West Indies Cricket Fans

BallOil wrote:that depends on the quality of the teams and which one batting fuss ..no?

P.s. give me a call if you in the area tonight...

maybe... filter the stats lets see where we get...

aite i'll call ya.

matchstick wrote:

mapoui wrote:do get vex eh matchstick. I jess foolin' aroun' wit' you!

'

i did not get a chance to read your whole posts...

i neva vex mon... we jus chattin...

check out my post above though...

moral of the story... you gotta make a decision on the toss based on team strengths and playing/pitch conditions...

how do champion periods factor in that calculation?

shit I was jess talking here and this man want to cause me to go do some serious unpaid wuk here.

how many times westindies won the toss and sent the opposition in between 1976-1995 and still won, due to its championship team?

how often did they do this betwen 1962 and 1968 another championship period?

how many tests westindied played during these 2 periods, subtracted from out of our total # of tests played?

how many tests westindies played between 1995 when we lost to the Oz in the westindies and Gayles last series?
then the first period between 1928 and 1939.....and from 1948 to 1961?

during these non champion tests how many times westindies sent the oppostion in and what were the results?

my argument seems a two-headed thing: that the fourth innings of test matches are fraught and a must to be avoided...and by that, it is counter productive to send the oppostion in unless you can make it count... that westindies currently and since 1995 cannot make it count.... so give it up.

I dont see how that graph really addresses my argument given what we do in fact know...espcailly in our time...1995 - to currently! thats 16 years out of a total of 82 years westindies have been playing test cricket

mapoui wrote:

matchstick wrote:

mapoui wrote:do get vex eh matchstick. I jess foolin' aroun' wit' you!

'

i did not get a chance to read your whole posts...

i neva vex mon... we jus chattin...

check out my post above though...

moral of the story... you gotta make a decision on the toss based on team strengths and playing/pitch conditions...

how do champion periods factor in that calculation?

shit I was jess talking here and this man want to cause me to go do some serious unpaid wuk here.

how many times westindies won the toss and sent the opposition in between 1976-1995 and still won, due to its championship team?

The stats are there go look it up and all your questions will be answered... please share your findings...

For now looking at the overall stats and losses based on toss decision there is no trend to support the suggestion that winning a toss and choosing to bat rather than field will lower your team's loss %.

An easy way to approach answering the questions you have is to reproduce the graph i have up on a decade by decade period. << -- there is some good unpaid work for ya!

till then i am still calling BS on this...

my argument seems a two-headed thing: that the fourth innings of test matches are fraught and a must to be avoided...and by that, it is counter productive to send the oppostion in unless you can make it count... that westindies currently and since 1995 cannot make it count.... so give it up.

a Bad team loosing games after they chose to bat last does not necessarily translate to 'they would have won/drawn had they batted first' ... it could just be that they were a bad team...

I am very willing to accept that WI has been a horrible cricket team form the time period you mention...

wrt

I dont see how that graph really addresses my argument given what we do in fact know...espcailly in our time...

for a long while many on earth KNEW that the earth was flat...

who is Dowling's hero? i heard it was former WI Capt, BCL!

this is no flat earth society here! there is bound to be in there a story close to my contention and I will get to it in time.

I am busy at the moment and have been spenfigna lil time here because I enjoy posting and if it helps another site on its way fine.

the spare time I have is mostly taken up here for the moment! now if you can go through these to shed some light on how the KC will turn out let me know. 5 bets and 300 dollars to bet: win/win and place depending on the odds/exacta/tri/superfecta/5 in a row.

dig into these. there are 17 more to check out. I have eliminated 10 already. help ypourself. I will go through westindies tests by period soon enough. I got to see this myself!

http://www.pedigreequery.com/eskendereya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.pedigreequery.com/lookin+at+lucky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.pedigreequery.com/stately+victor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

how come horse racing get into this topic?

doh fret balloil! thats where most of my spare time is focused at the monent.

maybe matchstick can figure out the derby too!

mapoui wrote:doh fret balloil! thats where most of my spare time is focused at the monent.

maybe matchstick can figure out the derby too!

no frettin......are you leading the horse or chasing it?

mapoui wrote: maybe matchstick can figure out the derby too!

dont have much time for a sport that peaks once a year or so...

tried for a while to get into it but just did not hold my attention... i like goin to Belmont on the big race day tho.. nice scenes...

not to mention the underling controversy over fixed races etc...

wat controversy! some races are fixed for sure. I understand in england it is totally fixed now.

some ganster lord appears to have bought out or intimidated all the jockeys. it is known but the authorities cant or wont do anything about the mess.

at in ontario harness racing there appears to be much untoward going on, but it apears to grow out of a generation long incestuous familiarity in the jockey/driver comunity...trainers too...who have competed against each other for long time now.

races are fixed in america where I have experience of the game...but not all the races, especially at the bigger tracks. it seems impossible to accomplish that in america because the game is way larger here than in britain, far more competitve at all levels and areas, too many owners, bigh middling and small-time, too many vested interests with their own section to maintain, to collect them altogether, of one mind, as would be necessary for such conspiracy to work.

a trainer can set up a race as in the Kentucky Derby soem years ago. there was a horse by the name of Spanish Chestnut that had qualified for the Derby but as a speed horse more suitable for sprinting than the Derby distance of a mile and a quarter. what tells the story is that spanish chectnut ran a blistering 6 furlongs in setting the pace for the race.

spanish chestnut went soemthing like 1:09 or 1:10 for the first six furlongs of the race and faded. that meant all the favourites like Afleet Alex which had a saddle mishap in the race in addition, and who chased that crazy pace, would all burn out and fade leaving the race for the one-paced trundler, Giacomo to win at boxcar odds.

thats certainly how a race can be fixed when your hose has no chance in the race. we would have to know what the trainer of spanish chest bet in the race! but anyway all who know horse racing know that is exactly what he did...screw the race so that the wloses would win...whike betting the probable resulting scenarios himself and walking away with a huge amoung of money as the winners of bets on that Derby walked away with.

so handicappers in the USA must always be mindful of how a race sets up...the probable speed of the race, the trainers and what they are known for, the quality and nature of horses, fitness of a horse and how they look and behave when injured, class of horse etc.

knowledge of these apsects and more helps to sus out the nature of races and produce a good bet.

the key is the bet! you are playing horses because you want to win money..not lose mony. therefore you have to look for the race you can beat, the one you understand and know the winner of.

on that race if the odds are worth it, you hit as hard as you can. you watch and learn from the other races...the ones you cant understand and have doubts about all the potentials in them. if in doubt dont bet! dont bet every race. you cant win every raceso dont bet every race.

you can win every race you bet...but you cant win every race that is run. the odds say bet the race you understand...to bet win and place mostly, if not all the time, and forget the exotic bets...like exactors and triactors etc