What a joke?
> What a joke?
>> How on earth can Brian Lara go up 1 point after the Super Series?
> > What a joke?
> >> How on earth can Brian Lara go up 1 point after the Super Series?
> maybe its because everyone else have gone backwards quicker
The way the formula works, Lara and company will have received extra credit
because they played against the two top-ranked bowlers (the system doesn't
care whether they *faced* those bowlers or not). He further benefits from
the low overall scores amassed by his team.
>> > lol... really?!!!
>> > What a joke?
>> >> How on earth can Brian Lara go up 1 point after the Super Series?
>> maybe its because everyone else have gone backwards quicker
> One point, not one place.
> The way the formula works, Lara and company will have received extra
> because they played against the two top-ranked bowlers (the system doesn't
> care whether they *faced* those bowlers or not). He further benefits from
> the low overall scores amassed by his team.
> actually I think he went up one place because Dravid dropped back 3 places
Analogy is very similar to Tennis. If you skipped Wimbledon the
previous year, but if you get beaten in the second round in the current
year. You still gain points
Just before Wimbledon 2007, lets say Federer is at 807 points and
Roddick is at 810 points. Federer wins the first round, but crashes in
the second. Roddick wins Wimbledon 2007 too. But due to the ratings
system Federer will gain points and probably #1 even though the results
were totally opposite
Also around m-20th test he had
29 & 1 vs Zimbabwe
Surely, if the current scores(vs McWarne vs Aus in Aus) replaces any of
those, you shouldn't be surprised that Lara is up by a mere point
It's not the raw career average as you know it, though. For one thing,
the scores in the scorebook are adjusted to take account of how good
the bowling was supposed to be (in rating terms) and whether lots of
other people scored loads of runs or not, and whether the team won,
and then they get weighted as to how recent they are, so that the last
match numbers count at 100%, those from the previous match 99%, and so
So, if Lara's rating went up slightly, that means that his modified
career average went up slightly. 36 out of 144 against the world's top
two bowlers, plus a couple of others who rate in the top 30 or so,
would probably get adjusted to something like 90 and 5 out of 190 to
about 10, meaning that he averaged 50 for the match. If his previous
weighted average was 49.95, it would therefore go up a tiny amount and
he would gain a rating point. Had he averaged 50.05 before, he would
have lost a rating point. (No, I don't know what the exact figures are
for the adjustments they do - those numbers were simply illustrative
to demonstrate the principle of the calculation.)
36 vs McWarne when thrice the teams couldn't score > 200 definitely
equates to 80 vs Zim or Bangs on a normal pitch and > 100 on a batting
>Agree. But, it also supports my theory that the three consecutive flops
>he had now becomes older & less weighted. Since the new score beats
>those scores it is not that surprising Lara was up by a point.
>36 vs McWarne when thrice the teams couldn't score > 200 definitely
>equates to 80 vs Zim or Bangs on a normal pitch and > 100 on a batting
1. Brian Lara's Test Cricket Career !
2. Brian Lara Cricket Vs EA Cricket 2005
3. Shell Cup, Shane Warne Cricket, Brian Lara Cricket II, Warcraft 2 Web-Site
5. Request for Brian Lara's Test Record
6. Seventh Test double century by Brian Lara
7. Modern Day Cricket and Brian Lara
11. Brian Lara Cricket problems...
12. BRIAN LARA CRICKET FOR PC FS