Forget Agarkar..what about Tudor?

Forget Agarkar..what about Tudor?

Post by Devd » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:40:15

Going by Dr.Holmanoswamy's "unique" brand of
analysis, Tudor is the second coming of
Marshall while Agarkar is the nth coming of
another street bowler to don the whites.
Lets look at their respective averages and SRs
in the series to critique this analysis:

         Mat    O      M     R   W    Ave  Best   5 10    SR  Econ
Tudor     2    55     12   226   2  113.00  2-146  -  - 165.0  4.10

Agarkar   4   118.3   20   488   8  61.00  2-59   -  -  88.8  4.11

It is hereby agreed unanimously that "on account of Tudor being
much crappier than Agarkar on almost all statistical accounts,
the analysis by Dr.Holswamy is voted as being inherently biased
and found guilty of perpetrating falsehood and one which has the
intentions of spreading malice towards a particular bowler of
foreign origin".

And i won't even take out the batting stats of the two to avoid
Dr.Holamans'*** his head in shame.

BTW,it is also concluded herbey that since the best pace bowler of the series
on either sides has an average bordering on 40.00, the series was played
in largely batting tracks with almost zilch assistance to pace bowlers. And
bashing a particular pace bowler for not performing as he would on tracks
with more juice would amount to personal hatred against the bowler.



Forget Agarkar..what about Tudor?

Post by Mike Holman » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:39:26

(Devdas) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>Going by Dr.Holmanoswamy's "unique" brand of
>analysis, Tudor is the second coming of

I very much doubt it. Marshall didn't spend most of his time injured
or failing to be effective after his first couple of spells in a