Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 9:48:17 GMT
Like the monkeys with pencils who will eventually write Shakespeare if you round up enough of them?
hh can speak for himself, but my understanding of what he was saying is that true greatness is rare and tends to be a one-off and the rarity is not affected by the size of the pool from which it stands out.Shane Warne didn't emerge because he had to fight off dozens of other Australian leggies. He was always in a class of his own. Malinga didn't emerge as a force because he was the best of a battery of Sri Lankan round arm slingers - he was a unique talent that developed more or less in isolation etc.
On the other hand, we have a huge pool of county-class opening batsmen and yet England are still struggling to find one good enough to partner Cook.
I suspect twelvegrand is right about the statistical complexities of the relationship between probability, luck/chance and talent distribution. But it's a fascinating topic to explore.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandavefan on Jun 18, 2014 10:17:18 GMT
I think the spinner issue this year, lack of wickets, could be down to the wickets still not being dry enough. When and if it does get drier I think more wickets will be taken by spinners.
I agree that our wicket takers have come from Div 2. A good starting place to learn. We need to have a step up to the next level.
As for Cook and his partner, I would like a more attacking player, not a clone of Cook. Personally I like Lyth and Stonemam ahead of Robson. I think they could be the positive, attacking, attractive players we need.
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 18, 2014 20:41:18 GMT
Yeah you tell him Sussexfan. I thought it was BM talking about Dobell for a minute. I dunno what journalism was like when those two were young, records don't go there, but journalists are taught to use as much rhetoric as possible these days, rightly or wrongly - not that Pringle's been to Uni lately, I doubt. P.S. Greatness is more likely to evolve from big numbers than small numbers, obviously. My dear old fraudster, you're confusing rhetoric with rubbish. Pringle's writing here is lazy, inaccurate and incompetent - so why should we give credence to his further unsubstantiated innuendo? Indeed he did go to Uni, and was much censured for being the first University player (and Captain) to turn down the "honour" of appearing in the Varsity match in favour of playing for England - not that it did him much good in the long run. And on the subject of greatness (the quality of genius)....how many Newtons or Einsteins will you find in a school of 20 pupils? How many more will you find in a school of 100? 1000? It's about probability you see, and having a pool of spinners regularly playing in the top level of competition, as Australia did from the retirement of Benaud in the 60s to the emergence of Warne in the 90s doesn't guarantee that any of them will be great. Now we could start discussing the influence of nurture versus nature and going into the statistical evidence (none for "evolution" I'm afraid) , but I can see your eyes glazing over there. As for Sussexfan, no idea what I've done to you that you should start calling me names. If you don't agree with what I've written, by all means put up a counter-argument and let's discuss it, or just ignore it. Rhetoric and rubbish are the same thing to me but they all do it. Apart from getting the name wrong it was an average piece by most standards. The original criticism of what you wrote, which involved no name calling when I read it, was about you making a mountain out of a molehill, I reckon. And you did, I reckon. As you infer, I'm probably too dumb to understand whatever the hell it was you said would make my eyes glaze over but only a fool would think there isn't a better chance of pulling a prize marrow out of an allotment than a garden. P.S. I f****d it up but the last paragraph is mine only. You're right, I am a dumb arse. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jun 20, 2014 12:51:57 GMT
HH - I've read your post three times - can you clarify your view on the impact of the number of people playing a given sport? There seem to be a few confusions here around probability, luck and statistical distributions of talent (or 'genius')? Hi twelvegrand and sorry for the late reply. It's certainly true that talent can be fostered best by creating opportunities for it to flourish but that isn't what he wrote. Pringle wrote about "....numbers from which greatness tends to evolve". I don't regard greatness as equalling talent, which is one of several building blocks, along with the "infinite capacity for taking pains", "practice, practice, practice" and other attributes. It is hard to define but I hope we can agree on what it is not, in cricketing terms. I would suggest that for English bowlers since the war only Laker and Wardle in the 40s and 50s, Underwood (though not a "true" spinner) in the 60s to 80s have been the only great spin bowlers. I think from the context of Pringle's article that he is suggesting that Swann was a great spinner. Even if that is allowed, and I have a lot of doubts about someone who didn't dominate county cricket before his Test selection, that only makes 4 in nearly 70 years. And for much of that time, at least until the late 80s, counties regularly bowled 2 spinners in every game, so the pool available ran into the hundreds at least. In Pringle's own playing heyday, in 1984 there were 35 spinners bowling regularly in the county game and 3 of them,Emburey, Miller and Pocock played for England that season, with Edmonds joining Pocock on the following winter's tour. Not one of these players could possibly be described as being possessed by greatness, not even Percy who bowled 6 different balls every over - perhaps if he'd bowled a stock ball he migh have been great. Going overseas, to India and Pakistan where wickets have always been suited for spinners and sides have often played 3 or more, how many great spinners have their been since Bedi? Kumble and Harbajhan on the grounds of numbers of Test wickets possibly, but no more. Again, the distribution of "greats" refuses to follow simple numerical principles, as Bedi was one of a magical group with Prasanna and Chandrasekhar supported by Venktataraghavan from the mid-60s until the late 70s. In Pakistan I'd suggest Abdul Quadir in the 70's and 80's and Mushtaq Ahmed a few years later, and possibly Saeed Ajmal recently. So the argument that the more spinners there are, the likelier it is for one to "evolve" into greatness, by which I presume Pringle means mature or develop, unless he wants us to wait a few million years for the descendants to mutate, is just not borne out by experience. I know fraudster will go wittering on about prize marrows and allotments,but it isn't just the quality of soil, it's about the skill, knowledge, experience, resourcefulness of the gardener that matters. Of course, speaking as an allotment holder, some of us think a lot too much is made about this going after prizes for perfect marrows....  |
|
