So what? Anderson passed all the fitness tests before the last match, do we know a week ago if Archer was fit enough to play?Originally Posted by Burney
I see that Jofra Archer got 6-27 and knocked Gloucestershire's stiffs over for 79.
So what? Anderson passed all the fitness tests before the last match, do we know a week ago if Archer was fit enough to play?I see that Jofra Archer got 6-27 and knocked Gloucestershire's stiffs over for 79.
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
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.
T20 isn't proof of anything... Anderson could have played a T20 and every chance we wouldn't have known he wasn't fit
Agree about the fitness tests, obviously not good enough
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
It proves that - unlike Anderson - he was fit enough to bowl for four overs without breaking down.
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.It proves that - unlike Anderson - he was fit enough to bowl for four overs without breaking down.
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
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)
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
Possibly true in cricket, not so much in other sports these days.It proves that - unlike Anderson - he was fit enough to bowl for four overs without breaking down.
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult; 08-07-2019 at 03:40 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote