Why don't fifties remain fifties?

[GIMH]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be 'why don't hundreds remain fifties?'

 

[honestbharani]

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

Coz 100s were the highest scoring landmark cricket statsmen have been tracking all these years... If we are to suddenly track 200s as well, then I am sure 100s will come down but then you will have to retrospectively adjust so many career stats that it is probably not worth the while for our statsgurus

 

[cnerd123]

Yea while I agree 200s and 300s should be treated the same way, it's fair to say retroactively changing ALL records and re-defining the way we measure these milestones would be pointless as it would only effect a tiny % of cricketers across history.

Maybe sometime down the future when pitches get even flatter and batting gets even better.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Shouldn't chanceless innings be rated higher? I would think so.

This post gave me PTSD.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

(I didn't read the thread - so forgive if this has been said.)

I think the real reason 50's are distinguished from 100's but doubles and triples aren't seperated is the amount of digits in them. Like 100 is seen as a clear step up from 50-99 because you moved into another decimal realm, whereas 200+ scores are still the same amount of digits. It sounds stupid but numbers have a weird place in human subconscious.

 

[honestbharani]

Gayle will score a 1000 against those Uni boys that KP thrashed, one day...

 

[Victor Ian]

It really botheres me that there is no stat for 105 runs. This is clearly better than 100 runs! Why don't they go the full hog and publish a frequency distrubition graph with intervals of one run? What also ****s me is that batsmen get no recognition for match performances. Why don't they have a stat for 200 runs in a match, to balance 10 wickets in a match?

 

[Spark]

It really botheres me that there is no stat for 105 runs. This is clearly better than 100 runs! Why don't they go the full hog and publish a frequency distrubition graph with intervals of one run? What also ****s me is that batsmen get no recognition for match performances. Why don't they have a stat for 200 runs in a match, to balance 10 wickets in a match?

I'd actually be kinda interested to see this for batsmen with 50+ Tests or so. Make it a logarithmic x axis.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Now this is some dumb bull**** right here.

Apparently ABdV holds the records for "most fifties in consecutive tests". That's what all the official stats websites say: most consecutive fifties not "50-99 scores". Ab's 12 "fifties" in consecutive matches include a number of centuries.

HowSTAT! Test Cricket - 50 in Most Consecutive Matches

Everton Weekes' record of "fifties" in 7 consecutive innings includes 5 hundreds

Records | Test matches | Batting records | Fifties in consecutive innings | ESPN Cricinfo

Yet these same "fifties" don't actually show up in their official overall stats.

This is ****ing dumb.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

when you hear the thing 12 consecutive 50s, it sounds like he made only 50s in 12 consecutive matches. But there are hundreds in between. It's confusing. I agree with OS.

 

[Daemon]

 

[cnerd123]

"most fifties in consecutive tests" = "most innings with scores crossing fifty in consecutive tests"

 

[OverratedSanity]

"most fifties in consecutive tests" = "most innings with scores crossing fifty in consecutive tests"

I know you fool. Then if fifty = all 50+ scores, and not 50-99, why do they not count in a batsman's statistics when he goes past 100? The inconsistency is baffling. The definition of a fifty changes constantly.

 

[GIMH]

Who gives a ****

 

[OverratedSanity]

Who gives a ****

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I agree with OS.

There you go it's happened. Now this thread can be closed.

 

[cnerd123]

I know you fool. Then if fifty = all 50+ scores, and not 50-99, why do they not count in a batsman's statistics when he goes past 100? The inconsistency is baffling. The definition of a fifty changes constantly.

You're just arguing semantics now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're just arguing semantics now.

Sure, but this is something pretty basic to the game. No one in this thread has even been able to explain properly what a "fifty" is.

If it's a 50-99 as some people say, why do 100+ scores count as fifties in records such as "consecutive fifties"?

If it's all scores above 50, then why do 100+ scores get wiped from the 50's column in a batsman's record?

You see the inconsistency right? You can argue all you want that I shouldn't give a ****, but you have to admit I'm right that it's a silly system which has some ridiculous inconsistencies and lack of clarity.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

OS clearly wants people to remember him as the scientist who changed the definition of 50s

 

[Daemon]

You're just arguing semantics now.

yeah, now he's arguing semantics