Lance Cairns scored 987 runs @ 17 and took 89 wickets @ 30
On what planet is he in an ATG ODI team.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
that Virat Kohli
- Thread starter SuperMurali
- Start date
On what planet is he in an ATG ODI team.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But he hit sixes
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Also anyone who wants to have a sniff at Gilchrist's ODI average (or Jayasuriya's for that matter) doesn't have a clue how ODI cricket works. There's an inverse relationship between average and strike rate for an opening batsman, the faster you score your runs, the less you'll average (unless your name is Tendulkar, who averaged 48 and struck at 89 opening, the freak). An average of 36 when you score your runs as quickly as Gilchrist's did, is more than adequate (particularly when Gilchrist's goes out to a 40 average with a 101 SR in games Australia won ie the vast majority of his career).
The other great thing about Gilchrist was that he always scored at a run a ball. If he was out of touch and got 10 he didn't scratch about for 20 or 30 deliveries and waste time he got out after 10 balls so someone else could get on with it.
Anyone who doesn't have Tendulkar and Gilchrist opening in their all time ODI team has it wrong, frankly.
The other great thing about Gilchrist was that he always scored at a run a ball. If he was out of touch and got 10 he didn't scratch about for 20 or 30 deliveries and waste time he got out after 10 balls so someone else could get on with it.
Anyone who doesn't have Tendulkar and Gilchrist opening in their all time ODI team has it wrong, frankly.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Disappointed with this. At least tell me why you don't agree ffs.
Sehwag has the same average and a higher strike rate.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Don't really care about average for a No. 8 batsman. Nor do I care particularly much about his bowling average as he's not there to take wickets. Batting SR of 105 and bowling ER of 4.1 is where it's at and how he should be judged.
He might not have ATG numbers, but he fits very well into a NZ ATG team.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
How's his record in crunch World Cup games?
Also the era needs to be considered with Sehwag. Their careers don't overlap and the 5 or so years Sehwag played on beyond Gilchrist definitely saw higher strike rates.
Last edited:
Sehwag only player who stood up during the WC final loss to Australia.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
On this point, I'd definitely be interested if Cribbage were able to come up with standardised strike rates for ODI cricket. It would be interesting to see how massive outliers like Viv or Sachin stack up when their numbers are adjusted.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Which makes his batting SR even more exceptional, no?
Every ball Lance Cairns faced went for 50% more runs than every ball he bowled. Those are the stats of a matchwinner.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A) No it didn't.
B) Sample size issue due to his poor play not meaning he had an extended ODI career.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Ok then, the average ball Lance Cairns faced went for 50% more runs than the average ball he bowled. Same diff.
I bet you can't find a player in any era that struck at 100+ in ODIs and also had a Test 10 wicket haul.
I bet you can't find a player in any era that struck at 100+ in ODIs and also had a Test 10 wicket haul.
Last edited:
Probably in large part because I don't care and it is meaningless
cnerd123
likes this
You can't attempt to Moneyball cricket and ignore half the statistics available to you. Lance Cairns also average 17 which meant he would have only scored 17 runs on average before his dismissal. How many games do you think a 17(15) will win you with the bat?
You also cant hack cricket by picking purely low enonomy rate bowlers. Even if you adjusted for eras (which you aren't), bowlers with low economy rates have such low economy rates as a result of their role in the side. Every bowling attack has bowlers who hold up an end from one side to allow strike bowlers to take wickets at the other. Every side has designated new ball bowlers and death specialists who will go for more runs than their teammates. If you're going to pick 5 low economy rate bowlers they arent going to perform to exactly their economies because you will be required to bowl them in situations that they do not have the skillsets for; atleast in an ATG context. Their low econ rates are a product of the role they get asked to play which itself is a product of the skills they have. You cannot just ignore this. This is why we pick ATG bowlers to play certain roles - a couple of new ball bowlers, a couple of death over specialist (I rate guys like Garner, Flintoff and Murali very highley for this), and then the best middle-overs filler bowler you can find (usually a part-timer).
You could pick 6 batsmen an attack of Harris, Afridi, Cairns, Larsen and Majid Khan and think you've hacked the game with batting till 11 and 5 low econ bowlers, but you'd be wrong and have to sit back and watch an ATG batting lineup destroy your side at the start of the innings and at the end.
Last edited:
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Going for the strangle is a legitimate tactic in ODIs. The BCs did it when we bowled 40 overs a match of Patel, Larsen, Watson, Latham and Harris. Almost made it to a CWC final that way.
We did it in later years too between Bond and the second coming of Southee. Sometimes we packed the ring and just bowled Vettori, Nathan McCullum, Oram et al.
It's a negative tactic but once you concede that you're not going to bowl the opposition out in 50 overs you're effectively bowling to contain from that point onwards.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Sure. My simulator proved this, The fewer the wickets you take, the more aggressive the opposition can afford to be. The ATG batsman wouldn't destroy that bowling lineup at the start and the end of the innings - they'd destroy it the whole way through.
But with Bond, Hadlee and Pringle in my side then Cairns, L has to be able to contain as well as strike. Having a containing bowler with a Test 10fer is a nice luxury.