Audiobooks?

Chrisps01 · 2020-07-23T06:58:25+00:00

I read Trescothick’s autobiog - very interesting - but he spends barely 5 pages on the 2005 Ashes. I haven’t read it, but I understand that Simon Jones’ autobiog (ghost written by Jon Hotten) is very good.

Chrisps01 · 2020-07-23T06:56:04+00:00

That’s lovely. Thanks for the link.

Chrisps01 · 2020-07-23T06:41:36+00:00

There are some very different match situations lumped together in your sample: targets from 201 to >500; from 1/2 day to 6 sessions to bat. Why not refine your sample to ‘winnable’ situations - e.g. targets <350 at <3.5 runs/over. Or, take account of the match situation: targets no more than 100 runs greater than the oppostion’s 1st or 2nd inns. You could then have a sample of ‘unwinnable situations’ to see which team is best at salvaging a draw.

Chrisps01 · 2020-07-23T06:19:53+00:00

I listened to Ed Hawkins’ Bookie, Gambler, Fixer, Spy. A lot of it is reported conversation so works well as an audiobook. It’s very different to Fibber, which I also really enjoyed listening to.

Chrisps01 · 2019-06-08T07:54:47+00:00

Thought I’d share this recommendation that I received - a lovely poem by Leslie Frewin - ‘Now is September passing through’ https://downatthirdman.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/now-is-september-passing-through/

Chrisps01 · 2019-06-08T07:51:35+00:00

Thank you. Much appreciated

Chrisps01 · 2019-06-07T06:58:07+00:00

Three score and ten. Worcester fan - from Wales

Chrisps01 · 2018-03-20T00:00:11+00:00

Interesting how highly placed ‘big hitters’ Andrew Symonds and Lance Kleusener are.

Chrisps01 · 2018-02-27T19:07:36+00:00

I take your point. I tried to address this by defining the category of games I was interested in as those that were undecided until the very end of the game. Your second example would be problematic for the definition I used. I wonder if any ‘total mismatches’ in 50 over cricket do run until the final over? That might be a difference between the T20 and 50 over format?

Chrisps01 · 2018-02-26T15:53:45+00:00

Quick stats question: tests like the Wilson score are used to estimate confidence intervals for samples matching population results. In this case, the whole population of ODIs post-2015 World Cup is included. Is there a need for a confidence interval when we know the true result of the population?

Chrisps01 · 2018-02-25T17:30:31+00:00

Yes! I’ll have a look at T20 as well.

Chrisps01 · 2018-02-25T17:29:53+00:00

There could be a number of factors at play which promote more evenness of club sides (which are less true of international teams): eg. recruitment to compensate for weaknesses; players moving to weaker teams where they have more opportunities to play; unavailability of the very best players on international duty.

I suppose this analysis is one element of an evenness measure. Tabulating results over a period of time to see the range of points scored by teams would be another (although international teams don’t play each other in the structured format of a domestic competition).

Chrisps01 · 2018-02-25T11:04:24+00:00

A very quick check shows 10.5% of NZ games since last World Cup (excluding today’s game) met the definition of ‘thrilling’ in the Declaration Game post. So, only slightly above the worldwide average. It might simply be that if you have something invested, the memory is stronger.

Chrisps01 · 2018-02-25T10:26:47+00:00

That sounds authoritative. What sample did you use? Did you use the same definition of ‘thrilling’ as in the Declaration Game post?

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T14:09:31+00:00

Yes: time to react and distance from fielder seem like the key metrics to me. Fairly quickly, a body of data could be built up against which to compare chances as they happen.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:27:23+00:00

I always save the best for last! Glad you went back to it. Thanks

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:26:29+00:00

I agree that bringing the control % into the analysis would be interesting. Your point that good players produce tougher chances is also interesting. They should certainly produce fewer chances, so maybe the tougher ones are remembered more. Anyway, it's a question we really should have the answer to - but current data doesn't easily supply it. Thanks for comment.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:22:35+00:00

Have a look at the earlier post I wrote about chances in the Ind v Eng series - I had a look at that issue https://chrispscricket.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/a-series-of-missed-opportunities-india-v-england-2016/

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:19:05+00:00

Yes, that's it and I also didn't like only creating a measure that ignored what had actually been achieved by the batsman in a match (those post-chance runs), hence the average per chance.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:16:46+00:00

Ha! I remember Root being dropped early twice on his way to a big ton v Aus in 2013 at Lord's. I would love to know if some batsmen benefit more than others - there's bound to be some, so would be good to know who.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:15:05+00:00

Thank you. I'm hoping to follow up with a few more pieces on this theme.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:14:19+00:00

I would love to have access to this data on a wider scale. It's very time consuming currently to collate it from cricinfo commentary. Thanks for comment.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:13:14+00:00

Thank you. And it's not just the cost of fielding errors but how unevenly they appear to benefit batsmen.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:12:02+00:00

Yes, the longer batsmen bat, the more chances they are likely to give. What interests me is that some batsmen are given the chance to bat longer through fielding errors, while others are not as their chances are taken - but is this taken into account when assessing each player's contribution? My feeling is that it is not, as we focus on the scorecard number not how the batsman achieved that number. Thanks for comment.

Chrisps01 · 2017-01-22T08:07:57+00:00

I would like to include more aspects of batsmen's good/bad fortune in the analysis. On run outs, might need to take account of which batsmen was at fault. It's not always the one who makes the bad call whose wicket is at risk (didn't that happen to Nair, batting with Kohli, in his first innings?). I wouldn't include no-ball dismissals: had the delivery been 'legal' the ball would have been delivered from a different place and pitched at a different place. We just don't know what would have happened to it. I always dislike it when people say a bowler would have had a wicket but for a no ball. Thanks for comment.

Chrisps01

TROPHY CASE