betvisa cricket Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - براہ راست کرکٹ | Jeetbuzz88.com //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/ Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 //wordpress.org/?v=5.8.10 betvisa live Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - شرط بندی آنلاین کریکت | Jeetbuzz88.com //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-708 Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-708 Great Work Dave.

Would be interesting to thi??nk of a reason why players of such a earlier generation are coming out more balanced than the cu??rrent one.

]]> betvisa login Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - Jeetbuzz88 - live cricket match india pakistan //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-702 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-702 Very interesting article.

Was there any reason why yo??u chose wickets per innings, not bowling average?

Just letting you know that you’ve got Stephen Fleming listed as WI at the moment too. 🙂

]]> betvisa888 bet Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - Jeetbuzz88 - live cricket t20 2022 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-703 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-703 chasingthedon, is it ??possible to provide? a list of players who were the next best?

I’m interested in seeing where Kallis ranks.

]]> betvisa888 cricket bet Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - Jeetbuzz88 - live cricket asia cup //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-704 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-704 Good article. I always find Dave’s work interesting.

I’m not a huge fan of using runs-per-innings as a measure of performance ahead of batting average, personally. It entails all sorts of arbitrariness of its own. For instance, a batsman walks out to the crease with one run needed for victory which his partner then scores. The new batsman’s innings closes at 0* which drags his runs-per-innings score down – and arbitrary distortion of his record.

]]> betvisa888 bet Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - Jeetbuzz88 - live cricket t20 2022 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-705 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-705 I really enjoyed that article. Thanks.

The key thing about a good all-rounder is providing b??alance to a side. Whether that be as a batting all-rounder or a bowling all-rounder depends on the team in which they play.

Keith Miller did both which means effectively his team was playing with 12 men. No wonder the invincibles were well…. invincible.

]]> betvisa888 live Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - jeetbuzzشرط بندی کریکت |Jeetbuzz88.com //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-706 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-706 NUFAN and zaremba, fair comment, other comparisons could have been used. I’m not a fan of averages for comparison purposes myself, but there are issues with all measures – just a preference on my part. Wickets/innings I feel gives a better measure of a bowler’s impact than average, and as I wanted to use dismissals/innings for fielding I decided to standardize on a per-innings basis.

]]> betvisa casino Comments on: The Most All-Round All-Rounder - Jeetbuzz88 - live cricket tv today //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-707 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0000 //jb365-vip.com/the-most-all-round-all-rounder/#comment-707 Kallis didn’t rank too highly in this study as his batting and fielding are of a significantly higher order than his bowling:-

ALL-ROUND “FLATNESS”:
rank 102, standard deviation .554 (1.363 batting, 0.625 bowling, 1.710 fiel???????????????????????????ding)

The large variation in the three ratios means the standard deviation is quite la?rge.

LEVEL 1s:
rank 24, difference 0.375

Basically the? amount by which his bowling is below the level r??equired for a 1.000 ratio.

]]>