A post provoked by an asinine comment I saw on cricinfo yesterday, dealing with the question of failure to convert in cricket.
This post was provoked by something I saw yesterday morning on cricinfo’s online coverage of the second ODI between England and Australia (I was at work, so could not listen to the commentary, but having this tab open and peeking occasionally in between doing other stuff was manageable – I was constantly using the internet for work purposes anyhow).
ENGLAND 2-0 UP IN SERIES
England won this match by four wickets, with plenty of time to spare. Joe Root was there at the end on 46 not out. In the first match he had been there at the end on 91 not out. This coincidence that both times he was just short of a personal landmark led to a character posting under the name Dave (knowing what I do of such types I am not prepared to say that this is actually their name) to post a comment about Joe Root failing to convert. My response to this display of asininity is as follows:
Failing to convert implies regularly getting out before reaching important landmarks and Joe Root was undefeated in both innings.
Individual landmarks are valuable, and generally to win one needs someone to go to and well beyond several such, but cricket is a team game, and on both occasions Root missed his landmarks through playing a support role to people who were going more fluently at the other end (Jason Roy in game one, and Jos Buttler and Chris Woakes in game two).
Joe Root has proven frequently that he can go on to and well past significant personal landmarks.
To end this section I quote a post from a few minutes after Dave’s which provides an indication of how good Root actually is in ODI chases:
Hypocaust: “Joe Root now has the 3rd highest average (87.06) in victorious ODI chases (min. 20 innings), behind Dhoni (102.72) and Kohli (93.64) and just ahead of Bevan (86.25).”
A puzzle based on a blog post, a solution to an old puzzle, another puzzle from brilliant and some photographs
Earlier today I put up a post titled “About Autism“, and because that post contained so much stuff this post is going to be much smaller – and with only a few links, all in one way or another puzzle connected.
DERIVING A PUZZLE FROM A BLOG POST
Esterput up a post titled “Year 1729“, which featured the image below:
The puzzle I am attaching to this is: which two famous mathematicians are linked by the number 1,729 and how did that link come about?
A sequel to the most popular post in this blog’s history, “Autism”.
Welcome to this post, which you may consider to be the official follow up to my most successful ever blog post, which was posted on Saturday under the title Autism.
WHEN BEING AUTISTIC GIVES ME AN ADVANTAGE
Yes – there are situations where having an autistic spectrum condition gives me a positive advantage (or so I see it anyway).
Having a very logical mind goes with the condition, and this works in my favour in several situations, including at the bridge table and in some situations at work. For example, when I am scanning lots of small items I place the packaging organised in the order in which the images will appear on the screen (and if you are scanning a dozen separate items in one go this is very useful). Also, this ultra-logical mindset comes in very useful when working on computers and indeed when (as I have done on a volunteer basis) helping others to learn how to work effectively on a computer.
My skill at mental arithmetic, which also relates directly to the condition. If I wish to ensure that, for example, a grocery shop does not exceed a certain limit that I have in mind I can tot up the bill as I pick out items and guarantee to be close.
Problem solving – precisely because a number of situations are problematic for me that would not be so for a neurotypical person my problem solving skills get more practice than the neurotypical persons.
SOME AUTISM RELATED LINKS
A couple of links here that relate to my subject matter:
My other link, courtesy of scienceblogs, and therefore reflective of one of my biggest interests, about a victory in the war against quackery. Even if the treatment that has earned the person pushing it a jail sentence was not cruel, invasive and abusive (and in fact it is all three, in spades) it would still be bogus. Indeed, as those who read the original post to which this one is a sequel will be well aware I believe that it is based on an idea that is itself bogus – namely that autism should be regarded in the light of a disease and that therefore a cure should be sought.
I hope you have all enjoyed this, my second full-length essay in writing about autism from the viewpoint of an autistic person, and that some at least of you will share it.