Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So here are McCullum's stats for the last year in tests and ODIs. As you can see there is room for any theory you like. His scores are highly variable and there is no statistical support for any one theory. Unless stated otherwise he batted at 1.
Although ... heh ... you could argue that variability is not a trait of a good opener :P.
Surely if he's happy he'll produce better results.
Not always.
Seriously I don't know from the data that I'd know where to put him. It seems that it doesn't matter where he goes he will fail sometimes and succeed other times and when he succeeds he will probably entertain :).
And when he fails as opener I will still shout at the TV "He's not an opener" and when he succeeds I'll grumble "well anyone can get lucky" :).
The real question is, can he become a reliable batsman and push that average up into the 40s?
In England 08
Tests
97 (at 5), 24 (at 5), 11 (at 5), 0 (at 5), 9 (at 3), 71 (at 3)
ave 35
ODIs
36, 60, 17, 1, 23
ave 27In Bangladesh 08
ODIs
14, 12, 6
ave 10
Tests (at 5)
25, 2, 66
ave 31In Aus 08
ODIs
8 (at 5), 30 (at 7)
ave 19WI in NZ 08
Tests
25 (at 6), 31 (at 6), 19 (at 6)
ave 25
ODIs
1, 18, 26, 41
ave 21In Aus 09
0, 43, 36 (at 9 with a stuffed shoulder), 33
ave 28 -
So you’re not expecting a lot from our top order then?
Well I have seen the black caps do that badly, but that wasn't what I meant.
I just think that after over 15, McCullum should be the next batsman in regardless of how many batsmen are out. And yes that means he could come in at no.3 one day and no.6 another day.
-
I wish people would stop raving on about how he's wasted at the top of the order and should be coming in at 7.
/rave
I wish people would stop pretending opening a 20/20 innings has anything to do with playing cricket. Let alone opening an ODI innings.Field restrictions are different, bowling is different and the penalty for stuffing up is much much lower in 20/20. In 20/20 if your opener goes out in the first or second over who cares, it would take a really crap side to run out of batsmen in 20/20. In ODIs losing one of your faster scorers because he is facing bowling and a hard ball that he is not equipped to handle is just stupid.
Brendon McCullum is a good perhaps even very good keeper/batsman who can smack the bejeesus out of the ball when the bowlers are a bit tired and the ball is a bit soft. He should not ever be wasted at the top of the innings.
/unraveObviously I could have said that with less intensity but rave mode was on :).
Seriously, I just think McCullum is a much better batsman at 6 or 7 than he is at 1. Or more accurately he is a much better batsman at over 15-25. Someday someone will realise that in ODIs it doesn't matter what the batting order is, what is important is the number of overs, hence middle order batsmen should come in in the middle overs and maybe the number 3 shouldn't always come in third.
-
Just wanted to add my appreciation of another beautifully written blog Emma. You do use some remarkable phrases to draw us into your life and family.
-
that there is some kind of cut-off point for learning languages in the same way as children learn their native language
I did a little more reading around this and found that there is considerable ... er discussion, about the critical point hypothesis.
It seems that between 2 and 5 there is agreement that children seem to pick up subtleties of accent better than older children. And as Linger's notes point out, syntax seems to come easier to younger children. There does seem to be some evidence that the way children learn language early is a bit different (easier?).
But there is also lots of comment that adults learn languages well too although they learn using different methods.
All of which makes me now unsure if learning sign would be easier when older or younger.
What we need is a cohort of identical twins to experiment on - and of course some summer students to sacrifice :).
-
Regarding Bonobo and chimps (and babies?). It looks as though the development of speech might be one of the major differences between humans and apes at the genetic level.
Humans have a version of a gene called FOXP2 that seems to allow for the muscular control needed to speak. It's almost certainly more complicated than just one gene but it's certainly an important gene.
What is really interesting is the gene appears to have nothing to do with intelligence. That means the selective advantage that the gene gave humans was the ability to communicate and NOT the ability to think.
So it should be no real surprise to find that chimps etc when given a tool to communicate (sign language) prove to be quite intelligent.
It also emphasizes the importance of teaching hearing impaired children. They struggle with communication because the rest of the world expects them to hear, yet their intellect is unaffected.
-
I would like it to be a compulsory school subject from 5 years old for all children...
Why don't we teach languages at age 3-5 when the kids brains are actually wired up to learn language?
From what I've read from about 2.5 yrs till 8-9 the brain absorbs language much easier. Past that it's just plain hard work.
-
My girl gets ropey if you use any word to describe her that isn't her name.
Damn straight.
On the level of the individual your name is your name. You aren't "tall guy" "blonde girl" "girl with tattoo", you have a name, it's yours and people should use it.
Same goes for hard names, like Bart, people just have to suck it up and learn to say it properly.
-
Third post and my real problem with the legislation.
Hilary is dead right
There are a whole lot of other reasons whereby the victims might have been alive today,...
The bill supposes that the best way to prevent crime is to create punitive deterrents. In this case particularly vengeful ones.
But the problem is not how do we lock people up better, the problem is how do we create a society where people don't want (or need) to commit crimes.
By way of analogy, it turns out that in parts of New Zealand the best way to improve the health of the community is not to build hospitals or employ doctors, but to build houses. Pure simple statistically provable fact, so logically the best use of Vote Health is to build houses.
The same issue applies here. Is this legislation, with all the costs involved and ultimately with the cost of housing a few dozen more criminals in jail (and I bet that will be the final number), is this the best way to reduce crime in New Zealand?
My personal belief is that spending time effort and money in improving the education, health and living conditions is a better way of preventing people from becoming criminals than more punishments.
For those that do commit crimes, it is better to spend time effort and money to understand why they individually felt the crime was their best choice and then spend time effort and money to teach them a better, more socially acceptable set of choices.
I believe this bill doesn't help the justice system reduce crime.
-
The bill looks halfway reasonable, if you believe in prison as a form of deterrence.
But only halfway.
Some crimes are in some are out, who got to pick which crimes? Some are obviously about violence but others seem to be about culture (eg incest) - not a good thing in my opinion at least.
Finally the bill still prescribes sentences to judges. that is the point - to take away sentencing decisions from those who have the most knowledge and experience in dealing with criminals and put it in the hands of politicians.