Player to bat for your life?

[Red]

Stats aside, I feel like Steve Waugh would take the task seriously. I'd pick him. Allan Border a worthy shout too.

The guy doing this should have a face set like flint. Waugh is my man.

 

[Athlai]

Too many consecutive posts in here without reference to The One True AB

Yeah de Villiers isn't a bad shout, able to block out all day or strike at a rate quick enough to go toe to toe with anyone in history.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Going by average balls per innings (balls/(inn - no)), the top 5 are:

1. Boycott: 124.65
2. Dravid: 123.06
3. Border: 122.18
4. Kallis: 120.43
5. Chanderpaul: 118.59

Using estimated strike rates for earlier era players, the top picks would be Bradman (163.95) or Sutcliffe (151.08).

So this is assuming that "bat for your life" means you want whoever is going to bat longest? What if "bat for your life" means whoever makes the most runs, or whoever gets to 100, or entertains the crowd?

 

[honestbharani]

I thought it was fairly obvious that whenever anyone talks about someone batting for their life, it just means that they are picking a batsman who is least likely to get out.

 

[Burgey]

What if "bat for your life" means to walk out, take guard and face one ball? Let's just choose any **** then and close the ****ing thread

 

[TheJediBrah]

I thought it was fairly obvious that whenever anyone talks about someone batting for their life, it just means that they are picking a batsman who is least likely to get out.

well that's silly of you

 

[Victor Ian]

Even with Stickies, I'm still on Bradman. Presume he fails for you in 1/4 trials due to encountering a sticky. He wins the other 3 hands down.

If you set a bar for living at 50+ runs then the percentage of times certain players earn you reprieve is;

steve waugh - 31
allan border - 33
sunil gavaskar - 36
javad miandad - 34
rahul dravid - 34
sachin tendulkar - 36
jacques kallis - 36
graeme smith - 31
don bradman - 52

Of course - the argument is that stickies make Bradman a dunce. So presume he is an ultimate dunce and gets <50 in ALL of them but that every one else still maintains their 50+ rate (which is, frankly, irrational) then Bradman still saves you >39% of the time. Bradman is your best bet, even if he couldn't be arsed turning up after rain while the others did. If you raise the bar for living to 100+ runs Bradman wins hands down, even giving up double the proportion of sticky games to allow other pursuits, such as buying ice cream and such while you certainly die.

Mind you, you can not kill me during the age of Stickies, as I was not yet born, so it is a pointless consideration. If this evil genius holding your life to ransom over a cricket innings was evil genius enough to also possess a time machine, then, perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone else is your best bet.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even with Stickies, I'm still on Bradman. Presume he fails for you in 1/4 trials due to encountering a sticky. He wins the other 3 hands down.

If you set a bar for living at 50+ runs then the percentage of times certain players earn you reprieve is;

steve waugh - 31
allan border - 33
sunil gavaskar - 36
javad miandad - 34
rahul dravid - 34
sachin tendulkar - 36
jacques kallis - 36
graeme smith - 31
don bradman - 52

Of course - the argument is that stickies make Bradman a dunce. So presume he is an ultimate dunce and gets <50 in ALL of them but that every one else still maintains their 50+ rate (which is, frankly, irrational) then Bradman still saves you >39% of the time. Bradman is your best bet, even if he couldn't be arsed turning up after rain while the others did. If you raise the bar for living to 100+ runs Bradman wins hands down, even giving up double the proportion of sticky games to allow other pursuits, such as buying ice cream and such while you certainly die.

Mind you, you can not kill me during the age of Stickies, as I was not yet born, so it is a pointless consideration. If this evil genius holding your life to ransom over a cricket innings was evil genius enough to also possess a time machine, then, perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone else is your best bet.

lmao such a good post

 

[Victor Ian]

lmao such a good post

And it's wrong. Bradman should actually score more as his numbers when not batting on a sticky (the other 75% of games) is 64% (65 innings for 42 successes) - not 52 (80 innings for 42 success). 52 is already deflated due to stickies encountered in his 80 innings - it was kind of double deducting.

End result - Bradman saves you >48% of the time when he walks away from 25% of attempts. His real proportion of stickies was <20%. In which case he saves you >50% of times.

 

[smash84]

well, nobody considers Bradman because that's playing with cheat mode on.

 

[Jono]

I thought it was fairly obvious that whenever anyone talks about someone batting for their life, it just means that they are picking a batsman who is least likely to get out.

yep

 

[watson]

lmao such a good post

Except by the same logic he's just excluded Bradman as his batsman of choice.

 

[viriya]

So this is assuming that "bat for your life" means you want whoever is going to bat longest? What if "bat for your life" means whoever makes the most runs, or whoever gets to 100, or entertains the crowd?

It assumes "bat for life" means not getting out.. those who survive the longest should be the ones picked.

 

[cnerd123]

People trying to downplay Bradman's greatness, Burgey over-selling the inferior AB, and Hurricane posting rubbish.

Nice to see not a lot has changed while I was gone.

I vote Bradman ftr

 

[smash84]

I thought that batting for your life means that the batter needs to bat a marathon innings and get to victory as well, not just a blockathon.

The late little master Hanif Mohammad worth a shout for long innings too

 

[Chrish]

]I thought that batting for your life means that the batter needs to bat a marathon innings and get to victory as well, not just a blockathon. [/B]

that's my interpretation as well.

 

[Chrish]

Even with Stickies, I'm still on Bradman. Presume he fails for you in 1/4 trials due to encountering a sticky. He wins the other 3 hands down.

If you set a bar for living at 50+ runs then the percentage of times certain players earn you reprieve is;

steve waugh - 31
allan border - 33
sunil gavaskar - 36
javad miandad - 34
rahul dravid - 34
sachin tendulkar - 36
jacques kallis - 36
graeme smith - 31
don bradman - 52

Of course - the argument is that stickies make Bradman a dunce. So presume he is an ultimate dunce and gets <50 in ALL of them but that every one else still maintains their 50+ rate (which is, frankly, irrational) then Bradman still saves you >39% of the time. Bradman is your best bet, even if he couldn't be arsed turning up after rain while the others did. If you raise the bar for living to 100+ runs Bradman wins hands down, even giving up double the proportion of sticky games to allow other pursuits, such as buying ice cream and such while you certainly die.

Mind you, you can not kill me during the age of Stickies, as I was not yet born, so it is a pointless consideration. If this evil genius holding your life to ransom over a cricket innings was evil genius enough to also possess a time machine, then, perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone else is your best bet.

Flawed logic tbh. When you are talking about this specific scenario, you have to be prepared for the worst possible conditions that player might face. And the fact is 'worst possible condition' is different for each player because of uniqueness of each era. So, when you think of Bradman you have to consider the possibility of sticky wicket. The same way if you are considering Sunny or Border you have to consider the possibility of them running into WI bowlers.

So taking the possibility of sticky into account, would you consider Bradman or would you consider Hobbs or Headley given the situation? I wont try to answer that for you.

Experts during that time period considered Bradman the best batsman with certain conditions attached. Like best player on good wickets while Hobbs the master of all wickets etc. There was an expert who even left out Bradman from his XI saying what if it rains? Reckon it was Frank Wooley.

 

[Chrish]

People trying to downplay Bradman's greatness, Burgey over-selling the inferior AB, and Hurricane posting rubbish.

Nice to see not a lot has changed while I was gone.

I vote Bradman ftr

Incorrect choice of words. No one is downplaying him in this thread.

 

[harsh.ag]

Flawed logic tbh. When you are talking about this specific scenario, you have to be prepared for the worst possible conditions that player might face. And the fact is 'worst possible condition' is different for each player because of uniqueness of each era. So, when you think of Bradman you have to consider the possibility of sticky wicket. The same way if you are considering Sunny or Border you have to consider the possibility of them running into WI bowlers.

So taking the possibility of sticky into account, would you consider Bradman or would you consider Hobbs or Headley given the situation? I wont try to answer that for you.

Experts during that time period considered Bradman the best batsman with certain conditions attached. Like best player on good wickets while Hobbs the master of all wickets etc. There was an expert who even left out Bradman from his XI saying what if it rains? Reckon it was Frank Wooley.

Let's say Bradman averaged 25 on sticky wickets, and Hobbs and Headley averaged 45 on them. Let's also say the probability of a sticky wicket being on offer is 10%. ****

Expected payoff from Bradman = 100 x 0.9 + 25 x 0.1 = 92.5

Expected payoff from Hobbs/Headley = 60 x 0.9 + 45 x 0.1 = 58.5

****Please feel free to use numbers of your choice.

 

[Chrish]

Let's say Bradman averaged 25 on sticky wickets, and Hobbs and Headley averaged 45 on them. Let's also say the probability of a sticky wicket being on offer is 10%. ****

Expected payoff from Bradman = 100 x 0.9 + 25 x 0.1 = 92.5

Expected payoff from Hobbs/Headley = 60 x 0.9 + 45 x 0.1 = 58.5

****Please feel free to use numbers of your choice.

Hence "I won't try to answer that for you"

If I am selecting life saving xi, then Bradman would definitely be a part of it considering if they get caught on sticky and if he fails, I would be hopeful of depending on other players

But if I can only select one batsman from uncovered wicket era then it would be Hobbs. Brilliant on sticky and not too shabby on good wickets either.