30 Test hundreds

[Burgey]

Ponting in Mark Howard's podcast was interesting, talked about how he knew he'd probably reached his peak in 2006 at his 100th Test, that things on a personal note wouldn't get much better.

How good was that podcast? Absolutely brilliant.

Can't believe Cricket Tasmania changed the junior cricket rules so you had to retire at 30 because he didn't get out once in two years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is pointless. Go to bed everyone.

But I just woke up

 

[srbhkshk]

But I just woke up

best time to go to bed

 

[Spark]

Apologies in advance if I come across as insensitive, but obviously he had technical deficiencies against more than just spin. I can recall him getting out against the short stuff numerous times - gloved down leg or caught short-leg - against the quick men.

Devastating player when on song though.

Only late on in his career. You bowled short to him at your absolute peril at his peak.

He had a bit of a problem with outswing and seam outside off stump, but most do.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hughes went through some severe form slumps, as well as peaks in form. The fact that one or 2 of his severe form slumps coincided with high-profile runs in the national team lead many to somewhat lazily decide it was "issues with technique" and "weaknesses".

 

[mr_mister]

wait what? How is that impressive at all.

20 is a **** average for a batsman

the theory being if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side you'd average 80 against the team

 

[honestbharani]

lol @ Daemon and TJB not getting basic stuff.. TJB I can understand but Daemon, FFS..


You face at least two bowlers if you average 20 against one of them. Take any batsman who has made a 100 and the maximum he would have scored against a bowler would be 30 and average would be 20 against regular bowlers (each of them). Hence, if you average 20 against 1 bowler out of a 4 man attack, it is usually a sign that you are doing pretty damn well.

 

[honestbharani]

the theory being if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side you'd average 80 against the team

Its not theory though... Over a period of time, it will be real coz that is how cricket works. The whole batsman X averages so and so against bowler Y is the most meaningless stat most arm chair fans who never played the game have come up with, AFAIC. Its just preposterous that some of the commentators today have started paying attention to it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

the theory being if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side you'd average 80 against the team

lol, not quite how averages work

if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side, you average 20 against a team

lol @ Daemon and TJB not getting basic stuff.. TJB I can understand but Daemon, FFS..


You face at least two bowlers if you average 20 against one of them. Take any batsman who has made a 100 and the maximum he would have scored against a bowler would be 30 and average would be 20 against regular bowlers (each of them). Hence, if you average 20 against 1 bowler out of a 4 man attack, it is usually a sign that you are doing pretty damn well.

hb . . . this is a new low even for you

averaging 20 against a bowler means that for every 1 time that bowler gets you out you score 20 runs

honestly you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much on here if your attitude wasn't so juvenile and asinine

 

[OverratedSanity]

Everyone agrees it's a meaningless stat anyway, so who cares about this ****

 

[TheJediBrah]

Its not theory though... Over a period of time, it will be real coz that is how cricket works. The whole batsman X averages so and so against bowler Y is the most meaningless stat most arm chair fans who never played the game have come up with, AFAIC. Its just preposterous that some of the commentators today have started paying attention to it.

Everyone agrees it's a meaningless stat anyway, so who cares about this ****

what? How is it a meaningless stat at all? It's one of the most meaningful stats there is.

It directly tells you the result of a contest between a specific batsman and a specific bowler

 

[TheJediBrah]

For example, hypothetically, if Ricky Ponting averaged 15 against Muralitharan, that shows unequivocally that over the course of their careers Ponting did a lot worse against Murali than other bowlers on average. Also that Ponting did worse against Murali that the average batsman did (because 15 is lower than Murali's bowling average).

In general it would just tell you that Murali had the wood over Ponting.

And you could do that for anyone. If that's isn't a meaningful stat then nothing is.

 

[OverratedSanity]

what? How is it a meaningless stat at all? It's one of the most meaningful stats there is.

It directly tells you the result of a contest between a specific batsman and a specific bowler

It's meaningless because batsmen play against the attack as a whole, not a bowler. The great players often see out the best bowlers and target the weaker ones. It doesn't really matter who he actually scores the runs against. Scoring only 10 runs against Steyn before getting out shouldn't be seen as a failure if you get 120 runs off the others.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's meaningless because batsmen play against the attack as a whole, not a bowler. The great players often see out the best bowlers and target the weaker ones. It doesn't really matter who he actually scores the runs against. Scoring only 10 runs against Steyn before getting out shouldn't be seen as a failure if you get 120 runs off the others.

Never thought of it that way. Still wouldn't say it's meaningless at all. Averaging 10 against Steyn shows that the batsman struggled immensely against Steyn, regardless of how he played the rest of the attack. Using your example, even if he were seeing off Steyn, getting out once for every 10 runs scored is still terrible.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That assumes he's getting out to Steyn every single time, which is very unlikely.

And really, more often than not it's a cosncious decision not to take risks against the better bowlers, not a sign that the batsman is struggling.

 

[Victor Ian]

i'd imagine it is very meaningless because of way too small sample sizes. Most times you are wooing at a sample of 10.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That assumes he's getting out to Steyn every single time, which is very unlikely.

And really, more often than not it's a cosncious decision not to take risks against the better bowlers, not a sign that the batsman is struggling.

What no it's not.

If he scores 10 runs against Steyn each innings for 5 innings, and only gets out to Steyn in one of those innings, he is averaging 50 against Steyn.
For him to average 10 against Steyn he has to get out to Steyn in every one of those 5 innings. That's how averages work.

edit: it could also mean that he scores 5 against Steyn every innings and Steyn gets him out every 2nd innings. You don't have to assume anything with averages. If you average 10 it means that mathematically you score 10 runs for every time you get out.

 

[J_C]

I think TestMatch was referring to Ponting averaging in the 20s against SA in matches involving Steyn which is true.

 

[indiaholic]

Sure but he has scores of 101, 99, 53, 83, 81 and 62 in that. Has 5 ducks too..

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think TestMatch was referring to Ponting averaging in the 20s against SA in matches involving Steyn which is true.

Doesn't this only count those innings where Steyn actually got Ponting out? Rather pointless.