League form is as it is over a number of weeks and consistency has to be of the upmost if you want a good average. Anyone can have a good day or two and win a tournament......even me

Why do people put so much emphasis on averages, its about getting 21 not how many you win by, averages don't mean a thing.

Only the teams that never win anything look to the averages, its the way they pick their teams and then wonder why they win nothing of note.

_________________
Love is free, Bobby Tupper (Always a Swannie)

yeah averages are a load of rubbish, im not just saying that because of my average being poor as i have a good average in other leagues. but say a bowler plays a weak bowler every week and gets an average of 8.00 and a bowler from the same team plays the best bowler from the opposing team every week and gets an average of 2.00

whose the better bowler............ the player with the average 2.00

_________________
you have to be good, to be cocky

What about cup competitions where points count towards the result. Surely the team should be picked by averages then as every point counts?

If thats what you say, then show me the trophy cabinet. Its like dropping your lowest scorer every week, you are bound to win things with that, that means your worst player gets dropped every week, I mean you put that much emphasis on what score people get, surely if someone scores 19 and they are the only loser, then they must be the worse player, musn't they? Thats how they do it at the top level, I bet representative teams are picked like that as well. If I win to 18 and the rest of my team win to more than me then I must be crap, but that would only be in a team with all winners, has that ever happened at Starbeck in the 1st division, mind you they used to like to win the 2nd division and then refuse to get promoted to the 1st as they thought it would be too hard, or have i got it wrong. Think that was just a rumour?

All in good fun.

_________________
Love is free, Bobby Tupper (Always a Swannie)

Wow Bobby, what a good idea, drop your worst loser, that would solve all selection problems and then you wouldn't need a captain, and then you get your best team out every week based on the previous weeks result, I bet the top teams haven't thought of it.

_________________
My granny has now been found but she can't explain as to what the salty substance is thats dripping from her nose.

Feel free to join my Merry Men!

Bobby Tupper wrote:

If thats what you say, then show me the trophy cabinet. Its like dropping your lowest scorer every week, you are bound to win things with that, that means your worst player gets dropped every week, I mean you put that much emphasis on what score people get, surely if someone scores 19 and they are the only loser, then they must be the worse player, musn't they? Thats how they do it at the top level, I bet representative teams are picked like that as well. If I win to 18 and the rest of my team win to more than me then I must be crap, but that would only be in a team with all winners, has that ever happened at Starbeck in the 1st division, mind you they used to like to win the 2nd division and then refuse to get promoted to the 1st as they thought it would be too hard, or have i got it wrong. Think that was just a rumour? All in good fun.

Your welcome to come and see our cabinet anyday. We already have one in it from the current season

And I know that the team that won it drops their worst player to allow others to play!

All interesting reading with some fair points.

However, does there not have to be some manner of measuring form? A fair way may indeed be to 'Rank' all division players pre-season. The higher the rank of player you beat, the better your score. It would obviously take about 4 hours a week to work out, plus the hour or two it would take to re-evaluate the rankings based on how players are improving etc. Alternatively we could work on the premise that it all even's out at the end.

It's an interesting point that Averages are rubbish and don't mean anything. But it's also interesting that last year's Average table bears an uncanny similiarity to a 'list of Harrogate's best players' that anyone with a half decent opinion would put together. I doubt anyone could disagree that it's a fairly accurate depiction of the leagues best players? I don't think there is anyone missing from the top 15 or 20 for example who shouldn't be there (and on the same note there is no one missing who should be).

http://www.harrogatebowling.co.uk/2007/avgd1.htm.

For those that agree winning is more important, then it's also worth noting it's a fair reflection on those winning the most throughout the season.

Like those comments above, Averages mean nothing to me personally and I don't take notice of them, but playing Devil's Advocate, to say they are absolute rubbish may not be entirely true. Again I'm basing this only on what a good indication last years Averages seems to be with regard to the best players?

So to the point, if Averages, or most games won, is not a good indication or way of ranking a player, then what is? If rankings are rubbish and not required, then how do you assess players for Federation selection for example?
Another good example to consider is the recent thread about Alan Whittaker's start to the season. A difficult but excellent start that probably rates him as the current top performer. His Average however would only reflect him around 10th or so. A fair shout therefore that Averages are rubbish, however, over a whole season would we not expect this to even out? The only other option is to rate a player against who he plays and the administration required for this would unfeasable.

Grey 'Becker quite rightly made a point that he watches Steve Holmes (it's an example previously used so I'll stick with it) week in, week out and does not rate him as the 'Beck's best player. He has however finished the last 3 seasons both winning more games than any of his collegues, and also finishing with a better Average. Is that not a fair shout to rate him as the best player? If not what is?
Without some manner of rating or ranking, then it's all a case of opinion, and as we all know, we've all got plenty of those between us and they rarely match

Nice read Ian, could you elaborate a bit please.

_________________
Love is free, Bobby Tupper (Always a Swannie)

Point taken

IanK wrote:

Grey 'Becker quite rightly made a point that he watches Steve Holmes (it's an example previously used so I'll stick with it) week in, week out and does not rate him as the 'Beck's best player. He has however finished the last 3 seasons both winning more games than any of his collegues, and also finishing with a better Average. Is that not a fair shout to rate him as the best player? If not what is? Without some manner of rating or ranking, then it's all a case of opinion, and as we all know, we've all got plenty of those between us and they rarely match

we have players in the starbeck team who only had their first season in the 1st division last season? so should you include results and averages from three years ago in this debate? discuss?

_________________
you have to be good, to be cocky

Nope, that was just used as an example to highlight a point. Form is all about the now, and that obviously isn't Steve at the moment.

You know what they say, Form is temporary, Class is permanent. Comes back to the point on how do you rate a player? As I said, I was simply playing Devils Advocate to the posting stressing how rubbish Averages were......

well maybe i exaggerated with the word "rubbish" but it certainly doesnt show how good a player is in comparison to others. say steve holmes plays the other teams best player for 18 games and gets an average of -2.00.
and i played the other teams weakest bowler every week and got an average of 8.00.
in my opinion i would definiteley say that steve holmes is the better bowler.

_________________
you have to be good, to be cocky

I think averages make for interesting reading - but one thing to remember about statistics is that they don't always tell you the true story.

It would be interesting to look at Derek Fox's averages/wins/losses over the last 5 years. Last season he finished 30th in the averages which i am sure will be his lowest finish in those 5 seasons. However if you were just looking at last seasons form then Derek would not make a list of the top 20 bowlers.

The truth be told we all know who the better bowlers are in a side, and if you are any good you'll want to play them.

I will give you some facts about some of the Swan players and their bowling performances for the Swan over the years, just to add to your debate.

Rowsie - played 337 Harrogate 1st Div matches over the last 23 seasons winning 260 losing 112 -win ratio 69.93%

Black Jack - Played 227 won 246 lost 91 - win ratio 72.99%

Allan - played 197 won 131 lost 66 - win ratio 66.53%

Birty played 148 won 114 lost 34 win ratio 77.04%

Richard or Swanno - played 97 won 57 lost 40 - win ratio 58.76%

Hodgie played 46 won 26 lost 20 win ratio 56.52%

Smithy or Bobby - played 146 won 93 lost 51 - win ratio 63.73%

These results are based on games played for the Swan and do not include this seasons matches.

Now I ain't bothered about other teams players or averages, I am more interested in the players who play for the Swan and how often they win, I ain't bothered who they beat as long as they beat them, and all this talk about complicating who plays who and rating is in my opinion a load of cods.

I have to agree that Steve Holmes is a consistent and under rated bowler, I don't know how often he bowls every week, but he generally gives a good account of himself in the Harrogate leagues, a good sportsman and I can say he was a fair defender when he graced the football pitch