Eng Test tour of Pak, Dec 1-21

[Durhamfootman]

I feel England are going to need early wickets on day 2.

[bigfluffylemon]

But isn't that the point though. The decision isn't being made an infinite number of times. It's being made once. Each test match is a unique set of circumstances that will never repeat. And so you have to take circumstances into account

You have to remember that the implied probability of something occurring is merely the mean point in the probability distribution, so choosing one sample outcome to critique or disprove a given probability calculation would be extremely foolish, as any data set will include a potentially huge spread of variance/deviation from the mean point. Probability theory posits in the law of large numbers that the more you sample, the more data will eventually prove an average point (and of course, the less samples you take, in this case only one, the less likely it is to represent any statistical reality)... and as stated previously, studies into betting probabilities tend to prove their accuracy in identifying the mean point in probability extremely well.

So to simply say "England won, so they got it right" would be a foolish inference to take.

I never said that. In fact, I have repeatedly said I wouldn't have made the decision, at the time and afterwards. I just said that you have to take the bigger picture circumstances beyond the match situation into account. Stokes saw a potentially once in a career opportunity to win a game in Pakistan and went for it, despite the risk.

I am sure my views on this part of game theory are well outside the scope of a cricket match thread, but I struggle to understand how subjective motivations for choice can form the basic criteria of a normative theory. Surely how someone SHOULD act is an objective premise, so I see no reason why formulating how someone should act should be defined on a whole host of unhelpful or potentially counterproductive subjective motivations/preferences. Of course, a lot of this nowadays has dubious parallel to real life situations/thought. Pretty recently, the nobel prize was won by someone who counter theorised that loss aversion is the most prevalent real-life strategy that governs such situations, and a default primary bias on preference choices.

Why not simply admit that different people have different ideas of how to balance risk and reward in cricketing decisions ; and sometimes the more conservative approach will prove superior while at other times an apparently riskier tactic is better ?

I do not think that it is even remotely controversial to claim that someone who makes a choice based on 60% objective probability of success will, over time, be more successful than one who makes choices with 40% probability.

I cant see any scientific basis for arguing against such a proposition. Let alone infer someone who holds that belief is motivated by some dishonest factors

Sure, making decisions based on a higher probability of success will be more successful, by definition. But you have to define success. How someone SHOULD act is to maximise the chances of achieving utility. You are essentially refusing to accept that there is any definition of success/utility that doesn't match yours. Tell me, is there any declaration that Stokes could have made that would have increased the odds that England WIN the game? Not 'avoid a loss'. Win. I'm not sure there is. By delaying the declaration, you sacrifice chance of victory to reduce the chance of a loss, but increase the odds of a draw. Whether that's reasonable or not depends on how you weight win v draw v loss. Because of the draw, it's not a simple binary 'success/fail'.

Disagree all day about whether the risk is worth taking, or that the criteria for successful are the right/reasonable/best ones. All I'm saying is that I don't think you can say the decision was objectively wrong. It was wrong IF you agree that avoiding the loss was more important than winning, and a draw was an acceptable outcome.

I can see we're going in circles here, and the next match has started, so it's pretty much irrelevant (as England are showing the likely pitfalls of their approach this time around). So I'm bowing out here.

[alfie]

Why not simply admit that different people have different ideas of how to balance risk and reward in cricketing decisions ; and sometimes the more conservative approach will prove superior while at other times an apparently riskier tactic is better ?

I do not think that it is even remotely controversial to claim that someone who makes a choice based on 60% objective probability of success will, over time, be more successful than one who makes choices with 40% probability.

I cant see any scientific basis for arguing against such a proposition. Let alone infer someone who holds that belief is motivated by some dishonest factors

I should probably let this just die ; but one last point. I do not disagree with the statement in bold. What I do not accept is that there is anything other than your assertion to indicate that "60% probability of success [for Pakistan]" had any real veracity . If you could show me some proper "scientific basis" for it I might take your argument more seriously.

Did not mean to imply "dishonesty" on your part. Just think you are seeking to prove your (perfectly reasonable , at the time ) honest opinion should be regarded as somehow "better informed" than that of the England captain , with the aid of some objective measurement that simply does not exist.

[alfie]

Anyway well into the next game and a cracker of a first day. England persevering with the ultra-aggressive approach and found it a lot harder on a pitch that did a lot more and against a very handy looking "mystery" spinner. Wonderful debut for Abrar - looks a real find for Pakistan.

Suppose some will say England donated him wickets by overdoing the attack - and there was a lot of sweeping , not all of it well advised. But worth noting that Crawley Root and Stokes were all totally bamboozled playing normal shots or defending so I reckon the young fellow deserves more credit for his skills than that.

Is 281 a disaster or just a bit of an under-par total ? Reckon the pitch will get trickier so Pakistan might need a decent first innings lead - which of course they might get as England's spinners don't have quite the same bag of tricks. (Maybe they should have picked Rehan Ahmed ?) But if this series has surely already taught us , unwise to assume anything in advance.

What we can probably say though , is that the "lively" first innings approach by England has ensured we will see an actual result over the next few days...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Couple of quick wickets and two fresh batters in. An opportunity for England. Who may be wishing they had called up a spinner rather than a fourth pace bowler.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Three for Leach. Productive morning for England.

[Durhamfootman]

it's been a good morning for England. 6 wickets for 70 odd runs. They are well on top now and looking at a sizeable lead if they can polish off the tail cheaply.

Leach earning his corn

[bigfluffylemon]

Well, was not expecting that scoreline.

Could be all over by tomorrow...

[Durhamfootman]

despite bowling on a spinning track, Robinson's figures are exceptional

[Durhamfootman]

Faheem making a nuisance of himself

[Durhamfootman]

Woody snuffs out the resistance and England have a first innings lead of 79.

[sussexpob]

Wickets dropping like flies today.. Pakistan fighting back with two quick,.but in the context of the game the lead is big...England's series/match to win

[andy]

That is some catch that brings an end to roots innings! Didn't look fluent at all and seemed to struggle to pick abrar

[sussexpob]

Abhar is doing well, but he's consistently too short. If he got it a tad fuller, England would be in real trouble

[sussexpob]

But yes, that catch in close is pure class