Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[cnerd123]

I think you should look at some of the posts of the person who started the thread if you're talking bout playing the man and not the ball, he is a classic example. Based on some of the sarcastic responses to the thread question I think my response was justified.

We have been warned by the mods to not needlessly engage in fights with him.

Don't go chasing at the ball or you might nick off to the slips. Let him bowl one at your pads before you put him away.

 

[Zinzan]

We have been warned by the mods to not needlessly engage in fights with him.

Don't go chasing at the ball or you might nick off to the slips. Let him bowl one at your pads before you put him away.

Refer to B J Watling

 

[weldone]

2014 was actually the best year for hundreds after 1948. So, the OP probably has a point.

Year Inns 100 Hundred per innings Ratio
year 1948 591 48 0.081218274
year 2014 1533 110 0.071754729
year 1989 673 47 0.069836553
year 2009 1432 97 0.06773743
year 2010 1499 98 0.065376918
year 2004 1839 119 0.064709081
year 2003 1558 99 0.063543004
year 1983 971 58 0.059732235
year 2007 1098 65 0.059198543
year 2012 1513 89 0.058823529
year 1984 1156 68 0.058823529
year 1974 773 45 0.058214748
year 1976 825 48 0.058181818
year 2006 1660 95 0.057228916
year 2013 1623 92 0.056685151
year 2008 1702 96 0.05640423
year 2005 1774 100 0.056369786
year 1955 888 50 0.056306306
year 1973 769 43 0.055916775
year 1971 592 33 0.055743243
year 2001 1899 105 0.055292259
year 1962 639 35 0.054773083
year 2002 1899 100 0.052659294
year 1986 972 51 0.052469136
year 1985 872 45 0.051605505
year 1990 892 46 0.051569507
year 1997 1507 77 0.051094891
year 1992 925 47 0.050810811
year 1999 1512 76 0.05026455
year 2011 1450 72 0.049655172
year 1961 606 30 0.04950495
year 1987 796 39 0.048994975
year 1982 954 46 0.048218029
year 1965 927 44 0.047464941
year 1996 1031 47 0.045586809
year 1979 957 43 0.044932079
year 1964 812 36 0.044334975
year 1991 715 31 0.043356643
year 2000 1607 69 0.04293715
year 1993 1183 50 0.042265427
year 1998 1635 69 0.042201835
year 1978 954 40 0.041928721
year 1994 1361 55 0.040411462
year 1968 681 27 0.039647577
year 1977 894 35 0.039149888
year 1981 850 33 0.038823529
year 1980 859 32 0.037252619
year 1969 963 35 0.036344756
year 1995 1386 49 0.035353535
year 1988 861 25 0.029036005

 

[cnerd123]

Thanks weldone. I wanted to post that stat up too but havent had the time today to dig it up.

Can you format it a bit neater, maybe just Year and Innings/100 ?

 

[Coronis]

1948 Immortals.

 

[WindieWeathers]

2014 was actually the best year for hundreds after 1948. So, the OP probably has a point.

Year Inns 100 Hundred per innings Ratio
year 1948 591 48 0.081218274
year 2014 1533 110 0.071754729
year 1989 673 47 0.069836553
year 2009 1432 97 0.06773743
year 2010 1499 98 0.065376918
year 2004 1839 119 0.064709081
year 2003 1558 99 0.063543004
year 1983 971 58 0.059732235
year 2007 1098 65 0.059198543
year 2012 1513 89 0.058823529
year 1984 1156 68 0.058823529
year 1974 773 45 0.058214748
year 1976 825 48 0.058181818
year 2006 1660 95 0.057228916
year 2013 1623 92 0.056685151
year 2008 1702 96 0.05640423
year 2005 1774 100 0.056369786
year 1955 888 50 0.056306306
year 1973 769 43 0.055916775
year 1971 592 33 0.055743243
year 2001 1899 105 0.055292259
year 1962 639 35 0.054773083
year 2002 1899 100 0.052659294
year 1986 972 51 0.052469136
year 1985 872 45 0.051605505
year 1990 892 46 0.051569507
year 1997 1507 77 0.051094891
year 1992 925 47 0.050810811
year 1999 1512 76 0.05026455
year 2011 1450 72 0.049655172
year 1961 606 30 0.04950495
year 1987 796 39 0.048994975
year 1982 954 46 0.048218029
year 1965 927 44 0.047464941
year 1996 1031 47 0.045586809
year 1979 957 43 0.044932079
year 1964 812 36 0.044334975
year 1991 715 31 0.043356643
year 2000 1607 69 0.04293715
year 1993 1183 50 0.042265427
year 1998 1635 69 0.042201835
year 1978 954 40 0.041928721
year 1994 1361 55 0.040411462
year 1968 681 27 0.039647577
year 1977 894 35 0.039149888
year 1981 850 33 0.038823529
year 1980 859 32 0.037252619
year 1969 963 35 0.036344756
year 1995 1386 49 0.035353535
year 1988 861 25 0.029036005

LOL thank you!!..my detractors certainly won't like this one that's for sure .

My point was perfectly valid and we'll see that during this India/aus game where another three tons may well be scored.. but some people would rather chirp about me than answer the question!!..oh well .

 

[weldone]

Thanks weldone. I wanted to post that stat up too but havent had the time today to dig it up.

Can you format it a bit neater, maybe just Year and Innings/100 ?

Sure. Did it with all the years now, and innings per 100. 2014 is indeed the best since 1948. Some of the early years might not mean much, because of the small sample sizes.

year 1938 ----------- 8.6
year 1903 ----------- 10.0
year 1926 ----------- 10.4
year 1939 ----------- 11.6
year 1897 ----------- 12.0
year 1948 ----------- 12.3
year 1924 ----------- 12.8
year 1929 ----------- 13.1
year 2014 ----------- 13.9
year 1989 ----------- 14.3
year 1947 ----------- 14.5
year 2015 ----------- 14.6
year 2009 ----------- 14.8
year 1920 ----------- 15.0
year 2010 ----------- 15.3
year 2004 ----------- 15.5
year 1949 ----------- 15.5
year 2003 ----------- 15.7
year 1913 ----------- 16.5
year 1983 ----------- 16.7
year 1975 ----------- 16.9
year 2007 ----------- 16.9
year 1984 ----------- 17.0
year 2012 ----------- 17.0
year 1974 ----------- 17.2
year 1976 ----------- 17.2
year 1950 ----------- 17.5
year 2006 ----------- 17.5
year 2013 ----------- 17.6
year 2008 ----------- 17.7
year 2005 ----------- 17.7
year 1955 ----------- 17.8
year 1931 ----------- 17.8
year 1973 ----------- 17.9
year 1971 ----------- 17.9
year 2001 ----------- 18.1
year 1930 ----------- 18.2
year 1962 ----------- 18.3
year 1884 ----------- 18.3
year 1972 ----------- 18.5
year 1911 ----------- 18.7
year 1966 ----------- 18.9
year 2002 ----------- 19.0
year 1986 ----------- 19.1
year 1985 ----------- 19.4
year 1990 ----------- 19.4
year 1937 ----------- 19.4
year 1970 ----------- 19.4
year 1997 ----------- 19.6
year 1992 ----------- 19.7
year 1999 ----------- 19.9
year 1880 ----------- 20.0
year 2011 ----------- 20.1
year 1921 ----------- 20.2
year 1961 ----------- 20.2
year 1987 ----------- 20.4
year 1925 ----------- 20.6
year 1982 ----------- 20.7
year 1934 ----------- 21.0
year 1965 ----------- 21.1
year 1953 ----------- 21.1
year 1928 ----------- 21.9
year 1996 ----------- 21.9
year 1894 ----------- 22.0
year 1979 ----------- 22.3
year 1960 ----------- 22.4
year 1936 ----------- 22.4
year 1964 ----------- 22.6
year 1957 ----------- 22.6
year 1958 ----------- 22.6
year 1991 ----------- 23.1
year 2000 ----------- 23.3
year 1967 ----------- 23.4
year 1993 ----------- 23.7
year 1998 ----------- 23.7
year 1978 ----------- 23.9
year 1923 ----------- 24.7
year 1994 ----------- 24.7
year 1905 ----------- 24.9
year 1968 ----------- 25.2
year 1951 ----------- 25.5
year 1977 ----------- 25.5
year 1893 ----------- 25.8
year 1981 ----------- 25.8
year 1932 ----------- 25.9
year 1946 ----------- 26.7
year 1980 ----------- 26.8
year 1935 ----------- 26.9
year 1969 ----------- 27.5
year 1963 ----------- 27.6
year 1995 ----------- 28.3
year 1898 ----------- 28.4
year 1895 ----------- 28.5
year 1899 ----------- 29.1
year 1908 ----------- 29.3
year 1954 ----------- 29.4
year 1933 ----------- 29.6
year 1952 ----------- 29.8
year 1959 ----------- 32.0
year 1901 ----------- 33.0
year 1988 ----------- 34.4
year 1910 ----------- 35.5
year 1912 ----------- 35.5
year 1881 ----------- 38.0
year 1892 ----------- 38.3
year 1907 ----------- 38.5
year 1896 ----------- 39.2
year 1927 ----------- 39.5
year 1902 ----------- 40.4
year 1956 ----------- 43.9
year 1922 ----------- 44.0
year 1909 ----------- 46.0
year 1885 ----------- 49.7
year 1886 ----------- 53.5
year 1906 ----------- 64.7
year 1889 ----------- 70.0
year 1877 ----------- 85.0
year 1904 ----------- 87.0
year 1882 ----------- 92.5
year 1883 ----------- 118.0
year 1914 ----------- 119.0

 

[Frost]

Your detractors? Lol
I'm not really sure what u think those numbers prove,you asked a question and the answers are peoples opinions therefore the numbers are irrelevant to me.I can see the same movie a thousand times and still be impressed by it, but that's just me

 

[Riggins]

Sure. Did it with all the years now, and innings per 100. 2014 is indeed the best after 1948. Some of the early years might not mean much, because of the small sample sizes.

year 1938 ----------- 8.6
year 1903 ----------- 10.0
year 1926 ----------- 10.4
year 1939 ----------- 11.6
year 1897 ----------- 12.0
year 1948 ----------- 12.3
year 1924 ----------- 12.8
year 1929 ----------- 13.1
year 2014 ----------- 13.9

Am I missing something here?

 

[weldone]

Am I missing something here?

Yes, the other years there are 'before' 1948

So 2014 is the best year for centuries 'after' 1948. In other words, there are no other years after 1948 which is as good for centuries as 2014.

 

[Dan]

Cricket didn't exist pre-WWII; all statistics were made up as Allied propaganda.

 

[weldone]

Cricket didn't exist pre-WWII; all statistics were made up as Allied propaganda.

Lol, Hitler stopped it then.

 

[weldone]

I think 'after 1948' confused Riggins. I should've said 'since 1948'.

edited the post now

 

[Antihippy]

It would actually be a point if 2012 to 2013 was as prolific as 2014. 2014 alone doesn't count as an era.

 

[NUFAN]

I have to agree that tons don't excite me as much as they used to.

In the 1990s I just sort of assumed that the pace attacks were quality all around the world and anyone making a ton had done a terrific job. These days, I must say that I often find myself assessing the circumstances more and not being too impressed by many centuries, particularly the centuries where the batsman doesn't kick on or against weak attacks or very flat pitches. I worked today, so didn't see a ball of Williamson, but I'm seriously impressed reading that he scored 242* and while I only saw a bit of Warner, I'm left thinking he should have gone on with it and he'd be close to 200 at stumps.

So are hundreds as impressive? Not really, I need to see big hundreds (some are still not impressive), consecutive hundreds or a batsman carrying his team to be impressed.

 

[NUFAN]

I think 'after 1948' confused Riggins. I should've said 'since 1948'.

edited the post now

Nah, that's not what has confused him. He wants an explanation because innings per 100 is incorrect. Is it dismissals per 100? Because an innings is the entire team and clearly 100s are scored at a rate of less than every 8 team innings.

 

[Antihippy]

If anything I'd say 2014 was a freak year where all of the prodigies earmarked for greatness suddenly came good.

 

[weldone]

Nah, that's not what has confused him. He wants an explanation because innings per 100 is incorrect. Is it dismissals per 100? Because an innings is the entire team and clearly 100s are scored at a rate of less than every 8 team innings.

From his reply and part of his quote, that's not his confusion.

But your point is tricky, because dismissals per 100 can theoretically be less than 1 (because 100s can be unbeaten knocks too).

 

[NUFAN]

Oh yeah. I thought it was Riggins who had underlined the innings per 100. But yeah, what does innings per 100 really mean?

 

[Spikey]

just because steve smith and don bradman dont throw their wickets away after passing 25..............