Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[RossTaylorsBox]

Would've had more sympathy if the guy was a Marxist keeper.

 

[Starfighter]

Interestingly, there was a ball in the over that should have been called (back foot on the return crease) that wasn't.

 

[social]

Sreesanth on my tv

 

[peterhrt]

Stevens's only games in 1997 seem to have been against Sussex and Cambridge U.
If he'd played against Sussex a couple of years earlier he might have met Eddie Hemmings, who began with Warwickshire in 1966 - last player I'm aware of whose FC county career spanned 30 seasons.

Stevens did play against Bill Athey, who in turn played against Tom Cartwright (debut 1952).

There are various combinations of 10 players who go back 250 years to 1772, the date of the first match now designated first-class. John Small senior, arguably the first outstanding batsman, appeared in this game. He was 35 years old with plenty of previous cricket experience.

Each player below appeared with or against his predecessor in a first-class match. All are English. Dates of completed first-class career indicated.

Darren Stevens 1997-2022 (to date)
Bill Athey 1976-97
Tom Cartwright 1952-77
Reg Perks 1930-55
Charlie Parker 1903-35
WG Grace 1865-1908
George Parr 1844-70
Fuller Pilch 1820-54
Lord Frederick Beauclerk 1791-1825
John Small senior 1772-98

 

[peterhrt]

An attempt for Australian cricketers, going back to the initial first-class match in Australia in 1851. Somebody may be able to reduce the links in the chain. Have avoided players like Tarrant who spent significant time based in England, but they do not appear able to reduce the number of links anyway.

Shaun Marsh 2001-23
Steve Waugh 1984-2004
Allan Border 1977-96
Bob Simpson 1953-78
Arthur Morris 1940-64
Clarrie Grimmett 1912-41
Clem Hill 1893-1924
Jack Blackham 1874-95
Sam Cosstick 1861-75
James Brodie 1851-61

There is a large overlap between Border and Waugh in particular.

 

[AndrewB]

Inverarity lasted from 1962 to 1985; does he help?

 

[peterhrt]

Inverarity lasted from 1962 to 1985; does he help?

He's a good shout. The dates looked promising as he could have linked Morris and Steve Waugh without the need for Simpson or Border, thus saving a link.

But it doesn't look as though he actually played with/against either of them. Morris's matches during the 1960s were for the International Cavaliers and Indian Board President's XI.

The challenge is probably to find two consecutive links between Grimmett and Waugh (1941-84) rather than three. Simpson is a bit of a cheat selection anyway as he retired for nine years.

 

[Shri]

BBC cancels 'Top Gear' filming after Freddie Flintoff accident | CNN

The BBC has halted production on the latest series of motoring show "Top Gear" following an investigation into an accident that left co-host Andrew "Freddie" Flintoff injured.

edition.cnn.com

Flintoff crashes his car again

 

[Hurricane2]

I think there should be a two batting averages
1) Traditional Batting average calculated as per normal
2) True Batting Average which is runs divided by innings and gives no credit for not outs.

True Batting Average is a more accurate version of how good someone is. It will punish lower order players who get plenty of not outs but they arent in the team for batting anyway. Over time once the hysteria and what will the children think reactions are gotten over people and statisticians will migrate to the True Batting average in comparisons between players and ATG conversations.
Michael Hussey won't like it who made a career of hiding down the order at number 6 but top order batsman won't see what the fuss is all about as they rarely get the opportunity to bat through an inning in the first place.

No Flames from people why don't like new ideas plox.

 

[Shri]

ok

 

[honestbharani]

Didn't Hussey bat 4 so that Clarke can keep batting at 5 for a while?

 

[thierry henry]

We won the Senior B grand final today (it’s 4am, so yesterday I guess). I love youse all.

 

[AndrewB]

Some players whose "true batting average" is considerably lower than their traditional average:
Shaun Pollock: 24.24 (32.32)
Ravindra Jadeja: 28.67 (36.57)
Wilfred Rhodes: 23.72 (30.19)
Imran Khan: 30.21 (37.69)
Steve Waugh: 42.19 (51.06)
Shiv Chanderpaul: 42.53 (51.37)
Andy Flower: 42.80 (51.55)
Allan Border: 42.33 (50.56)
Les Ames: 34.28 (40.57)
Adam Gilchrist: 40.66 (47.61)

(also from shorter careers: Dempster drops from 65.73 to 48.20; Voges from 61.88 to 47.90).

And some players whose averages aren't much affected:
Clem Hill: 38.34 (39.22)
Brian Lara: 51.52 (52.89)
Graham Gooch: 41.40 (42.58)
Ian Botham: 32.50 (33.55)
Virender Sehwag: 47.70 (49.34)

Players with 2000+ runs and a "true average" of 50+:
Don Bradman: 88.56
Graeme Pollock: 55.02
Everton Weekes: 55.00
Herbert Sutcliffe: 54.88
George Headley: 54.75
Kumar Sangakkara: 53.45
Jack Hobbs: 53.04
Marnus Labuschagne: 53.03
Clyde Walcott: 52.03
Steve Smith: 52.02
Ken Barrington: 51.95
Wally Hammond: 51.78
Brian Lara: 51.52
Len Hutton: 50.51
Gary Sobers: 50.20

 

[Starfighter]

I think there should be a two batting averages
1) Traditional Batting average calculated as per normal
2) True Batting Average which is runs divided by innings and gives no credit for not outs.

True Batting Average is a more accurate version of how good someone is. It will punish lower order players who get plenty of not outs but they arent in the team for batting anyway. Over time once the hysteria and what will the children think reactions are gotten over people and statisticians will migrate to the True Batting average in comparisons between players and ATG conversations.
Michael Hussey won't like it who made a career of hiding down the order at number 6 but top order batsman won't see what the fuss is all about as they rarely get the opportunity to bat through an inning in the first place.

Remaining not out means giving up runs the not out batsman could have scored if they had more partners.

In order for your assertion to be correct, you would need to prove the increase in average from remaining not out is greater than the potential runs lost.

Batting average is the true batting average - it's runs divided by how many times the batsman is actually out.

 

[Daemon]

Remaining not out means giving up runs the not out batsman could have scored if they had more partners.

In order for your assertion to be correct, you would need to prove the increase in average from remaining not out is greater than the potential runs lost.

Would average complete vs incomplete innings be the best way to show this?

Still limitations there of course. Doesn’t account for the fact that you often lose your wicket trying to hit out which hurts your ‘true’ average.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah a lot of guys at #5 run out of time to go huge despite being good enough, and #5 is still an important role. 3 for **** all isn't fun and more likely to see you run out of partners than a mass pile on for 500.

 

[Howe_zat]

The problem with runs per innings it's that it's too connected to circumstance. It'd be a measure of what happened, but not a good measure of that player's batting skill. There are plenty of situations where finishing not out is better batting for a team than being dismissed (especially in chases). And even if it doesn't matter much tactically, it's not hard to find situations where a 'true batting average' needlessly penalises a player - imagine going out to bat in the 4th innings chasing 2 runs to win, being the non-stiker, and knowing that regardless of what happens next your record is taking a hit for being the one who bothered to put your pads on. May as well shoulder arms to a straight one and make the next guy cop it as well.

I think a stats system that regards, under some circumstances, a stout forward defensive as being the same thing as allowing yourself to be bowled probably has flaws.

So what do you want batting average to be? I think if you're saying batting average shouldn't reflect how well someone's played and instead should be more about literally how many runs do you expect them to score today then yes, runs per innings is probably better. But if you're saying 'this guy isn't that good, their average is that way becuase they're dismissed less often', then I feel like you've underestimated how much not getting out is an important aspect of batting.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think an alternate batting average concept with a lot more legs in it is the batting median. But I haven't ever looked at it much detail.

 

[Athlai]

Some players whose "true batting average" is considerably lower than their traditional average:
Shaun Pollock: 24.24 (32.32)
Ravindra Jadeja: 28.67 (36.57)
Wilfred Rhodes: 23.72 (30.19)
Imran Khan: 30.21 (37.69)
Steve Waugh: 42.19 (51.06)
Shiv Chanderpaul: 42.53 (51.37)
Andy Flower: 42.80 (51.55)
Allan Border: 42.33 (50.56)
Les Ames: 34.28 (40.57)
Adam Gilchrist: 40.66 (47.61)

(also from shorter careers: Dempster drops from 65.73 to 48.20; Voges from 61.88 to 47.90).

And some players whose averages aren't much affected:
Clem Hill: 38.34 (39.22)
Brian Lara: 51.52 (52.89)
Graham Gooch: 41.40 (42.58)
Ian Botham: 32.50 (33.55)
Virender Sehwag: 47.70 (49.34)

Players with 2000+ runs and a "true average" of 50+:
Don Bradman: 88.56
Graeme Pollock: 55.02
Everton Weekes: 55.00
Herbert Sutcliffe: 54.88
George Headley: 54.75
Kumar Sangakkara: 53.45
Jack Hobbs: 53.04
Marnus Labuschagne: 53.03
Clyde Walcott: 52.03
Steve Smith: 52.02
Ken Barrington: 51.95
Wally Hammond: 51.78
Brian Lara: 51.52
Len Hutton: 50.51
Gary Sobers: 50.20

@Burgey
Ab is trash confirmed

 

[trundler]

Clem Hill ATG confirmed