which type of batsmen helps the team more?

[ret]

This post is hilarious in so many ways.

WoW!

 

[Richard]

@ Richard .... how many times are you going to write the same stuff? .... Your point has been made

As many times as appears neccessary to get it accross. Just because one gets it straightaway doesn't neccessarily mean all do.

 

[Richard]

This post is hilarious in so many ways.

Is that avatar anyone in particular?

 

[asty80]

Which type of batsmen helps the team more win matches? Test team that is

Some one like Brian Lara, who would score some thing like this in some 10 innings he plays:

15
33
269
2
14
5
112
12
0
73
________
average: 53.50 in 10 innings

Or some other random batsmen who scores like this in 10 innings:

35
45
29
6
87
62
33
23
52
19
______________
average 39.10 in 10 innings

I would go for the former.
Considering you have the same attack and all other conditions similar, there is a greater probability of 2 victories in the 10 tests. In the case of the latter, there is no guarantee (especially if the 87 and 62 were not in the same match) and depends on the other batsmen.
Its not for nothing that centuries do matter, in any form of the game.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There was the one against Australia in the epic run-chase.

& his 213 the week before that. Scored practically half of the Windies runs to set up the win.

I personally think the idea that the centuries that matter most are those scored in victories is overstated. Not only have some of the best tons been scored in draws (Ponting's at OT & Atherton's at Jo'burg off the top of my head), but with cricket being a team sport any player is at the mercy of his teammates to a greater or lesser extent. Without checking I would imagine players like Langer, Hayden & Martyn have all scored more tons in winning causes than BCL, but I doubt even the most excitable of our criminal cousins would claim they're better batsmen than Brian Charles.

Quite a few great batsmen (Lara for one, but also Headley & Bert Sutcliffe) have had careers that've coinicided with fallow periods for their test nations. Seems unjust to mark them down because of this.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is that avatar anyone in particular?

Yeah. Don't normally put complete randoms in there, TBH.

 

[Richard]

I didn't think so. So is it anyone the CW community would be familiar with?

 

[MrIncredible]

& his 213 the week before that. Scored practically half of the Windies runs to set up the win.

I personally think the idea that the centuries that matter most are those scored in victories is overstated. Not only have some of the best tons been scored in draws (Ponting's at OT & Atherton's at Jo'burg off the top of my head), but with cricket being a team sport any player is at the mercy of his teammates to a greater or lesser extent. Without checking I would imagine players like Langer, Hayden & Martyn have all scored more tons in winning causes than BCL, but I doubt even the most excitable of our criminal cousins would claim they're better batsmen than Brian Charles.

Quite a few great batsmen (Lara for one, but also Headley & Bert Sutcliffe) have had careers that've coinicided with fallow periods for their test nations. Seems unjust to mark them down because of this.

Good point. esp when u consider that one of Laras best innings (his 277) came in a draw but a draw where WI were behind the ball from the get go. Infact quite a few of his tons could have been losses if not for Lara and as u know many of his tons unfortunately came in heavy losses (SL 01, oz in Wi '03 etc)

 

[Prince EWS]

I didn't think so. So is it anyone the CW community would be familiar with?

Doubtful.

 

[Brett Dale]

Someone who is consistent and doesn't bat at a snail's pace, but they do have to go on and score the big one now and then.

 

[honestbharani]

There was the one against Australia in the epic run-chase.

Scored a horrendous proportion of his runs in bore-draws though. 3708 runs @ 71 in draws.

bore-draws that woudl have been defeats for his team but for him and his innings...



Certainly, rating cricket players and innings AFTER the match is over the stupidest thing I am seeing here... Any idea of how important those knocks were DURING the games, my friend? Did you even watch????????



Sorry if I sound too angry but it is honestly stupefying to see him make the same points denigrating the real greats of the game thread after thread....

 

[Uppercut]

& his 213 the week before that. Scored practically half of the Windies runs to set up the win.

I personally think the idea that the centuries that matter most are those scored in victories is overstated. Not only have some of the best tons been scored in draws (Ponting's at OT & Atherton's at Jo'burg off the top of my head), but with cricket being a team sport any player is at the mercy of his teammates to a greater or lesser extent. Without checking I would imagine players like Langer, Hayden & Martyn have all scored more tons in winning causes than BCL, but I doubt even the most excitable of our criminal cousins would claim they're better batsmen than Brian Charles.

Quite a few great batsmen (Lara for one, but also Headley & Bert Sutcliffe) have had careers that've coinicided with fallow periods for their test nations. Seems unjust to mark them down because of this.

Yeah, the "runs in victories vs. runs in defeats" stuff is all a bit balls. I probably shouldn't have used that statistic at all, all I'm getting are responses to the stat rather than the point I was trying to use it to demonstrate.

Lara scored plenty of very good innings indeed, but he also scored a pretty heavy proportion of his runs as massive scores on flat, flat decks. You could argue that the West Indies might have lost those matches without him, which we'll never know, but they were still seriously flat decks. It's still scoring most of your runs when batting is easy.

The flip-side is that the ability to stay in for 13 hours and score 400 runs in one innings is incredible in itself. But there's certainly an element of flat-track bully to the guy in that he cashes in big-time when the going's good.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, the "runs in victories vs. runs in defeats" stuff is all a bit balls. I probably shouldn't have used that statistic at all, all I'm getting are responses to the stat rather than the point I was trying to use it to demonstrate.

Lara scored plenty of very good innings indeed, but he also scored a pretty heavy proportion of his runs as massive scores on flat, flat decks. You could argue that the West Indies might have lost those matches without him, which we'll never know, but they were still seriously flat decks. It's still scoring most of your runs when batting is easy.

The flip-side is that the ability to stay in for 13 hours and score 400 runs in one innings is incredible in itself. But there's certainly an element of flat-track bully to the guy in that he cashes in big-time when the going's good.

By FTB, we generally mean guys who CAN'T do well in difficult tracks and unless you are saying Lara is one of them (which is stupid, basically), I don't see your point at all.........

 

[Uppercut]

That's not what I mean by flat-track bully at all, tbh. It's only an element.

 

[honestbharani]

That's not what I mean by flat-track bully at all, tbh. It's only an element.

Perhaps... but the general context of that word in any cricket related convo is a guy who scores HUGE on flat tracks but can't score even a 50 in difficult conditions.... Otherwise, every batsman who averages more than 50 since 2000 IS a FTB... If you agree with that assessment, I am fine with Lara being a FTB.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think such a batsman exists, tbh. And even if he did, the ability to hit big hundreds every time he encountered a flat deck would be unspeakably valuable in this era, making him one of the best batsmen in the world. Scoring big runs on flat decks deserves none of the contempt it gets on CW whatsoever.

 

[GIMH]

& his 213 the week before that. Scored practically half of the Windies runs to set up the win.

I personally think the idea that the centuries that matter most are those scored in victories is overstated. Not only have some of the best tons been scored in draws (Ponting's at OT & Atherton's at Jo'burg off the top of my head), but with cricket being a team sport any player is at the mercy of his teammates to a greater or lesser extent. Without checking I would imagine players like Langer, Hayden & Martyn have all scored more tons in winning causes than BCL, but I doubt even the most excitable of our criminal cousins would claim they're better batsmen than Brian Charles.

Quite a few great batsmen (Lara for one, but also Headley & Bert Sutcliffe) have had careers that've coinicided with fallow periods for their test nations. Seems unjust to mark them down because of this.

I think some might make a case for Hayden. Got no-one specific in mind though

 

[Shri]

I don't think such a batsman exists, tbh. And even if he did, the ability to hit big hundreds every time he encountered a flat deck would be unspeakably valuable in this era, making him one of the best batsmen in the world. Scoring big runs on flat decks deserves none of the contempt it gets on CW whatsoever.

Agree with this.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think such a batsman exists, tbh. And even if he did, the ability to hit big hundreds every time he encountered a flat deck would be unspeakably valuable in this era, making him one of the best batsmen in the world. Scoring big runs on flat decks deserves none of the contempt it gets on CW whatsoever.

Yes & no, for me.

Obviously runs still need to be scored, but I don't think I'm going out on too far of a limb when I say some centuries scored on roads aren't as important as those scored on more sporting tracks. Even those scored in the same innings, sometimes. No disrespect to Haddin's ton at Cardiff, but he came to the crease with Australia already ahead of our total and set fair. Credit to him for applying the boot to the windpipe, but Katich's & Ponting's hundreds had been scored when the game was still more in the balance.

Haddin's performance isn't worthy of "contempt" or anything like it, but I'd suggest it was a ton made with the pressure largely off. In the context of the game I doubt too many would argue that Collingwood's 70-odd wasn't a more important innings, despite not giving his stats the hike Haddin's did.

I think some might make a case for Hayden. Got no-one specific in mind though

I know Dicko's a huge Hayden man too tho, so it's not just limited to Aussies.

 

[Uppercut]

Yes & no, for me.

Obviously runs still need to be scored, but I don't think I'm going out on too far of a limb when I say some centuries scored on roads aren't as important as those scored on more sporting tracks. Even those scored in the same innings, sometimes. No disrespect to Haddin's ton at Cardiff, but he came to the crease with Australia already ahead of our total and set fair. Credit to him for applying the boot to the windpipe, but Katich's & Ponting's hundreds had been scored when the game was still more in the balance.

Haddin's performance isn't worthy of "contempt" or anything like it, but I'd suggest it was a ton made with the pressure largely off. In the context of the game I doubt too many would argue that Collingwood's 70-odd wasn't a more important innings, despite not giving his stats the hike Haddin's did.

It's a fair assessment. Haddin's seriously struggled to turn games around for Australia, much more likely to score runs when everything's going their way.

That and being a flat-track bully aren't the same thing, though. Look at Andrew Strauss during the Ashes- scored his only ton when the pitch was a road and the Aussie bowling was horrendous- but it was arguably THE crucial innings of the series. When you're talking about flat-track bullies, you're talking about players who never fail to do exactly that.