flair in batting

[Mr. P]

This thread is going to get closed if we don't stop arguing, I guarentee it...

 

[Jnr.]

Can't we just say that Australia = India batting (in terms of runs), but generally India > Australia batting (in terms of style), and leave it at that?

 

[chicane]

Here you go...

In the last 2 years

Australia average 47.8 runs per wicket (scoring at 3.89 rpo)
First 6 wickets in that time average 64.9 runs per wicket at 4.08rpo

India average 39.1 runs per wicket (scoring at 3.21rpo)
First 6 wickets in that time average 56.8 runs per wicket at 3.36rpo

Looks pretty much in favour of Australia batting wise.

Just as a comparison (not making any point with this, just to put it into context)
England in the last two years have averaged 36.6 runs per wicket at 3.18rpo
First 6 wickets in that time 45.6 per wicket at 3.39 rpo.

Sometimes we had openers who fell quickly exposing the middle order to the new ball. Ponting and the rest have always had a cosy platform to freely play shots and score briskly. But off-late our openers have been better, giving the middle order a better chance to show what they're made of. And our tail has always been weak, not to mention our wicket keepers. Parthiv has been superb with the bat, and Pathan has really added some steel to the tail.

 

[tooextracool]

over a fairly long period of time, these things even out...i dont intend on getting too anal about these things.

In test cricket you have to play on all types of pitch, vs all types of bowler of varied standards.

The fact of the matter is that Australia have had a more successful batting line up than India over the last 2 years, and indeed over the last 3 years, 4 years, 5 years etc etc.

i agree with you that the aussie batting lineup is better although i dont think those stats go on to prove that they are though.

 

[Waughney]

This thread is going to get closed if we don't stop arguing, I guarentee it...

NO, Chicane and I are having a decent arguement, just keep it down a bit TEC and Kotcha

 

[Mr. P]

Sometimes we had openers who fell quickly exposing the middle order to the new ball. Ponting and the rest have always had a cosy platform to freely play shots and score briskly. But off-late our openers have been better, giving the middle order a better chance to show what they're made of. And our tail has always been weak, not to mention our wicket keepers. Parthiv has been superb with the bat, and Pathan has really added some steel to the tail.

Are you using this as an excuse?

 

[Swervy]

i do

indeed.....


why not just say we will only include the figures in games where India won and Australia lost the game,on a batsmans paradise,where the temperature was over 25C at 1.30pm on the third day,and where a red crested oogle-ooggle bird flew over the ground at 3.30 on the fourth day....

maybe then India might have better figures in those conditions...however statsguru doesnt have the relevent filters to find those figures out

 

[Sudeep]

Can't we just say that Australia = India batting (in terms of runs), but generally India > Australia batting (in terms of style), and leave it at that?

Yes, I can definitely say that. Not sure about other Indians here.

 

[chicane]

I have to say I have gained much respect for Sudeep throughout this 'conversation'

I won't add any further. Nearly all of this has been largely bias Indians and Australians throwing largely predictably punches at each other. However I feel the most bias of all have been chicane and koch_cha. Some of the comments made me laugh hysterically.

Bias will be there in competitive sport like this esp. when such a series is round the corner. And oh holier than thou being, if something makes you laugh can you please point it out rather than hiding and backstabbing.

 

[Waughney]

Sometimes we had openers who fell quickly exposing the middle order to the new ball. Ponting and the rest have always had a cosy platform to freely play shots and score briskly. But off-late our openers have been better, giving the middle order a better chance to show what they're made of. And our tail has always been weak, not to mention our wicket keepers. Parthiv has been superb with the bat, and Pathan has really added some steel to the tail.

These stats are for the first 6 wickets to fall therefore excluding the tail.

 

[tooextracool]

NO, Chicane and I are having a decent arguement, just keep it down a bit TEC and Kotcha

eh?dont try to act like an angel wise guy......

 

[Mr. P]

indeed.....


why not just say we will only include the figures in games where India won and Australia lost the game,on a batsmans paradise,where the temperature was over 25C at 1.30pm on the third day,and where a red crested oogle-ooggle bird flew over the ground at 3.30 on the fourth day....

maybe then India might have better figures in those conditions...however statsguru doesnt have the relevent filters to find those figures out

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!

Good, relevant call.

 

[Swervy]

Sometimes we had openers who fell quickly exposing the middle order to the new ball. Ponting and the rest have always had a cosy platform to freely play shots and score briskly. But off-late our openers have been better, giving the middle order a better chance to show what they're made of. And our tail has always been weak, not to mention our wicket keepers. Parthiv has been superb with the bat, and Pathan has really added some steel to the tail.

oh right..so because your opening pair are dodgy then we shouldnt include the first wicket in any analysis.....

My word

 

[Mr. P]

Bias will be there in competitive sport like this esp. when such a series is round the corner. And oh holier than thou being, if something makes you laugh can you please point it out rather than hiding and backstabbing.

If that was backstabbing then....

Anywho, I already have pointed them out. Read back in the thread.

 

[chicane]

why exclude them, they play test cricket...or do you think India might come out more favourably

Isn't that obvious? And Australia have played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh at home!

 

[Waughney]

Can't we just say that Australia = India batting (in terms of runs), but generally India > Australia batting (in terms of style), and leave it at that?

A bit like what I said before, there are so many aspects you can look at this from style, consistency, results, conditions, opposition etc. etc. with both teams coming on top on a number off occasions.

 

[delkap]

i suggest put a stop to mindless arguments, lest it develops into a ind against aus word-war with patriotism running higher than logic...

 

[Mr. P]

i suggest put a stop to mindless arguments, lest it develops into a ind against aus word-war with patriotism running higher than logic...

You're a bit late there delkap, it already has.

 

[Waughney]

eh?dont try to act like an angel wise guy......

You two (TEC and kotcha) were going on about eachother's posts (off topic) putting the thread in danger of being closed, which I don't wan't

 

[chicane]

oh right..so because your opening pair are dodgy then we shouldnt include the first wicket in any analysis.....

My word

Yeah and you just go ahead with those stats and believe what you want. We have had problems with openers, somehting which is very crucial, if you must be told so. Seems any numbers will convince you outright.