-
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.
Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread
- Thread starter Daemon
- Start date
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Strangely enough I was thinking more or less the same thing about Funky Miller the other day
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...match-kwibuka-womens-twenty20-tournament-2019
Mali Women bowled out for 6 by Rwanda Women.
Mali Women bowled out for 6 by Rwanda Women.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
cnerd123
likes this
I was thinking about ways to quantitatively measure a player's involvement in a game.
When we speak about a player's involvement within a game, we tend to think about how many deliveries they bowled/batted/fielded. A player whose had a big game is one that has batted or bowled a huge amount. A high impact player is one who, within a relatively small amount of deliveries, has a big influence on the outcome of a game.
When it comes to batsmen and bowlers, a player who has faced or bowled more deliveries can be said to have had a greater degree of involvement within a game than the others. But how would you compare between a batsman and a bowler? Does one delivery bowled equal to one delivery batted? That sounds about right to me. But, in theory, there is a limit to how much a bowler can bowl - even if they don't have a quota, they can still only bowl from just one end. So they can only bowl between 20% (LO) to 50% (Multi Day) of the deliveries their team bowls. Batsmen could, in theory, face every single ball. So is this a fair comparison? Batsmen may never get a chance to bat, or can be dismissed after just one ball. A bowler gets atleast 6 (unless they get injured mid-over). So it seems that the range of a batsman's involvement in a game has large extremes (literally from 0 to 'the whole innings'), but a bowlers is within a smaller range. Do we still equate one ball faced to one ball bowled?
And how about a wicket-keeper's involvement in a game? A wicketkeeper clearly is more important than the fielder you park at fine leg. The question is - are they involved for every single delivery in a fielding innings? Or do you only count the balls they actually have to collect? Is a wicket-keepers involvement during any given delivery the same of that of a random fielder's (IE - they're only involved if the ball goes to them), or is their involvement higher because they're in such a critical position?
Speaking of which - not every fielder's involvement is the same either. We know that. At different stages of the game, the ball is more likely to travel to different areas of the ground, and you need your best fielders in those areas. That means that two fielders in the same team in the same game can have drastically different involvement in the game. But quantifying this could be next to impossible. Do you just measure the number of balls fielded? What about a fielder who is parked at slip but never has an edge come their way? They have to be a lot more focused and involved that some of the other fielders, but when quantifying it you'll end us just saying they had no involvement, which isn't true.
Thoughts?
When we speak about a player's involvement within a game, we tend to think about how many deliveries they bowled/batted/fielded. A player whose had a big game is one that has batted or bowled a huge amount. A high impact player is one who, within a relatively small amount of deliveries, has a big influence on the outcome of a game.
When it comes to batsmen and bowlers, a player who has faced or bowled more deliveries can be said to have had a greater degree of involvement within a game than the others. But how would you compare between a batsman and a bowler? Does one delivery bowled equal to one delivery batted? That sounds about right to me. But, in theory, there is a limit to how much a bowler can bowl - even if they don't have a quota, they can still only bowl from just one end. So they can only bowl between 20% (LO) to 50% (Multi Day) of the deliveries their team bowls. Batsmen could, in theory, face every single ball. So is this a fair comparison? Batsmen may never get a chance to bat, or can be dismissed after just one ball. A bowler gets atleast 6 (unless they get injured mid-over). So it seems that the range of a batsman's involvement in a game has large extremes (literally from 0 to 'the whole innings'), but a bowlers is within a smaller range. Do we still equate one ball faced to one ball bowled?
And how about a wicket-keeper's involvement in a game? A wicketkeeper clearly is more important than the fielder you park at fine leg. The question is - are they involved for every single delivery in a fielding innings? Or do you only count the balls they actually have to collect? Is a wicket-keepers involvement during any given delivery the same of that of a random fielder's (IE - they're only involved if the ball goes to them), or is their involvement higher because they're in such a critical position?
Speaking of which - not every fielder's involvement is the same either. We know that. At different stages of the game, the ball is more likely to travel to different areas of the ground, and you need your best fielders in those areas. That means that two fielders in the same team in the same game can have drastically different involvement in the game. But quantifying this could be next to impossible. Do you just measure the number of balls fielded? What about a fielder who is parked at slip but never has an edge come their way? They have to be a lot more focused and involved that some of the other fielders, but when quantifying it you'll end us just saying they had no involvement, which isn't true.
Thoughts?
Bijed
International Regular
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
How about not overthinking things and just watching the match?
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
TIL that I have been spelling Tony Dodemaide's name wrong the whole time.
Feel like a complete dipstick
Feel like a complete dipstick
aussie tragic
International Captain
I didn't know Thailand had a cricket team...
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...st-match-malaysia-tri-nation-t20i-series-2019
Only recognize 3 names as being Thai though, so hardly seems worth it?
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...st-match-malaysia-tri-nation-t20i-series-2019
Only recognize 3 names as being Thai though, so hardly seems worth it?
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
cnerd123
likes this
Thailand's women's team is really legit. They're ranked 12th in the world in T20Is at the moment, and are arguably the best Women's Associate Side. They've got some pretty good grounds and facilities out in Thailand as well.
Men's team isn't as good. IDK for sure, but a lot of those players will have been either born in Thailand, or lived there long enough to be considered a national. If Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid can play for England, then I fail to see your concern here. Obviously it's worth them having a national team. Why wouldn't it be?
aussie tragic
International Captain
As a Thai resident, I know that no-one can immigrate to Thailand and even if you marry a Thai you are only a temporary resident required to renew your visa every year (and report location every 90 days). So unless these guys are born in Thailand to a Thai parent, not sure how they can be considered a national, and I would just prefer a Thai team to be Thai nationals if I'm going to follow them.
I think I might research the womens team and follow them though if they're legit, thanks
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah I've been spelling it Toni this whole time too
