Your Theories Please

How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

[This is Rachel]

Demelza,

I wasn't aware that England had won this Test Match.

No, I didn't say they had.

I said they're playing well, compared to the last match.

I was Aware that the ARG is a road. If the pitch had a touch of spice to it England would be in the mire. Just look at how Flintoff et al. have coped with the low bounce. Any ball which does something Wild, England have struggled to cope.

It's called life, one day everything conspires against you, the next you hit a groove and can do no wrong.

There's a great deal to be said for mindset being "catching", things go wrong for one person, it's set alarm bells off in the others around them and disbelief sets in. The opposite is also true, one person does brilliantly and the good vibes brush off too.

It certainly is unusual for an innings to be more than 1000% higher than the previous one...

Demelza wrote:How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

trying to figure that out for almost 2 decades of watching pakistan cricket.


and you mean 1994?

Oops, yes I meant 1994

The fact that there's a recovery, usually in the next match, shows it's just a blip and one of dem fings.

Is it better to be dem fing or f'ing Dem?

OP Tipping wrote:It certainly is unusual for an innings to be more than 1000% higher than the previous one...

On the 27th and 28th December 1926 Victoria scored 1107 against NSW. Exactly one month later in their next innings against NSW they were bowled out for 35.

Englands previous innings was 7-0 BTW.

The Windies did something similar against us in 1999.

.

whats the greatest difference in between completed innings of a team in tests? (both negative and positive)

i found this for innings within the same match. is there any stats engine that can compare across matches as well?

lin

Interesting link, TO

Hampshire were dismissed for 15 in the first innings against Warwickshire in 1922 & then made 521 in the second innings. They won the match by 155 runs.



http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/10/10456.html

I want theories as to why such results happen, not bloody links! (Although I do find the links very interesting.)

It's God's will.

Surely it's not that difficult to quantify is it? The pitch was better, the batsmen applied themselves better and the bowlers bowled worse on a whole.

Guest wrote:I want theories as to why such results happen, not bloody links! (Although I do find the links very interesting.)

relevant again

sunspots ... badly timed drunken parties ... that time of the month ... lurgi