Who would you rather have come in at No. 6 for your team with 15 overs to go?

[stephen]

Actually, I forgot the third argument against Bevan - that he wouldn't have adjusted to the modern playing conditions.

I kind of ignored that because it's a ridiculous, fallacious argument at best. It's ridiculous to think that Bevan wouldn't pick up an extra 5-10 runs per hundred balls in the modern game, given the reduction in ground sizes, flattening of pitches and generally poorer quality bowling that we've seen since the 00s started.

Arguing that you wouldn't pick him at 6 in an all time great side because the rest of the batting would be enough is actually making a case for the selection of a fifth specialist bowler, not a case against Bevan. In an all time XI you would pick Richards and Bevan and build the side around them.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Of course they are. I only gave three possible outcomes and excluded all others.

Ah sorry, I thought you were discussing real cricket scenarios rather than just making up random numbers.

 

[stephen]

Stephen, you do not get it. You're stuck is some relativist comparison of Bevan to his peers. Please read pages 6 and 8 and you may understand.

I read the entire thread. "It's all about optimising your team score". Even in an all time great side, adding Bevan to your team is going to achieve this. Because sometimes you'll lose three quick wickets and need to rebuild, even in an all time great side. The match I linked earlier is a case in point. The batting lineup was as close as you'll see in a real game to an ATG XI: Waugh, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh all couldn't score more than 21. Bevan came in and scored 102* (95) to win the game.

Presumably, your ATG XI will be playing against the ATG 2nd XI. Frankly, I'd much rather have Bevan in my team than in the opposition.

EDIT: Also, presumably, your ATG XI will be up against a ridiculously strong bowling attack. I'd feel much safer with Bevan in my side than Maxwell in this scenario.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Ah sorry, I thought you were discussing real cricket scenarios rather than just making up random numbers.

Didn't you tell me to learn to read earlier? In this or a related thread? Read the post again.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah I did. Because you're really bad at it.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah I did. Because you're really bad at it.

Read the post again, and then you may appreciate whose comprehension skills are in doubt.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Agreed. That is the fear that prevented prior teams from taking the slogging approach. The question is, is it a rational fear?

Crawling to 200 and losing 99% of the time, is not better than scoring 300 50% of the time and winning, and scoring 150 50% of the time and losing.

This is the conventional wisdom that will be inevitably be tested with all this middle icing in teams.

Don't know from where you are pulling these arbitrary numbers.

I'd say there is a 25% chance to get to 300. 1 in 4 games sounds a lot too.

 

[Flem274*]

i think we're just going to have to keep scrolling when we see a blockheaded post from grumpy

 

[Adders]

Give it a ****ing rest.

You seem like an angry man. This is no quality or substance to your post at all. You should hang out with furball. Maybe join a national front political movement and shave your head.

TBF, marc only said what the rest of us are thinking Grumpy.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Don't know from where you are pulling these arbitrary numbers.

I'd say there is a 25% chance to get to 300. 1 in 4 games sounds a lot too.

Don't know where you're pulling that arbitrary number from. Well actually - I do. You're making it up. And you can. The point remains valid. Seems pretty low with Maxwell, Watson/MMarsh, Wade and Faulkner as #5-8. But even then 25% of time getting to 300 (and even winning a low 50% of those matches) is better than crawling to 200 and losing 99% of the time. Do you get the point now? See how the point remains valid?

There seems to be a lot of comprehension lacking about the numbers. The specific number is a red herring - its the point that conventional wisdom of getting through the 50 overs only (and scoring 200 or so after a top order collapse) will inevitably be tested. I was not announcing or predicting that the probability factor will be 50%, for all teams, for all time. But it is possible that more games will be won by continuing to hit (and slog) in a business as usual manner after a top order crash (unless in the unlikely event that the pitch is a mine field and even then continue to hit because its what icing players do best).

Agreed. That is the fear that prevented prior teams from taking the slogging approach. The question is, is it a rational fear?

Crawling to 200 and losing 99% of the time, is not better than scoring 300 50% of the time and winning, and scoring 150 50% of the time and losing.

This is the conventional wisdom that will be inevitably be tested with all this middle icing in teams.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

TBF, marc only said what the rest of us are thinking Grumpy.

But he said it with such furious hostility and his posts are regularly bordering on rage. I feel sorry for him.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

i think we're just going to have to keep scrolling when we see a blockheaded post from grumpy

Calling my posts blockheaded Flem, without debating the substance or the issue, is rather juvenile and intellectually weak.

Take issue, debate the issue.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

An interesting question is whether Bailey's Bevanesque 75(110) lost Australia the match tonight. If he'd gotten out earlier it would have meant more balls for Wade and Hastings to face, which might well have led to enough runs to beat England tonight.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

An interesting question is whether Bailey's Bevanesque 75(110) lost Australia the match tonight. If he'd gotten out earlier it would have meant more balls for Wade and Hastings to face, which might well have led to enough runs to beat England tonight.

I hear and completely understand where you're comming from, but this particular example probably will not curry you favour with the uninitiated. But a SR of 68 on a pitch where 300 was par or below is weak.

There was no reason for the second half of his innings (in balls faced) to slow down so. His last 29 runs came off 51 balls with Australia in a good position. That is a 57 SR.

But I would tread carefully with this particular example if you wish to convince the natives of the gospel. I would keep the debate to a macro level personally.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

There was no reason for the second half of his innings (in balls faced) to slow down so. His last 29 runs came off 51 balls with Australia in a good position. That is a 57 SR.

Yeah I watched the whole innings. Bailey's SR would have been fine if he was feeding the strike to Maxwell, Marsh, Wade et al. But he seemed to be faffing around to me.

Another thing I think that's underappreciated is the degree to which a dot ball is a win for the bowler in ODI cricket. If a run a ball can be said to be standard, a dot ball is as good for the bowler as two runs is for the batsman.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah I watched the whole innings. Bailey's SR would have been fine if he was feeding the strike to Maxwell, Marsh, Wade et al. But he seemed to be faffing around to me.

Another thing I think that's underappreciated is the degree to which a dot ball is a win for the bowler in ODI cricket. If a run a ball can be said to be standard, a dot ball is as good for the bowler as two runs is for the batsman.

Stop it. Soon you'll be saying that Mitchell McCleanaghan is not the best ODI bowler in NZ with all those wickets he gets in the 48th and 50th over with the batsman playing slog hoics to be caught on the boundary.

Bowling batsmen out before the 35th and 40th over, economy rates, dot balls, batting SR, boundaries and strike roatation, you're over complicating it. Just bat time and occupy the crease - collect not outs and 48th - 50th over wickets - keep the batting average and bowling averages looking good.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

An interesting question is whether Bailey's Bevanesque 75(110) lost Australia the match tonight. If he'd gotten out earlier it would have meant more balls for Wade and Hastings to face, which might well have led to enough runs to beat England tonight.

Yeah right Bailey should have gone mad with 30/3 and more so when his partner was scoring at his will and keeping up the scoreboard too. Nobody has to anchor the innings. Everyone should go lalaland for the marshmellows and become Charlie in the chocolate factory.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah right Bailey should have gone mad with 30/3 and more so when his partner was scoring at his will and keeping up the scoreboard too. Nobody has to anchor the innings. Everyone should go lalaland for the marshmellows and become Charlie in the chocolate factory.

Great post. Analytical. Accurate use of analogical analysis. No use of dogma and fallacies such as begging the question where you acknowledge that noone needs to anchor the innings at such a slow rate - (although England's chase more or less confirmed this) lets this innings moving and out of the harbour goddamn it. 10/10. Would read again.

Well Vik, there is one person you have converted.

By the way Andy and in all seriousness - the real bane of the criticism is not at the 30/3 mark. Its at the 150/3 mark.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yeah right Bailey should have gone mad with 30/3 and more so when his partner was scoring at his will and keeping up the scoreboard too. Nobody has to anchor the innings. Everyone should go lalaland for the marshmellows and become Charlie in the chocolate factory.

Did you notice that Australia didn't score enough runs to win the match last night?

Anyway, it's not about 30/3, it's about Bailey slowing down after reaching his 50 and taking up balls that Wade and Hastings could have faced. If Wade's striking at 200 and Bailey at 70, then every ball Bailey faces is a net loss of over one run.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Australia lost for poor bowling not for Bailey. If it's hard to digest then watch the match again from second half.