Just as I was getting over my irritation at Anderson's selection in the Test match,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It proves that - unlike Anderson - he was fit enough to bowl for four overs without breaking down. :shrug:

The thing with fitness tests is that they're often exercises in confirmation bias. After all, everyone involved wants the subject to pass them and thus will tend to overlook red flags that an objective eye would pick up on immediately

---

Anderson might have played a T20 and not broken down, less intense etc etc.

He knows his own body better than anyone and can't see him saying he was fit when he knew he wasn't.
Always a risk in test cricket....if we had batted first he MIGHT have been ok to bowl (if we weren't all out in 30 overs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It proves that - unlike Anderson - he was fit enough to bowl for four overs without breaking down. :shrug:

The thing with fitness tests is that they're often exercises in confirmation bias. After all, everyone involved wants the subject to pass them and thus will tend to overlook red flags that an objective eye would pick up on immediately

---

Possibly true in cricket, not so much in other sports these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I see that Jofra Archer got 6-27 and knocked Gloucestershire's stiffs over for 79. :furious:

---

Bit ****ing rich you moaning about Jimmy as you wanted two injury doubts in the team to start.

Anyway Stone injured now. Stone, Wood - ffs, what are these guys made of (or if you prefer, of what are these guys made :rolleyes: )?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Anyway Stone injured now. Stone, Wood - ffs, what are these guys made of ?

---

Glass, it seems.

Yeah, I know we already did this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Well he played in a T20 for Sussex, so he was definitely fitter than Anderson, who broke down after 4 overs.

Which would suggest that the 'fitness tests' were worth the square root of fúck all.

---

If fück all is a positive amount but less than one, as seems likely, wouldn't the square root of fück all be larger than just fück all itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

If fück all is a positive amount but less than one, as seems likely, wouldn't the square root of fück all be larger than just fück all itself?

---

No. it wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

No. it wouldn't.

---

:nono: In fact it Wood.

X SQRT(X)
0.1 0.32
0.2 0.45
0.3 0.55
0.4 0.63
0.5 0.71
0.6 0.77
0.7 0.84
0.8 0.89
0.9 0.95
1 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

No. it wouldn't.

---

It would. Didn't you do this in maths at school?

And ironically, the closer **** all gets to zero, the larger the ratio of the square root of **** all / **** all becomes.

O.1^2=0.01
0.01^2=0.0001

So assuming 0<**** all<1, it would be better to say X means **** all squared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

It would. Didn't you do this in maths at school?

---

Maths is not a subject for a gentleman, g. Msths is the preserve of accountants and other chaps in trade. :shudder:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

It would. Didn't you do this in maths at school?

And ironically, the closer **** all gets to zero, the larger the ratio of the square root of **** all / **** all becomes.

O.1^2=0.01
0.01^2=0.0001

So assuming 0<**** all<1, it would be better to say X means **** all squared.

---

:noah:

But well done anyway for getting Peter to nick that one to first slip. Can you believe this man works in the education sector?