*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[Mr Miyagi]

1.) No
2.) Yes

Okay, I'll go

1) Yes
2) Yes

and put it all on Rooooooooooooooooot.

 

[CricAddict]

Though Kohli garners all the glory in the aftermath that innings, in the Anderson-Kohli sweepstakes, it is Anderson 1 - Kohli 0

Not specific to this, but when a guy scores 150 odd and then the bowler dismisses him, is it the bowler or the batsman who won the battle?

 

[Pratters]

The batsman. Old cricket adage: Doesn't matter how the runs come as long as they come, runs on the board etc.

 

[Borges]

Not specific to this, but when a guy scores 150 odd and then the bowler dismisses him, is it the bowler or the batsman who won the battle?

Depends on how the batsman had played that particular bowler.

What if a batsman was repeatedly beaten by a bowler through a significant portion of the innings, but survived with a fair dose of luck to eventually remain unbeaten on 257 and lead his team to victory?
What if a batsman completely dominated a bowler throughout the innings, but eventually fell to the same bowler, agonisingly short of marshalling the side home?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Not specific to this, but when a guy scores 150 odd and then the bowler dismisses him, is it the bowler or the batsman who won the battle?

Too contextual. How many runs were needed, what was the surface doing, or in this case, what were the England slips doing?

Kohli played very very well with the tail, and that should be celebrated for the fine performance it is. But Jimmy was definitely bowling well early on to Kohli and but for better fieldsmen, had him.

It is shaping up to a nice contest between these two. Jimmy is clearly targetting Kohli. That was nearly 15 overs on the trott yesterday.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not specific to this, but when a guy scores 150 odd and then the bowler dismisses him, is it the bowler or the batsman who won the battle?

Add up the runs scored of the batsman against that particular bowler, then compare it to their respective career averages. Whoever's average the number of runs is closer to wins.

eg. if Kohli made 25 runs against Anderson and Anderson got him out, then Anderson wins easily. if Kohli made 50 runs of Anderson then Kohli wins.

(if you really want to put into numbers something quite subjective, which I do)

 

[CricAddict]

Add up the runs scored of the batsman against that particular bowler, then compare it to their respective career averages. Whoever's average the number of runs is closer to wins.

eg. if Kohli made 25 runs against Anderson and Anderson got him out, then Anderson wins easily. if Kohli made 50 runs of Anderson then Kohli wins.

(if you really want to put into numbers something quite subjective, which I do)

I don't think this is a correct validation. It is 90% in favour of the bowler in this case. Even if the batsman scores a century by scoring 25 runs off all the 4 bowlers, the batsman in this case loses against all the bowlers. While I agree that this topic is quite subjective, I don't think that the above is the right methodology to judge.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think this is a correct validation. It is 90% in favour of the bowler in this case. Even if the batsman scores a century by scoring 25 runs off all the 4 bowlers, the batsman in this case loses against all the bowlers. While I agree that this topic is quite subjective, I don't think that the above is the right methodology to judge.

Nah because if the bowler doesn't get the batsman out then the batsman automatically wins, it's like the batsman making a not out. Of course it's not perfect, but it's as close as you're going to get to being able to quantify it IMO (at least simply).

 

[Arachnodouche]

Kohli would have to be incredibly disingenuous to think Anderson doesn't have the wood (heh heh) on him anymore. Luck won't hold if this pattern keeps up.

 

[cnerd123]

Indian this week?

If anything that post reads more like a Kohli fan rather than an Indian one

 

[harsh.ag]

Nah because if the bowler doesn't get the batsman out then the batsman automatically wins, it's like the batsman making a not out. Of course it's not perfect, but it's as close as you're going to get to being able to quantify it IMO (at least simply).

While there is some value to your method, I think CricAddict has it right. For any bowler to claim victory over any batsman, he has to either dominate the batsman (like Anderson did Kohli yesterday) or he has to dismiss the batsman before he gets to a high score. If the batsman scores a 100 with 25 runs against each of the 4 bowlers while looking pretty solid, no way the bowler who claims his wicket then get to think of it as a victory.

 

[vcs]

Test match batting is all about riding out the tough spells and preying on the weak and tired. As long as a batsman survives long enough to make a big score, he wins.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah because if the bowler doesn't get the batsman out then the batsman automatically wins, it's like the batsman making a not out. Of course it's not perfect, but it's as close as you're going to get to being able to quantify it IMO (at least simply).

Still think it's a bad metric tbh. A batsman isn't really looking to score of each bowler. His job is to score off the attack as a whole. He can score 5 off one bowler and score 120 off the others and still legitimately say he won the battle.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Test match batting is all about riding out the tough spells and preying on the weak and tired. As long as a batsman survives long enough to make a big score, he wins.

Did you see any evidence of him making adjustments against Anderson?

 

[cnerd123]

Speaking as a bowler, I agree. It's a empty victory if a batsman doesn't score off me but still goes on to play a match winning innings.

I think of every spell against a batsman as a battle. In the end, the net winner is who wins those battles more over the course of a career - and I think this is best measured by what TJB suggests - a batsman's average against an individual bowler

 

[vcs]

Did you see any evidence of him making adjustments against Anderson?

Anderson is always going to trouble him, or any other batsman ever, if he bowls as well as he did yesterday. Sometimes you just have to give credit to the other guy.

I'm not going off this innings alone, which had a big dollop of luck, but Kohli has made runs when the ball swings, as much as people may want to convince you otherwise. e.g. Jo'burg 2013. England 2014 was just a bad run of form for him. Even earlier this year in the 3rd Test vs. SA, he made 100 runs in some of the toughest batting conditions you will ever see. And there was no weak link in that SA attack, unlike Broad yesterday. If Broad had been at his best, India would not have crossed 100.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, he moved across his stumps more to cover the outswing. I posted last night that it would get him nailed lbw by one that comes back in, but the problem for Anderson these days is he's basically drifting it rather than swinging it and the batsman has time to adjust due tot he lack of pace, even though Anderson did bowl a number of inswingers to Kohli which hurried him a little bit (but not enough to nail him).
- Burgey

 

[TheJediBrah]

Still think it's a bad metric tbh. A batsman isn't really looking to score of each bowler. His job is to score off the attack as a whole. He can score 5 off one bowler and score 120 off the others and still legitimately say he won the battle.

Ok where's your better metric

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ok where's your better metric

There is none. Its not a one on one sport so it's tough to draw conclusions for any player v player stats.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There is none

Then why you having a crack at mine :'(