Why don't fifties remain fifties?

[harsh.ag]

It's what he says to his right hand

Yesss

 

[Dan]

The 50 is like the behind in AFL. It's recognition that you tried.

 

[Pratters]

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?

- Why do they write 100/1 in England but 1/100 in Australia?
- Why do umpires raise 1 finger for an out and point it to the sky instead of the pavilion

It has gone on for ages. Changing it would be weird. We know when we say a batsman has 4 50s and 4 100s that he has a great conversion rate, say. In grade cricket, when you get to 30, your name appears on the scorecard in some places, when you get to 60 in some others I think. It's been carrying on for ages. There is no need to change it. It's the benchmark and it's set ffs.

 

[Pratters]

Another aspect gets my goat. How there are millions of new types of stats which television channels keep trying to bring into the game. There is the degree of spin on each ball. While I don't mind the pitch map which shows where the bowlers have been pitching, there are in millions of stats which keep coming on tv. The traditional stats have stood the test of time for a reason - they are simple yet give a big picture instantaneously. They show the average of a batsman against spin, against x particular bowler, against left handers, against right handers and what not. During IPL telecasts, they have stopped showing averages altogether. They show strike rates, highest etc. Next, they will come up with FCA and averages against bowlers shorter than 5.5 feet v bowlers taller than 5.5 feet. Why don't you guys focus on broadcasting the cricket, ****s. That should be enough. If I am nerdy enough to go over so many trillions of stats, I will just go over cricinfo or cricketarchive or consult with viriya.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rubbish. So many rules have changed drastically over the years. Changing a small thing like this so that it makes a little more sense is hardly something that will share the foundations of cricket to the core and take time to get used to.

 

[Pratters]

Rubbish. So many rules have changed drastically over the years. Changing a small thing like this so that it makes a little more sense is hardly something that will share the foundations of cricket to the core and take time to get used to.

Most people in this thread disagree with you on this for a reason, hey.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Most people in this thread disagree with you on this for a reason, hey.

Nah if you had actually read the thread you'd have noticed many do agree that it's a stupid system. No one gives a **** though, except me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Rubbish. So many rules have changed drastically over the years. Changing a small thing like this so that it makes a little more sense is hardly something that will share the foundations of cricket to the core and take time to get used to.

Quite true. In this case changing it would make no sense whatsoever, so why bother?

 

[cnerd123]

I thought 50s was a indication of scores between 50-99 and 100 was for scores above that. In which case it makes perfect sense. Lyth has no scores in the 50-99 range and one that is 100+. If he scores 60 odd next innings before getting out, that would be his maiden 50 - ie, his first score between 50-99

This way you can also bread down a batsman's career into innings with scores below 50, innings with scores from 50-99, and innings with scores 100+, which will all add up to the total number of innings in his career.

A 200s and 300s stat would be nice; I figure those won't brought in initially because back the scores above 100 were already pretty rare. No we see 200s being fairly frequent -even in ODIs!- so there is an argument for introducing a stat for that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I thought 50s was a indication of scores between 50-99 and 100 was for scores above that. In which case it makes perfect sense. Lyth has no scores in the 50-99 range and one that is 100+. If he scores 60 odd next innings before getting out, that would be his maiden 50 - ie, his first score between 50-99

This way you can also bread down a batsman's career into innings with scores below 50, innings with scores from 50-99, and innings with scores 100+, which will all add up to the total number of innings in his career.

A 200s and 300s stat would be nice; I figure those won't brought in initially because back the scores above 100 were already pretty rare. No we see 200s being fairly frequent -even in ODIs!- so there is an argument for introducing a stat for that.

This is true. But for some reason OS is irrationally perturbed by the fact that while an innings is in progress the milestone that is 50 can be superseded when the 100 is reached and no longer counts as a 50.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I thought 50s was a indication of scores between 50-99 and 100 was for scores above that. In which case it makes perfect sense. Lyth has no scores in the 50-99 range and one that is 100+. If he scores 60 odd next innings before getting out, that would be his maiden 50 - ie, his first score between 50-99

This way you can also bread down a batsman's career into innings with scores below 50, innings with scores from 50-99, and innings with scores 100+, which will all add up to the total number of innings in his career.

A 200s and 300s stat would be nice; I figure those won't brought in initially because back the scores above 100 were already pretty rare. No we see 200s being fairly frequent -even in ODIs!- so there is an argument for introducing a stat for that.

Yeah but you see, people say Bradman got 12 double hundreds and 29 hundreds. They don't say he got 12 double hundreds and 17 100s. If they count 50 as a legitimate milestone similar to a hundred, then why is a "fifty" considered 50-99 and a "hundred" isn't considered 100-199? Instead, a hundred is 100+ with no ceiling. There's just no consistency which really bugs me.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is true. But for some reason OS is irrationally perturbed by the fact that while an innings is in progress the milestone that is 50 can be superseded when the 100 is reached and no longer counts as a 50.

That is indeed my main problem with it.

You guys say that a fifty is supposed to be 50-99. Well yeah, duh, I know. But why bother having it as a milestone at all if it's going to just be erased from existence once a player gets to 100?

 

[honestbharani]

I thought 50s was a indication of scores between 50-99 and 100 was for scores above that. In which case it makes perfect sense. Lyth has no scores in the 50-99 range and one that is 100+. If he scores 60 odd next innings before getting out, that would be his maiden 50 - ie, his first score between 50-99

This way you can also bread down a batsman's career into innings with scores below 50, innings with scores from 50-99, and innings with scores 100+, which will all add up to the total number of innings in his career.

A 200s and 300s stat would be nice; I figure those won't brought in initially because back the scores above 100 were already pretty rare. No we see 200s being fairly frequent -even in ODIs!- so there is an argument for introducing a stat for that.

I literally posted the same thing with diffferent words...

 

[Daemon]

os stahp

 

[OverratedSanity]

But this is important

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah but you see, people say Bradman got 12 double hundreds and 29 hundreds. They don't say he got 12 double hundreds and 17 100s. If they count 50 as a legitimate milestone similar to a hundred, then why is a "fifty" considered 50-99 and a "hundred" isn't considered 100-199? Instead, a hundred is 100+ with no ceiling. There's just no consistency which really bugs me.

I don think the bolded part is necessarily true, OS.... If guys who know enough about the game (and they should be if they remember how many centuries and double centuries The Don scored) mention it that way, it would be ridiculous. I have seen people talk cricket in many walks of my life and almost all of them say it as Player A has X hundreds out of which Y were double centuries..

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don think the bolded part is necessarily true, OS.... If guys who know enough about the game (and they should be if they remember how many centuries and double centuries The Don scored) mention it that way, it would be ridiculous. I have seen people talk cricket in many walks of my life and almost all of them say it as Player A has X hundreds out of which Y were double centuries..

So why not say Bradman scored 42 fifties, out of which 29 were hundreds?

 

[honestbharani]

coz 50s in our sense is as others have said 50-99... 100s is any score above a 100

 

[OverratedSanity]

coz 50s in our sense is as others have said 50-99... 100s is any score above a 100

But why? Either both should have an upper limit or none of them.

 

[Stapel]

Broad just figured out that 275 is doable in 40 overs in modern cricket? Or what?

Sorry, wrong thread...................