------------

Ironcat denying he made money on betting against Pakistan.

Raise your hands if you agree that he is now trying desperately to make things up to save his face.

when he was bragging about making money on his bets against Pakistan

Even though it was underlined for him - with full emphasis - his lying capacity wants us to focus on something entirely irrelevant. Something that doesn't exist.

4/100

 

[Ironcat]

Perugia and Juventus are not apt examples because they don't share the same patriotic/nationalism pride as Pakistan.

Oh really? Then why did your brother bring them up as an example of corruption?

More importantly, you might want to take a class on analogies.

I will check with DV to see when the next one will be offered.

United under one country is very different from playing for a club.

The only example of the effects of such scandals elsewhere is the the scandals destroy your sports / countries. Feel free to post an example against it.

Oh wait, you need our help for that. Never mind.

 

[Ironcat]

Namak Bhai why did you post 10000000000000s of posts saying the world cup was fixed but now you use Indias winning of the world cup as proof of their improvement after a fixing scandal?

You don't say...

 

[iZeeshan]

Have you applied for a job yet? Did your employer ask you to submit your GPA/grade information? Did most of your class mates end up trying to get better grades to get a job?

There is your answer.

Yes he did, but along with that I submitted a resume and a cover letter. Everyone always tries to get better grades, but all of us focus equally on our experiences and extracurriculars to impress the interviewers. Recruiters don't give a crap if you have a 4.0 but just sat in the library all day studying.

You are the one who wants to run away from objective information and pointlessly rope in subjective stuff. Read the rec letters that your recommenders write for you. Notice how they do a better job by writing an objective piece of information? And that objective piece of information is best defined by a number?

From the two rec letters I have read of mine, they actually discuss things that are NOT objective - promptness, professionalism, attitude, potential, etc.

Err, the only point of numbers is objectivity. Which is what makes them indisputable. That's what my point has always been.

So you're saying there is never a backstory to the numbers? That the numbers are end all be-all? Then why do we even have debates? Why isn't Jacques Kallis considered better than Tendulkar if he has a higher average? Surely Samaraweera is one of the best batsmen of all time if he has one of the highest averages?

Here is the minimum admission criteria to the MBA program at your school:



Every single item on that list is objective and, as much as possible, numeric. Simples.

How does ADMISSION criteria relate to cricket stats? Or Misbah's W/L ratio?

Also what does that even prove? I'm sure selectors have some kind of minimum criteria as well (except Pakistan) such as maybe a 40 FC Batting average. That doesn't mean everyone who has a 40 batting average will get selected - then it comes down to the quality of their performances.

Minimum admission criteria means squat.

Sometimes, we have venus doing a traverse across the sun. Sometimes.

And trying convincing your employer of objectivity by posting a Youtube video link.

Not sure where the facepalm comes in here. If it's relevant, then I'm sure my employer would appreciate it.

Now that your argument has been busted, you now resort to "incomplete" information. Well done.

Ironcat - it's obviously incomplete. There are situations AND numbers behind each number. Point being - numbers aren't everything.
All the information you are quoting above is objective / numerical.

It's your own problem if you can't process a piece of information beyond 81 and 51 in numbers.

Not sure what this means.

Doesn't matter. Even on their own if they don't give you a conclusion, they are still objective and indisputable. You may need more information - more numbers - to make a decision, but you can't question them.

YOu just contradicted yourself buddy. If they're indisputable, then why do you need more information? You should be able to make a conclusion from something that's indisputable.

And yes you can have more numbers, but what's the point of numbers without context?

What's the point of having a 60 batting average if you've lost every single game?

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Hmmmm.

I say Ironcat made money by betting against Pakistan. He calls me a liar; I quote 2 of his posts where he categorically makes a prediction against Pakistan in the 1st Test then brags "My bet made money".

I then state he initially denied his claim, and quote the posts again.

I even gave him the benefit of the doubt by asking him whether he did bet against of Pakistan – no response. (Citation available).

Not even pedantry can save Ironcat now.

Nothing more to discuss here, Ironcat was busted, dusted, and then buried by his own words.

Fantastic.

 

[iZeeshan]

Can I just get an opinion from anyone who reads the thread?

What does everyone think about this statement:

"Numbers are indisputable" - any input is helpful, I guess I just can't make my point as clearly as I want to, but I know the statement is incorrect.

 

[Pakistaniboy]

I wonder what OP is thinking when he is looking at this thread...

 

[Namak_Halaal]

I see Ironcat has no response to the evidence suggesting India's performance improved after Cronge-gate.

I wonder why.

It's over for him.

 

[iZeeshan]

Oh really? Then why did your brother bring them up as an example of corruption?

More importantly, you might want to take a class on analogies.

I will check with DV to see when the next one will be offered.

The only example of the effects of such scandals elsewhere is the the scandals destroy your sports / countries. Feel free to post an example against it.

Oh wait, you need our help for that. Never mind.

Not sure. That's not my problem. You just used it as defense, so I'm saying that you're wrong.

Not sure where the analogies come into this.

Where's the example of the country?

What's wrong with needing help if it proves a point? You're just abusing someone for the hell of it.

 

[Pakistaniboy]

I see Ironcat has no response to the evidence suggesting India's performance improved after Cronge-gate.

I wonder why.

It's over for him.

Btw, Namak take a look at the Bulls Thread in PPCL, They are looking for you

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Can I just get an opinion from anyone who reads the thread?

What does everyone think about this statement:

"Numbers are indisputable" - any input is helpful, I guess I just can't make my point as clearly as I want to, but I know the statement is incorrect.

Math is the only universal language, but numbers are hogwash in the absence of context.

The only numbers which matter to Ironcat are the numbers which prop up the Misbah myth.

Examples of numbers that do not matter to Ironcat are the ODI W/Ls (but then again Asia Cup matters), Swann vs Ajmal head to head figures, and Umar Akmal's SR under Misbah, and ofcourse, numbers which prove Afridi is the best ODI captain in the past 5 years based on W/L.

The list goes on and on and on . . .

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Not sure. That's not my problem. You just used it as defense, so I'm saying that you're wrong.

Not sure where the analogies come into this.

Where's the example of the country?

What's wrong with needing help if it proves a point? You're just abusing someone for the hell of it.

It's pointless.

Anyone who watched the pre-match conversation between Lineker, Hanson, and Shearer 30 mins before the Italy vs England game will knoe for a fact that they repeated what was being discussed - word for word - Italy have the tendency to win after a betting scandal.

Those guys are pros, what is Ironcat?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

So India won the world cup through their own hard work ?

Thank you and good night.

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

Are you serious or pretending again? India had their backsides handed on silver platter in 2000 with half their team banned for fixing. What happened in Pakistan's case? Saleem Malik and some other random Pakistani cricketer were banned while the real culprits were granted freedom.

Look how India progress in the 2000s after half their team was banned. During the 90s they rarely won a thing, after Cronje-Gate, in around a decade, look at what India achieved. Hit Rank#1 in Tests, Rank #1 in ODIs, won the T20 WC, and the WC.

If you think the absence of fixing makes no difference then you too are intellectually bankrupt.

It makes a difference, but it in no way accounts for Pakistan's dramatic improvement under Misbah.

In Tests we'd been beaten at home by South Africa, beaten in India, beaten for the first time in Sri Lanka, scraped a cagey draw against NZ, steamrolled in Australia, beaten 3-1 by England. Since Misbah came Pakistan drawn South Africa, won in NZ, drawn WI, won in Zimbabwe, beaten SL and especially had a brilliant series against England.

All this is not just down to corruption

As for your examples apart from what other guys already proved of your self contradiction, you are wrong anyway. India barely won anything in tthe 90s but were good at home, in the 2000s they only had 2 seasons (2003/04 and 2007/08) where they were good away warna un ki auqat wohi hai as we see in the 8-0 loss. They're better but that is expected because of further exposure abroad

For Pakistan Malik was banned and he was a brilliant batsman especially in crisis and a good captain--very comparable to Azharuddin. For India Jadeja was a good one day player but not that big a loss, Prabakar was already out of the team. For Pakistan only Wasim really kept playing after the enquiry and after the close miss he kept his head down anyway...he only barely escaped punishment so naturally you think he would try again so soon? I firmly believe that after 1999 Wasim never fixed a match again, if he had it was too big a risk since he was already on thin ice

People who think we lose games only because of fixing are intellectually bankrupt. The enormous changes we had after the 2003 and 2007 world cups are what have harmed Pakistan's progress so much. Misbah has done excellently in circumstances. The thing he has in common with other successful Pakistan captains is STABILITY

 

[Namak_Halaal]

^^^

Stability is utterly useless when games end in a draw/loss.

Misbah was just lucky. He was going to retire had it not been for the Spot Fixing Scandal. Classic case of being there in the right time and place – a stop gap.

As I said 5 weeks ago - Misbah is riding on the coat-tails of his bowlers - Ajmal in particular.

There is no master stroke in Misbah’s captaincy.

We’ll wait till the end of SA sries and see how much of a captain Misbah truly is. Until then you keep believing lack of corruption plays no significant role.

 

[iZeeshan]

.

DV, if you think that N_H is a bekaar poster, and I am a good one, do you mind enlightening us on what you think of Ironcat?

Feel free to not answer. I'll get it anyway

 

[Ironcat]

Yes he did, but along with that I submitted a resume and a cover letter. Everyone always tries to get better grades, but all of us focus equally on our experiences and extracurriculars to impress the interviewers. Recruiters don't give a crap if you have a 4.0 but just sat in the library all day studying.

No one said that studying in the library is the only influence of objectivity in your academic life. Objectivity transcends all aspects. And numbers are the best way to express objectivity. If you are involved in sports, then taking your college team to a victory or improving their results is much more objective than saying "hey, I represented my team in extra-curriculars".

From the two rec letters I have read of mine, they actually discuss things that are NOT objective - promptness, professionalism, attitude, potential, etc.

Here is a top MBA program's rec letter structure:

Evaluation of Applicant
Please appraise the candidate in terms of the qualities listed below, using the group identified in question number 3 as your reference.
Judgment Average (Top 50%) (Top 25%) (Top 10%) (Top 5%) (Top 2%) (Top 1%)
Analytical Skills
Verbal Skills
Self-Discipline
Initiative
Integrity
Creativity
Maturity
Teamwork
Managerial Potential
Leadership Potential
Ability to operate
effectively in cultural
environments other
than his/her own

The above is a table with percentages across.

So, tell me. Why did the school ask the recommender for these relative standings based on %ages than a simple opinion?

Further down:

Your overall impression of the applicant:
Truly Exceptional (top 1%)
Superior (top 2%)
Outstanding (top 5%)
Very Good (top 10%)
Good (top 25%)
Average (top 50%)
Below Average

Again. Objectivity is best represented by numbers. Only when CANNOT find numbers, you look for proxies.

So you're saying there is never a backstory to the numbers? That the numbers are end all be-all? Then why do we even have debates? Why isn't Jacques Kallis considered better than Tendulkar if he has a higher average? Surely Samaraweera is one of the best batsmen of all time if he has one of the highest averages?

No, I didn't say that. The numbers are the best measures of objectivity. When you don't have numbers available, then you can use other evidence.

Kallis vs Tendy: On averages (i.e. numbers of runs per dismissal), Kallis is a better batsman. On longevity (i.e. numbers of years played), Tendy is a better batsman. But either way, the difference isn't much because the numbers are very close.

Samaraweera doesn't have one of the highest averages.

How does ADMISSION criteria relate to cricket stats? Or Misbah's W/L ratio?

Ever heard of the term analogy? Or you mean to say that numbers are relevant in academics but they are irrelevant in sports?

Also what does that even prove? I'm sure selectors have some kind of minimum criteria as well (except Pakistan) such as maybe a 40 FC Batting average. That doesn't mean everyone who has a 40 batting average will get selected - then it comes down to the quality of their performances.

Sure, but all performances are still measured in numbers. Like I said, it is your own problem that you cannot analyze something more than a batting average in numbers.

Ironcat - it's obviously incomplete. There are situations AND numbers behind each number. Point being - numbers aren't everything.

Point is, numbers are objective. If it is a case of missing information, then get that information as objectively as possible.

YOu just contradicted yourself buddy. If they're indisputable, then why do you need more information? You should be able to make a conclusion from something that's indisputable.

Err, they are indisputable about what they are telling you on their own. If they need more information, then provide or get that information. Just because you don't want to do the hard work and express information objectively doesn't mean that the information cannot be expressed objectively.

And yes you can have more numbers, but what's the point of numbers without context?

Your context is ALSO defined in numbers. Objectively. What good is that context if you cannot analyze it objectively.

What's the point of having a 60 batting average if you've lost every single game?

Because your batting average was less than the batting average of your opponents' team. How hard is that to understand?

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

^^^

Stability is utterly useless when games end in a draw/loss.

Misbah was just lucky. He was going to retire had it not been for the Spot Fixing Scandal. Classic case of being there in the right time and place – a stop gap.

As I said 5 weeks ago - Misbah is riding on the coat-tails of his bowlers - Ajmal in particular.

There is no master stroke in Misbah’s captaincy.

We’ll wait till the end of SA sries and see how much of a captain Misbah truly is. Until then you keep believing lack of corruption plays no significant role.

It plays a role...not a huge role

There may not be a masterstroke but he does most basic thigns right. Why do you think Ajmal, Abdur Rehman, even Umar Gul (in Tests only) have improved so dramatically since Nov 2010? Alll these guys plus Younus and Mohammad Hafeez and even Afridi and Akhtar have talked about Misbah's influence as a good team man and a solid player

Stability IN TEAM MANAGEMENT (for example Taufeeq & Hafeez being given the longest run of any Pakistan opening pair EVER) is what I'm referring to.

For decades we hear about Pakistan having individual brilliance but no stability. Imran was our most stable captain + a great leader of men. Wasim was a great leader but unstable, same with Younus, Salim, Latif. Inzamam was vrelatively stable but not great leader. Misbah falls in the same category as Inzy

 

[Ironcat]

Hmmmm.

I say Ironcat made money by betting against Pakistan. He calls me a liar; I quote 2 of his posts where he categorically makes a prediction against Pakistan in the 1st Test then brags "My bet made money".

I then state he initially denied his claim, and quote the posts again.

I even gave him the benefit of the doubt by asking him whether he did bet against of Pakistan – no response. (Citation available).

Not even pedantry can save Ironcat now.

Nothing more to discuss here, Ironcat was busted, dusted, and then buried by his own words.

Fantastic.

I see Miscows have made some progress in escapes.

"I did this, he did that, Aunt Jacky did me."

5/100

 

[DeadlyVenom]

DV, if you think that N_H is a bekaar poster, and I am a good one, do you mind enlightening us on what you think of Ironcat?

Feel free to not answer. I'll get it anyway

He makes good points and is not a liar.

Key thing being not a liar.

You cant have a debate with a liar.

Of course I dont agree with all of his posts but you cant always 100% agree with everything and everyone.

 

[Ironcat]

Not sure. That's not my problem. You just used it as defense, so I'm saying that you're wrong.

"I jump in the middle of an argument, I get schooled, I put up my hands, and I leave whining."

Story of your debating career.

Not sure where the analogies come into this.

You can say it again.

Where's the example of the country?

I thought you were supposed to provide one. It's your theory, after all. Or better ask your brother.

What's wrong with needing help if it proves a point? You're just abusing someone for the hell of it.

When someone does that for 27K posts, then there IS something wrong.

 

[Ironcat]

I see Ironcat has no response to the evidence suggesting India's performance improved after Cronge-gate.

I wonder why.

It's over for him.

Last time I checked, you chickened out of that argument in a royal manner.

Here:
http://pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4912159&postcount=968

 

[iZeeshan]

He makes good points and is not a liar.

Key thing being not a liar.

You cant have a debate with a liar.

Of course I dont agree with all of his posts but you cant always 100% agree with everything and everyone.

N_H makes good points too.

The point is, how stupid are the bad points they make.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

It plays a role...not a huge role

There may not be a masterstroke but he does most basic thigns right. Why do you think Ajmal, Abdur Rehman, even Umar Gul (in Tests only) have improved so dramatically since Nov 2010? Alll these guys plus Younus and Mohammad Hafeez and even Afridi and Akhtar have talked about Misbah's influence as a good team man and a solid player

Stability IN TEAM MANAGEMENT (for example Taufeeq & Hafeez being given the longest run of any Pakistan opening pair EVER) is what I'm referring to.

For decades we hear about Pakistan having individual brilliance but no stability. Imran was our most stable captain + a great leader of men. Wasim was a great leader but unstable, same with Younus, Salim, Latif. Inzamam was vrelatively stable but not great leader. Misbah falls in the same category as Inzy

Imran was our most stable captain because he was the most aggressive - not defensive - one of the reasons why players were inspired by Imran Khan.

We need fresh aggressive blood in our team, not old hacks nearing their collection of P45s.

Honestly, what type of fans exists out there? Why the low standards? Do you not care about the future of Pakistan cricket? Provisionally instilling a captain who is 38 years old (who was on the verge of retirement) is not thinking about the future of Pakistan cricket, it’s thinking about the present.

I rather choose a brand spanking new - and young - team which may lose for the first couple of years compared with a team which is winning for a couple of years only to decline once this so called 'stability' retires.

 

[Ironcat]

N_H makes good points too.

The point is, how stupid are the bad points they make.

Don't mistake your own inability to comprehend something as proxy for a lack of what others have to say.

 

[iZeeshan]

No one said that studying in the library is the only influence of objectivity in your academic life. Objectivity transcends all aspects. And numbers are the best way to express objectivity. If you are involved in sports, then taking your college team to a victory or improving their results is much more objective than saying "hey, I represented my team in extra-curriculars".

Numbers are objective, but not 100% as there's always a story behind the numbers.

If someone has a low GPA, there might be a reason for it (health, death in family) - should that mean that he's not talented?

Here is a top MBA program's rec letter structure:


The above is a table with percentages across.

So, tell me. Why did the school ask the recommender for these relative standings based on %ages than a simple opinion?

Further down:


Again. Objectivity is best represented by numbers. Only when CANNOT find numbers, you look for proxies.

Firstly, I was talking about rec letters for a job which is even somewhat remotely comparable to our situation.

You ignored my point about selectors and batting average.

Also, you still haven't answer how this is even comparable to what we are discussing in sports.

No, I didn't say that. The numbers are the best measures of objectivity. When you don't have numbers available, then you can use other evidence.

Sure, but the numbers are nothing without context.

Kallis vs Tendy: On averages (i.e. numbers of runs per dismissal), Kallis is a better batsman. On longevity (i.e. numbers of years played), Tendy is a better batsman. But either way, the difference isn't much because the numbers are very close.

Samaraweera doesn't have one of the highest averages.

I asked who's the better batsman. Tendy or Kallis?

Also, Samaraweera has an average of 53 last time I checked which is one of the highest averages for current players. Does that make him better than Amla? YOu've got your facts wrong buddy.

Ever heard of the term analogy? Or you mean to say that numbers are relevant in academics but they are irrelevant in sports?

The analogy has to make sense. It's gotta be comparable. Which is what I've been asking you - how is it comparable?

Point is, numbers are objective. If it is a case of missing information, then get that information as objectively as possible.

I just noticed that you've changed your argument from them being indisputable to objective. Not the same thing IMO.

Your context is ALSO defined in numbers. Objectively. What good is that context if you cannot analyze it objectively.

Facepalm yourself. How are Australia and Bangladesh numbers?

Because your batting average was less than the batting average of your opponents' team. How hard is that to understand?

So we're comparing a player's batting average to an entire team's now?

 

[Ayyubjavvs]

Imran was our most stable captain because he was the most aggressive - not defensive - one of the reasons why players were inspired by Imran Khan.

We need fresh aggressive blood in our team, not old hacks nearing their collection of P45s.

Honestly, what type of fans exists out there? Why the low standards? Do you not care about the future of Pakistan cricket? Provisionally instilling a captain who is 38 years old (who was on the verge of retirement) is not thinking about the future of Pakistan cricket, it’s thinking about the present.

I rather choose a brand spanking new - and young - team which may lose for the first couple of years compared with a team which is winning for a couple of years only to decline once this so called 'stability' retires.

There aree introverts and extroverts. Imran was the latter, Inzy and Misbah the former

Just because Imran 20 years ago was a charismatic magnificent allrounder & captain does not mean that is the single way Pakistan can be successful.

You're relying on pedantry (gasp) and airy fairy nonsensical waffly rhetoric to oppose a man you obviously have something against

Misbah is defensive but no more so than any other Pak captain barring Younus, Latif of the past decade. And in Test he improved, the promotion of Abdur Rehman and the declarations in the last 2 Tests were excellent examples

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Just because Imran 20 years ago was a charismatic magnificent allrounder & captain does not mean that is the single way Pakistan can be successful.

Oh please, we have tried ever other way! FLOPPED!

 

[Namak_Halaal]

What started off as Misbah is the best thing to happen to Pakistan cricket in 5 years based on Test W/L, ODI W/L, & Batting averages, now ends on Test W/L.

ODI W/L no longer applicable since Afridi is the best ODI captain in 5 years based on W/L, and Batting Averages on their own do not hold any value.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=157995

Ironcat's argument decimated.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Why did you say the world cup final was fixed but then use India winning the world cup as an example of their success post fixing?

I find it hilarious how (as usual) through your own dishonesty you have reduced around 4000 of your past posts to nothing, just to make a (weak) point.

 

[Watsupdoc]

Closing this thread to let things cool off. All those posting in this thread please reflect on what you have been posting.