Re: Here we go again....

by PlanetPakistan Tue 21 Sep 2010, 20:36

beamer wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:I am still waiting for some one from the ICC to shed some light on why there is only one sided investigation when all they have is the scoring patterns of 2 overs, how can they categorically say that the English team is NOT involved?
Oh yeah, England were obviously bribed to bowl well... is your name Ijaz Butt by any chance?

You either take a report seriously or RUBBISH it all the way...

What ICC have done is a halfarse job, the game is set up in a way where the contest is ignited by the bowler and the end result is produced by the batsmen and the fielders. Currently ICC only have one equation(the scoring pattern) and using that 1 equations they are trying to solve for 3 unknowns which clearly implies that they assuming 2 unknowns to be zero.

by Basil Tue 21 Sep 2010, 20:48

But which are the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns?

by beamer Tue 21 Sep 2010, 20:52

PlanetPakistan wrote:
beamer wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:I am still waiting for some one from the ICC to shed some light on why there is only one sided investigation when all they have is the scoring patterns of 2 overs, how can they categorically say that the English team is NOT involved?
Oh yeah, England were obviously bribed to bowl well... is your name Ijaz Butt by any chance?

You either take a report seriously or RUBBISH it all the way...

What ICC have done is a halfarse job, the game is set up in a way where the contest is ignited by the bowler and the end result is produced by the batsmen and the fielders. Currently ICC only have one equation(the scoring pattern) and using that 1 equations they are trying to solve for 3 unknowns which clearly implies that they assuming 2 unknowns to be zero.

The whole thing might be crap, fair enough. But you can't pay a bowler to concede fewer runs than would be expected, which is what they are implying about these two overs. Unless they usually bowl at 50% of their capability so they can be bribed to bowl better or worse than normal? Laughing

Anyway, it doesn't matter as England threw the match, I'm sure you believe every word that Ijaz Arse says anyway...

by PlanetPakistan Tue 21 Sep 2010, 20:59

beamer wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:
beamer wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:I am still waiting for some one from the ICC to shed some light on why there is only one sided investigation when all they have is the scoring patterns of 2 overs, how can they categorically say that the English team is NOT involved?
Oh yeah, England were obviously bribed to bowl well... is your name Ijaz Butt by any chance?

You either take a report seriously or RUBBISH it all the way...

What ICC have done is a halfarse job, the game is set up in a way where the contest is ignited by the bowler and the end result is produced by the batsmen and the fielders. Currently ICC only have one equation(the scoring pattern) and using that 1 equations they are trying to solve for 3 unknowns which clearly implies that they assuming 2 unknowns to be zero.
The whole thing might be crap, fair enough. But you can't pay a bowler to concede fewer runs than would be expected, which is what they are implying about these two overs. Unless they usually bowl at 50% of their capability so they can be bribed to bowl better or worse than normal?

Anyway, it doesn't matter as England threw the match, I'm sure you believe every word that Ijaz Arse says anyway...

Great way to argue a point Cool

Best way to stop runs will be for BOTH bowler and batsman to take no risks i.e bowler doesn't try to bowl quick bouncers or fast inswing yorkers and batsman tries to block every ball.

A bowler trying to bowl a quick yorker or a bouncer and conceding 5 wides would fark up the entire equation for the bookies. So for the ICC to TOTALLY dismiss this simple possibility is at best not very smart.

by beamer Tue 21 Sep 2010, 21:44

It's just the same as with Mr Butt, you just want to see another team implicated in this so they won't simply throw the book at Pakistan. You'd rather cricket was corrupt from top to bottom in all 9 or 10 major nations than have the problem largely confined to Pakistan.

by PlanetPakistan Tue 21 Sep 2010, 21:55

bro you are just running away from the specificity of the issue and are making blanket statements.

by beamer Tue 21 Sep 2010, 22:07

To be honest if it was England that the allegations centred on (and they were as blatant as noballgate appears to be) then I'd probably want to see the whole sport come down and not just my own country. To start with at least.

by Zat Tue 21 Sep 2010, 22:09

beamer wrote:Zimbabwe?

Will be interesting to see what India and Sri Lanka do, is the Asian bloc and the prospect of handing control of the game effectively back to England and Australia more important than the integrity of the sport?

There will be a dramatic rush to have Test status conferred on Malaysia, Singapore, the UAE and Hong Kong.

by furriner Wed 22 Sep 2010, 02:26

PlanetPakistan wrote:
furriner wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:Furry,
only 12K people graduated in 45 years.

PP, I don't understand your point.

If by "only 12 k..in 45 years" you mean that this is a mark of a difficult or prestigious course, that is not so. IMO

First, without proof, I am pretty much certain that the 12,000 that graduated were the same as the 12,000 that participated in the course. I.e. no one 'failed'.

Second, 12,000 grads over 49 years is about 250 execs per year...which sounds about right for the number of people who would come to such a class.

Edit: Thirdly, I am reasonably certain that pretty much anyone who applies to these courses and has the money is accepted. Unlike the 2 year programs where the selection is more like 1 out of 10 or 15 applicants.

i find that very difficult to believe that any body with money can take these courses at Harvard.

The 3-4 day courses? Hell yes.

The 3-4 month course? I'd amend myself slightly to say that any moderately successful exec can apply and do the course.

In a related note, here's thebasic B school economics - they all lose money on their 'core' MBA programs ( 2 year or 1 year). They make money on these shorter format programs and so it's more of a churn.

I've seen this at a 'top 5 B School' - which wasn't Harvard, though!

by Josh Carney Wed 22 Sep 2010, 03:12

Are the Pakistani institutions (PCB in particular) sound and trustworthy to fix this problem ?

The "Ban Pakistan" cries are coming out in frustration, everybody knows that the PCB have been unable to or not been serious about fixing a problem they have known for decades.

Now this has gone to ridiculous proportions where no game involving the Pakistanis can be taken seriously.

by PlanetPakistan Wed 22 Sep 2010, 03:21

beamer wrote:To be honest if it was England that the allegations centred on (and they were as blatant as noballgate appears to be) then I'd probably want to see the whole sport come down and not just my own country. To start with at least.

Once again you are not talking about the specific incident and ICC's reaction to the allegations.
I guess its fair enough if you don't to talk about it.

by PlanetPakistan Wed 22 Sep 2010, 03:24

furriner wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:
furriner wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:Furry,
only 12K people graduated in 45 years.

PP, I don't understand your point.

If by "only 12 k..in 45 years" you mean that this is a mark of a difficult or prestigious course, that is not so. IMO

First, without proof, I am pretty much certain that the 12,000 that graduated were the same as the 12,000 that participated in the course. I.e. no one 'failed'.

Second, 12,000 grads over 49 years is about 250 execs per year...which sounds about right for the number of people who would come to such a class.

Edit: Thirdly, I am reasonably certain that pretty much anyone who applies to these courses and has the money is accepted. Unlike the 2 year programs where the selection is more like 1 out of 10 or 15 applicants.

i find that very difficult to believe that any body with money can take these courses at Harvard.

The 3-4 day courses? Hell yes.

The 3-4 month course? I'd amend myself slightly to say that any moderately successful exec can apply and do the course.

In a related note, here's thebasic B school economics - they all lose money on their 'core' MBA programs ( 2 year or 1 year). They make money on these shorter format programs and so it's more of a churn.

I've seen this at a 'top 5 B School' - which wasn't Harvard, though!

In general its becoming very difficult to get in to schools in US, i personally wasted 3 years in community college because i couldn't get in to the top universities in FL .

by PlanetPakistan Wed 22 Sep 2010, 03:26

...that despite getting most As in the last 2 years of high school

i think it was a conspiracy against the Pakistanis Very Happy

by G.Wood Wed 22 Sep 2010, 04:05

PlanetPakistan wrote:
furriner wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:
furriner wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:Furry,
only 12K people graduated in 45 years.

PP, I don't understand your point.

If by "only 12 k..in 45 years" you mean that this is a mark of a difficult or prestigious course, that is not so. IMO

First, without proof, I am pretty much certain that the 12,000 that graduated were the same as the 12,000 that participated in the course. I.e. no one 'failed'.

Second, 12,000 grads over 49 years is about 250 execs per year...which sounds about right for the number of people who would come to such a class.

Edit: Thirdly, I am reasonably certain that pretty much anyone who applies to these courses and has the money is accepted. Unlike the 2 year programs where the selection is more like 1 out of 10 or 15 applicants.

i find that very difficult to believe that any body with money can take these courses at Harvard.

The 3-4 day courses? Hell yes.

The 3-4 month course? I'd amend myself slightly to say that any moderately successful exec can apply and do the course.

In a related note, here's thebasic B school economics - they all lose money on their 'core' MBA programs ( 2 year or 1 year). They make money on these shorter format programs and so it's more of a churn.

I've seen this at a 'top 5 B School' - which wasn't Harvard, though!

In general its becoming very difficult to get in to schools in US, i personally wasted 3 years in community college because i couldn't get in to the top universities in FL .

They weren't pilot training schools you were trying to get in?

by tac Wed 22 Sep 2010, 04:11

ROFL@woody

by The One Wed 22 Sep 2010, 04:17

beamer wrote:Will be interesting to see what India and Sri Lanka do, is the Asian bloc and the prospect of handing control of the game effectively back to England and Australia more important than the integrity of the sport?

england has just new zealand to rely on when it comes to voting. sometimes australia. thats still just 3 out of 9

by furriner Wed 22 Sep 2010, 04:34

PlanetPakistan wrote:...........

In general its becoming very difficult to get in to schools in US, i personally wasted 3 years in community college because i couldn't get in to the top universities in FL .

Despite most As? Bloody heck I didn't know it was that tough. You studying at a better school now?

by Mick Sawyer Wed 22 Sep 2010, 04:38

i personally wasted 3 years in community college because i couldn't get in to the top universities in FL .

Isn't there another 40 odd states thereabouts?

by Sponsored content