Why don't fifties remain fifties?

[OverratedSanity]

This has always bothered me. Whn a batsman gets to ffity it's a nice little milestone and he raises the bat to the crowd. But if he manages to get to a hundred, it's erased from the 50s column. I mean, it's still a 50+ score, so why should it be erased from existence? It doesn't happen with 100s... (ie) when a guy gets to 200, it isn't erased from the 100s column and put into a separate one for doubles. Why the discrimination against 50s?

 

[sledger]

Because 100 or more is not 50, whichever way you slice it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

200s aren't 100s either, then.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I like 50s

 

[adub]

Bored waiting for the next game of cricket to start eh?

 

[Adders]

I like 50s

How the **** can you like 50's?? They're just wannabe hundreds FFS.

50's are for No 10's and 11's to celebrate not for batsmen. What the hell is a good top order batsmen doing raising his bat for achieving his average?? Yay.....lets have a celebration for achieving my mean.

All 50's should be stricken from the record unless you bat 9, 10 or 11 IMO.

 

[Jono]

This is a problem Indian batsmen don't have at the moment.

 

[OverratedSanity]

How the **** can you like 50's?? They're just wannabe hundreds FFS.

50's are for No 10's and 11's to celebrate not for batsmen. What the hell is a good top order batsmen doing raising his bat for achieving his average?? Yay.....lets have a celebration for achieving my mean.

All 50's should be stricken from the record unless you bat 9, 10 or 11 IMO.

All I'm asking for is some consistency. If it's being recognized as a milestone, why is it erased once a batsman doubles it. Makes no sense. Might as well say hundreds are wannabe doubles. Who gives a **** if you got a century... get on with your job and make it a big daddy. #RecognizeFifties

 

[sledger]

200s aren't 100s either, then.

Well quite, and I am sure this would be reflected in the stats sheets if there was a column for 200s.

 

[Howe_zat]

It is a bit silly when a bloke raises his fifty and the commentator says 'that's his 30th test fifty' or something, but if he kept tonning up he would get infinite repeats of his 30th test fifty

 

[harsh.ag]

Well, I think it's a case of three figures vs two figures. If someone got a 1000 someday, then I am sure it wouldn't be counted as a hundred

 

[Maximas]

To make the stats more distinct from each other I guess, not such a bad system for looking at things like conversion rates I suppose

 

[fredfertang]

I got to 25 once but no ****er treated that as a milestone even though it was worth more than most 50s, 100s or whatever other currency you use to measure batting quality

 

[OverratedSanity]

To make the stats more distinct from each other I guess, not such a bad system for looking at things like conversion rates I suppose

You could still see the conversion rate anyway. Under the current system, Bradman has 29 hundreds and 13 fifties, which means his conversion rate was 29/(29+13)= 29/42= 69%

If it used the proper system, his record would show 29 hundreds and 42 fifties, so his conversion rate = 29/42 = 69%

So, If fifties counted as they should, even calculating the conversion rate actually becomes easier. We're doing an extra addition operation!!! This needs to ****ing stop. There's no reason why it should be like this. NONE.

 

[cnerd123]

You could still see the conversion rate anyway. Under the current system, Bradman has 29 hundreds and 13 fifties, which means his conversion rate was 29/(29+13)= 29/42= 69%

If it used the proper system, his record would show 29 hundreds and 42 fifties, so his conversion rate = 29/42 = 69%

So, If fifties counted as they should, even calculating the conversion rate actually becomes easier. We're doing an extra addition operation!!! This needs to ****ing stop. There's no reason why it should be like this. NONE.

Maybe it's just done this way to piss you off, ****.

 

[Maximas]

I dunno, seeing the 50s as distinct from the hundreds makes it easier for me to quickly see how they stack up relative to each other, not a huge issue for me though haha

 

[cpr]

Why don't 100's count in the 50 column twice? I mean it is just 2 50's back to back.


Lack of 200+ column does irk me slightly though.

 

[zaremba]

Because 100 or more is not 50, whichever way you slice it.

If you slice 100 in half, it is 50. Twice.

 

[fredfertang]

Because 100 or more is not 50, whichever way you slice it.

If you slice 100 in half, it is 50. Twice.

Lawyers will be lawyers

 

[sledger]

I never was any good at maths.