An interesting article. But I think this was more of a profile done on Mr. Krishna. Makes interesting read but I would be more interested in more detailed cricket information - specifically related to the Indian team.
Thank you for providing an interesting aspect of cricket. My husband and I are big cricket fans. My interest in this sport has increased since our local hero Saurav started captaining the Indian team.
It would be wonderful to have such detailed analysis of the Indian team. We believe the Indian team has immense potential - yet lack the modern techniques of training, coaching that is usually applied to the more western sports such as Basketball, Baseball and such.
It would be refreshing indeed to analyze the performances of our players in an analytic fashion.
The team wins / loses because there could lot of factors like bad captiancy, poor batting,bowling,fielding or a crunch situation.. Its easy to do a stats after the match. And this stats just acts a reminder.. These things could not be kept in mind, rectified or made sure they are not repeated. The team wins because on that day they are good. It depends upon the player abilities...or the team abilities.. This is a holy crap.. I wonder how a good team like Australia follows this stats...
seriously mann, rediff has to do some serious thinking. They can not continue like this, publishing totally meaningless stuff on their website. Who the hell cares who this mann is...can u imagine i no longer spend my time reading ur articles, i just read the 1st few lines and try to see if this is another piece of crap.
RE:India was lucky to enter the Super Sixes, let alone the final?????????
by samir on Jun 10, 2003 12:36 PM
Dude , thats exactly Krishna's point. He isnt saying that its not India's fault that other teams did not expose Dravid's keeping or any of the other things , but it just proves that India were a little lucky in reaching the finals . I am not taking anything away from the splendid wins against Pakistan and England , but if India were on the seemingly mega roll that it was purported to be it should have put up a better fight against the aussies both the times it faced them . It did not , I feel that if the South Africans or the Windies had qualified (like they logically should have )for the super sixes it would have considerably diminished India's safe passage . I would love to think that India would have won still but I would'nt have wanted to bet on it . Would you ? . So for me Tunga is right when he says that India were lucky to reach the finals . But hey I aint complaining.
Looking at all the comments, I can conclude my 10 golden observation:
1. There are very many Indian cricket fans.
2. They taking things personally and attack personally.
3. Rediff becomes more popular. So do the authors. Formula for making money and gaining fame.
4. Hardly anyone bothers to consider a different opinion.
5. Cricket seems like a game appreciated by the heart than the head.
6. Dare one say anything negative about India - we burn houses and paint people black.
7. If I want more traffic to my website - I write about sensational topics like "Indians are the biggest MCPs", "Bring back Ajay Jadeja", "There is nothing wrong with showing kissing in Indian cinema". Guaranteed posts by 25 rabid Indians.
8. Why do we bother so much?
9. Some fanatic will definitely take offense to this post and will most definitely post something even more idiotic.
I agree with Sunil's comment that he is probably laughing at the rest of us taking that article seriously. But I can't leave without a comment.
Sheriff takes pains to point out that Tunga has developed a so called 'process stats' based scoring system. Not only is it not original, but it is rather common.
It is just a take on the Frindall scoring system or its predecessor the linear scoring system. The latter has been around for nearly 100 years now. It defines a scheme for showing the direction where the ball went, what shot was played and events like whether it hit the pad or whether a catch was dropped or if there was an appeal.
Anybody can use their own symbols instead of the standard ones - for eg, Frindall uses 'E' to indicate an edge, I can use 'O' as long as I know how to interpret it. And if there is nothing defined for a slower ball or a shortened runup, I can add one for my use.
I don't believe that Sheriff does not know about the Frindall system. To project it as if something great is straightforward journalistic dishonesty.
