How Good Is Timothy Bresnan?

[D/L]

The problem with him is he cannot lead the bowling attack even when he is on form. Jimmy and Broad are easily capable of being the highest wicket takers for England in many series and have done so...

I'm not sure what is meant by "leading" the bowling attack but, if it means opening the bowling, then we have seen the new ball wasted on Broad on many occasions.

Bresnan's relative lack of success, at least statistically, is probably due mainly to playing through injury and being one of those players where luck has not yet, if it ever will or ever did, balanced out favourably.

[DeltaAlpha]

Luck balancing out favourably is a misconception, D/L. Luck always, eventually, balances out to about what is the average for whatever is being considered.

If I make a series of random numbers from 0 up to, and including, 100, the average will eventually be very close to 50; if it isn't, then I can safely say that the numbers were not random.

A similar argument applies to 'luck'.

[hopeforthebest]

I think Bresnan is and always has been unappreciated by England supporters and at first glance at his stats compared to Finn you might understand why. However, on closer inspection his stand up rather well.
Finn 23 games, 90 wickets, 13 games won, 3 lost, 7 drawn.
Brez 22 games, 70 wickets, 15 games won, 3 lost, 4 drawn.

Finn has 51 wickets in winning games (56% of total wickets)
Brez has 59 wickets in winning games (84% of total wickets)

Many of the lost and drawn games for Bresnan took place whilst his elbow condition was being "managed" by the England medics.

[D/L]

Luck balancing out favourably is a misconception, D/L. Luck always, eventually, balances out to about what is the average for whatever is being considered.

If I make a series of random numbers from 0 up to, and including, 100, the average will eventually be very close to 50; if it isn't, then I can safely say that the numbers were not random.

A similar argument applies to 'luck'.

No problem with the example you quoted, assuming enough random numbers were generated, DA.

However, just as in life, or in any activity within it, people can be lucky or unlucky in cricket.

[Gingerfinch]

Luck balancing out favourably is a misconception, D/L. Luck always, eventually, balances out to about what is the average for whatever is being considered.

If I make a series of random numbers from 0 up to, and including, 100, the average will eventually be very close to 50; if it isn't, then I can safely say that the numbers were not random.

A similar argument applies to 'luck'.

No problem with the example you quoted, assuming enough random numbers were generated, DA.

However, just as in life, or in any activity within it, people can be lucky or unlucky in cricket.

So, Bresnan is just plain unlucky?

[DeltaAlpha]

No problem with the example you quoted, assuming enough random numbers were generated, DA.

However, just as in life, or in any activity within it, people can be lucky or unlucky in cricket.

And I've no problem with that, D/L. The only difference is that you appear to believe that some are consistently lucky while others are consistently unlucky, and that doesn't add up. The whole point about luck, or chance as I would prefer to call it, is that it's random, just like random numbers, and there's no consistency about it.

[Arthur Crabtree]

WHy would you pick someone who is consistently unlucky... even if the proposition did make sense.

[D/L]

No problem with the example you quoted, assuming enough random numbers were generated, DA.

However, just as in life, or in any activity within it, people can be lucky or unlucky in cricket.

And I've no problem with that, D/L. The only difference is that you appear to believe that some are consistently lucky while others are consistently unlucky, and that doesn't add up. The whole point about luck, or chance as I would prefer to call it, is that it's random, just like random numbers, and there's no consistency about it.

Can there be any argument, even if there is no way of proving it, since luck is difficult to define, that very few players will have had a precisely equal balance of luck, either by the end of their careers or during it?

If one accepts that, it follows that most players, past and present, will be on the debit or credit side of the balance sheet of good fortune.

[greyblazer]

No, only Yorkshire players are unlucky and that is the reality. So nothing more to debate I guess

[Arthur Crabtree]

No, only Yorkshire players are unlucky and that is the reality. So nothing more to debate I guess ;)

It's alright to be unlucky if you do as well as Boycott or Gough though. It's why we pick underachieving unlucky players that seems strange.

[D/L]

WHy would you pick someone who is consistently unlucky... even if the proposition did make sense.

Who is saying anyone is consistently lucky or unlucky?

There will always be ups and downs, but the premise is that, at any point in time, good and bad fortune are rarely precisely matched. This cannot be as difficult to understand as it seems.

Any road up, some may be forgiven for thinking that Broad is picked on the same basis that Napoleon picked his generals.

[D/L]

No, only Yorkshire players are unlucky and that is the reality. So nothing more to debate I guess

Of course, it is my constant fear on CMS that my argument will be demolished by a typically insightful and witty remark from greyblazer.

[D/L]

WHy would you pick someone who is consistently unlucky... even if the proposition did make sense.

I hope the obtuseness is deliberate, AC.

[Gingerfinch]

Breanan was put lucky charm at one stage. Was it 13 tests played, and no losses?

[D/L]

Breanan was put lucky charm at one stage. Was it 13 tests played, and no losses?

I think it was, DR, but correlation and causation; not always the same thing.