Gilchrist v Dhoni

[Ikki]

I did this formula for Bevan and he averages 50, Hussey 48, Tendulkar 44 and Viv on 46.

 

[Ikki]

With you on this, Uppercut, as you know from previous exchanges. The thing that your/our theory overlooks, of course, is concentration and the ability to build and maintain a long innings. But that needs to be weighed against the point about having to start your innings repeatedly, which is a strong one, and one which none of the "not outs flatter your average" merchants has ever begun to tackle. I would be genuinely interested to hear someone do so.

I simply see it as: scoring more is harder than scoring less, regardless of stop-start.

For if you disagree with that, then technically, you agree with:

1* x 25 and 25 > someone scoring 45 in every innings for the same number of innings.

 

[Uppercut]

With you on this, Uppercut, as you know from previous exchanges. The thing that your/our theory overlooks, of course, is concentration and the ability to build and maintain a long innings. But that needs to be weighed against the point about having to start your innings repeatedly, which is a strong one, and one which none of the "not outs flatter your average" merchants has ever begun to tackle. I would be genuinely interested to hear someone do so.

Without meaning to sound patronising, I just don't think Ikki quite understands what I'm trying to explain.

 

[zaremba]

I simply see it as: scoring more is harder than scoring less, regardless of stop-start.

But that overlooks the point that you're scoring more but getting out, as opposed to scoring less and remaining undefeated.

And it ignores the central point that batting is vastly easier when you've got (say) 20 runs on the board.

For if you disagree with that, then technically, you agree with:

1* x 25 and 25 > someone scoring 45 in every innings.

I'm not sure that reducing things to the absurd is always helpful, but I'll address it anyway.

First, it depends on what you mean by ">". If you are looking at the contribution that the two players have made, then the man who's got 45 each time (and therefore a vastly higher aggregate, assuming the same number of innings) has contributed more. But contribution is not the same as ability.

And consider this: the man who's made 1* 25 times in a row has achieved something which, although it might not seem it at first glance, is actually freakish and extraordinary. And this is why your reductio ad absurdum was misleading.

 

[Ikki]

But that overlooks the point that you're scoring more but getting out, as opposed to scoring less and remaining undefeated.

And it ignores the central point that batting is vastly easier when you've got (say) 20 runs on the board.

There's a key problem to the above: in ODI it doesn't matter if the other team doesn't get your wickets...it only matters if you score more runs. You can't carry runs you scored in other innings with you to the innings you are currently playing.

I'm not sure that reducing things to the absurd is always helpful, but I'll address it anyway.

First, it depends on what you mean by ">". If you are looking at the contribution that the two players have made, then the man who's got 45 each time (and therefore a vastly higher aggregate, assuming the same number of innings) has contributed more. But contribution is not the same as ability.
And consider this: the man who's made 1* 25 times in a row has achieved something which, although it might not seem it at first glance, is actually freakish and extraordinary. And this is why your reductio ad absurdum was misleading.

IMO, your average means more than simply your runs/dismissals, I know, technically that is the case and I suspect that is what Uppercut is arguing along.

However, I can't persuade that into reality because for me the average also reflects the quality of said batsman. I cannot in honesty equate the two batsmen in that example I just gave you. Scoring consistent 1* even that many consecutive times is not a feat I greatly admire. By ">" I mean the better batsman, the one you consider achieving the greater feat and that you would want on your side if you were a selector.

BTW, if you didn't like that reduction, how about this example.

 

[zaremba]

BTW, if you didn't like that reduction, how about this example.

It doesn't seem to work - can you re-post it?

 

[Uppercut]

There's a key problem to the above: in ODI it doesn't matter if the other team doesn't get your wickets...it only matters if you score more runs. You can't carry runs you scored in other innings with you to the innings you are currently playing.

That's a key distinction to be made between tests and ODIs. But in this particular case, the fact that India invariably win when Dhoni is left not-out completely negates that. The only thing that takes precedence over scoring more runs is winning your side the game.

 

[Ikki]

It doesn't seem to work - can you re-post it?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/44668-gilchrist-v-dhoni-22.html#post2063047

That's a key distinction to be made between tests and ODIs. But in this particular case, the fact that India invariably win when Dhoni is left not-out completely negates that. The only thing that takes precedence over scoring more runs is winning your side the game.

I'm sure they don't necessarily win just because Dhoni remains not out

 

[Athlai]

Doesn't Dhoni have like one NO in a loss? And 2 thirds of his NO have come chasing in a win?

 

[zaremba]

There's a key problem to the above: in ODI it doesn't matter if the other team doesn't get your wickets...it only matters if you score more runs.

That's opening up a different can of worms (the importance of wicket-taking in ODIs) which I can't be getting into at this time of night.

Anyhow averages in ODI cricket are much less meaningful and significant than in Tests for various reasons so I'm prepared to focus my fire, as far as this particular debate is concerned, on Test cricket.

You can't carry runs you scored in other innings with you to the innings you are currently playing.

Nor can you in any cricket. That's the mathematical magic which an average weaves for you. I think, once again, that the real question is, do you look at an average as a sign of contribution or as a sign of ability? IMHO it's much more accurate as a guide to ability. It helps in assessing contribution, but there, aggregate runs and runs per innings assume a greater importance.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think we should penalise him for it, but I think it's still a factor either way that would help his average and harm someone like Gilchrist who opens; would it not?

No, that's the point I think you're missing. It wouldn't harm Gilchrist's average at all. They both score runs and get out, you're implying that scoring 70 runs and getting out once in one match is more difficult than doing it over the course of two matches.

 

[zaremba]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/44668-gilchrist-v-dhoni-22.html#post2063047

Thanks - there are various calculations there - I don't buy the complicated formula for a moment, and the point about the batsman who makes 35* and 35* (etc) simply serves to underline what I'm trying to say about contribution vs ability.

Is it harder to make 35* and 35 or to make 70? I'd say the former. Because in the former case, runs 36-70 were difficult, and in the latter case, they were much easier.

Ask anyone who's played the game - ask Ricky Ponting, ask Jason Gillespie, ask Merv Hughes - how much easier it is to score runs when you've got your eye in than it is in your first quarter of an hour at the crease, when you're scratching around and struggling to lay a bat on the ball.

 

[Ikki]

Nor can you in any cricket. That's the mathematical magic which an average weaves for you. I think, once again, that the real question is, do you look at an average as a sign of contribution or as a sign of ability? IMHO it's much more accurate as a guide to ability. It helps in assessing contribution, but there, aggregate runs and runs per innings assume a greater importance.

I look to it as both

No, that's the point I think you're missing. It wouldn't harm Gilchrist's average at all. They both score runs and get out, you're implying that scoring 70 runs and getting out once in one match is more difficult than doing it over the course of two matches.

No, that's not what I am implying. I'm saying that Gilchrist may score a lot of runs, for instance: 60 and 70, but due to the nature of opening he is unlikely to stay not-out on those scores. Whereas the opposite is true for Dhoni or anyone who bats lower down. They can score half those runs, provided one of those scores is not-out.

You may argue had he not gotten out he may have scored more, but then again he still may have not scored enough to garner an average that is higher than the one he achieved with not-outs. As I illustrated here where I even tripled Dhoni's not out scores.

 

[Ikki]

Is it harder to make 35* and 35 or to make 70? I'd say the former. Because in the former case, runs 36-70 were difficult, and in the latter case, they were much easier.

You're asking the wrong question; you're missing another 70. It should be:

Is it harder to score: 35* and 35 or 70 and 70? Even though both equate an average of 70.

 

[zaremba]

Still no-one will tackle, or even it seems acknowledge, the "more not outs mean you have to negotiate the tricky start to an innings relatively more often" point. Sigh. And now I must hit the sack. Good night all. Zzzzzzzzzz

 

[zaremba]

You're asking the wrong question; you're missing another 70. It should be:

Is it harder to score: 35* and 35 or 70 and 70? Even though both equate an average of 70.

You're not comparing like with like: one batsman has been defeated twice by the bowlers, the other only once. And yes the one who's been defeated twice has scored twice the aggregate runs and in that respect has contributed more, but that's because he has been given the opportunity to contribute more (when he got his 35* he was either left stranded by running out of partners, or he won the game for his team, etc).

But which is the better batsman? Which of the two has more ability? I say Mr 35

 

[Top_Cat]

Thanks - there are various calculations there - I don't buy the complicated formula for a moment, and the point about the batsman who makes 35* and 35* (etc) simply serves to underline what I'm trying to say about contribution vs ability.

Is it harder to make 35* and 35 or to make 70? I'd say the former. Because in the former case, runs 36-70 were difficult, and in the latter case, they were much easier.

Ask anyone who's played the game - ask Ricky Ponting, ask Jason Gillespie, ask Merv Hughes - how much easier it is to score runs when you've got your eye in than it is in your first quarter of an hour at the crease, when you're scratching around and struggling to lay a bat on the ball.

But, by the same token, if you go out knowing you've got fewer overs to play with, you've got specific goals to play to, can bat over by over, etc. Building an innings aiming for 50+ from scratch is pretty difficult too (more a mental challenge than anything) and shouldn't be under-estimated. Which is more difficult, I don't think it's possible to say, unique in their toughness. Partly why I don't think Dhoni and Gilchrist's batting in ODI's are terribly comparable too.

I mean to take a couple of examples, let's compare Dean Jones and Virender Sehwag. Which one is the most likely to score quickly from point dot? Well, Jones was a woeful starter so it's obviously not going to be him. Who's the better ODI player? Well Sehwag has really only salvaged his ODI career in the last couple of years whereas Jones should still be considered one of the best, most innovative ODI bats ever (certainly in Aus at least).Your argument would back Sehwag, though.

 

[Ikki]

You're not comparing like with like: one batsman has been defeated twice by the bowlers, the other only once. And yes the one who's been defeated twice has scored twice the aggregate runs and in that respect has contributed more, because he has been given the opportunity to contribute more.

But which is the better batsman? Which of the two has more ability? I say Mr 35

Yes, but it doesn't matter if they've been beaten twice. Only the runs count in the end. In ODI, they don't even need your wicket.

Even in tests, you could be the wicket remaining while your team loses because it has lost others.

 

[Uppercut]

No, that's not what I am implying. I'm saying that Gilchrist may score a lot of runs, for instance: 60 and 70, but due to the nature of opening he is unlikely to stay not-out on those scores. Whereas the opposite is true for Dhoni or anyone who bats lower down. They can score half those runs, provided one of those scores is not-out.

They're not scoring half those runs though! They're scoring the same amount of runs, just scoring them over the course of two innings instead of in one. It may be a lesser contribution- although considering that in Dhoni's case it means India have won I'd dispute even that- but it's no less difficult. The man who scores 35*, 35 has done EXACTLY the same thing as the guy who scores 70.

 

[zaremba]

But, by the same token, if you go out knowing you've got fewer overs to play with, you've got specific goals to play to, can bat over by over, etc. Building an innings aiming for 50+ from scratch is pretty difficult too (more a mental challenge than anything) and shouldn't be under-estimated. Which is more difficult, I don't think it's possible to say.

Yep when it comes to making big scores the element of concentration comes into play. Which as I've acknowledged is the factor that my/uppercut's argument leaves out of account. But when we're talking about 35no and 35 v 70, the tricky start point is IMHO decisive