West Indies Cricket Fans

All the "rule" is saying is that if a team has better batsmen and bowlers they will win.

Now you could have batsmen and bowlers who "breakout" in a series.

Prior to the WI tour of England in 1976 Holding had 29 wickets at 34.21. In that series he got 28 wickets at 12.71. But his partner Andy Roberts going into that series had 76 wickets at 23.83.
Similarly Greenidge was only averaging 29.38 but he averaged 65.78 in the '76 series.

When I look at the WI line up I really cannot see us out batting/bowling England, at least not in the tests.

Arnik wrote:All the "rule" is saying is that if a team has better batsmen and bowlers they will win.

The 40/30 rule is simple---almost simplistic---yet profound.

Check out the recently concluded WI/AUS series:

The Aussies had 6 40/30 players; the WI had 4 40/30 players.

The 40/30 rule gave Australia a 95% chance of winning the series----they won it 2-0

Now, the West Indies put up a good fight against Australia----they weren't blown away----and the reason they weren't blown away was the Aussies were not that strong----only 6 40/30 players compared to the Windies 4 40/30 players.

RE: BREAKOUT PLAYERS

Check out the 1975-1976 series between Australia and the West Indies----Aus won 5-1

wi vs aus 1976

Going into that series the Aussies had way more 40/30 players than the Windies---and so the 5-1 whipping was expected.

But in that series you had the following players ready to break out in following series:

* Richards

* Holding

* Roberts

* Greenidge


RE: THE 40/30 RULE

What it does is eliminates all the nonsensical talk about who will win or who will lose----as long as the WI plays teams with more 40/30 players----the 40/30 rule says they have a 95% chance of losing.

Rush

Rush wrote:Going into that series the Aussies had way more 40/30 players than the Windies---and so the 5-1 whipping was expected.

Well, at the time the 5-1 whipping was not expected.

Many WI batsmen have found the going real tough in Australia.

Arnik wrote: Well, at the time the 5-1 whipping was not expected.

Well, if the 40/30 rule were around back in 1976 fans would have anticipated a whipping of the Winides by the Aussies.

Click on the link and check out that Aussie team----they had waaaay more 40/30 players than the Windies.

Fans may not have expected a 5/1 whipping---but the 40/30 rule would have predicted it.

Rush

Rush wrote:Fans may not have expected a 5/1 whipping---but the 40/30 rule would have predicted it.

No internet in dem days.

Arnik wrote:

Rush wrote:Fans may not have expected a 5/1 whipping---but the 40/30 rule would have predicted it.

No internet in dem days.

not even PC (1981) ... ....

Looks like the internet and PC contributed to the downfall of test cricket...

Arnik wrote:

Rush wrote:Fans may not have expected a 5/1 whipping---but the 40/30 rule would have predicted it.

No internet in dem days.

I listed to that series on my pocket radio.

Rush

Boomer your crude theses may be right. However I would suggest you read this paper. If you want i can get a copy of it through my university login and send it to you.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 85#preview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

joshua wrote:Rush your crude theses may be right. However I would suggest you read this paper.

Joshua:

The 40/30 rule was first presented to the cricketing world by the astute and insightful CC poster Sheik. You can ask Sheik to expound of the 40/30 rule in this thread


Anyway Joshy, there is nothing crude about the 40/30 rule---it is simple yet profound.

I have analyzed numerous series---and have refined Sheik's 40/30 rule.

For example, if 2 teams---Team A and ream B---play each other in a test series---and both teams have the same number of 40/30 palyers---which team will likely emerge victorious in the test series ?

This is what I found----let's say Team A has 2 40+ batsman and 3 30- bowlers and Team B has 3 40+ batsmen and 2 30- bowlers---both teams have the same amount of 40/30 players(5) but Team A has 3 30- bowlers and Team B has 2 30- bowlers-----the analysis finds that the team with the larger number of 30- bowlers(Team A) has a greater probability of emerging victorious.

You may ask the Sheik to expound on the 40/30 rule or invite him to post on this thread---to discuss the variations in the 40/30 rule----skeik.

Sheik's team Australia will be playing South Africa next----the 40/30 rule will predict the likely winner of that series----looks like South Africa will have the edge.

Rush

Read this:

"A team like the West Indies with only 4 40/30 players will never play good cricket consistently----they will have a great innings once in a while like the 449/9 in the first test against Australia---they will bowl out an opposition cheaply once in a while---and they will win a test match against a higher ranked opponent once every 2 years or so. But they will never play good cricket consistently and will remain perennial losers." Rush

MORE 40/30 PLAYERS BY THE WEST INDIES:

Here are the positions that are severely lacking:

#1

#2

#6

#8---the Sammy position


Rush