flair in batting

[biased indian]

How do those numbers stack up when compared with the Australian batting line-up? A look at Australia's record over the same period shows that their dependence on a good start is far lesser: when the first wicket goes down for less than 25, they still, on an average, end up scoring more than 400 (41.07 runs per wicket, which translates into an innings total of 410). Also, the average-runs-per-wicket figure goes up significantly only when the openers add more than 150.

While the Australian have, on an average, shown lesser reliance on good starts to post mammoth scores, almost all their biggest totals have been based on solid beginnings. Only one of their top 15 totals during this period came when the opening partnership failed to cross 20, and that was against Bangladesh at Cairns, when the first wicket fell at 14 and Australia ended up with a score of 556 for 4.

just look into this all can see our middle order doesnot
depend on opening pair(cricinfo numbers game)

 

[delkap]

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

i did point this out earlier....looks like u r right though..

 

[tooextracool]

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

all i said was i had no clue what his point was.....
ahh nevermind i think i better play a bit of cricket craziness the record for which i broke just yesterday first man to 400!!

 

[chicane]

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

He mentioned both, though you get the idea I hope. K just think, how come after the disastrous NZ tour, then average NZ series at home, India played so well in Australia? Wasn't a lot of credit given to Sehwag and Chopra for the middle-order performances? That's why the middle order found it's feet again. Same with when India went to OZ in '99.

 

[Waughney]

all i said was i had no clue what his point was.....
ahh nevermind i think i better play a bit of cricket craziness the record for which i broke just yesterday first man to 400!!

no worries, just a couple of people (ie. Mr. Ponting) pointed out that it was getting a bit too heated

 

[Swervy]

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

well Zimbabwe werent a push over with Streak etc in the bowling line up(it wasnt that long ago since Zimbabwe beat India by bowling India out cheaply twice,5 wickets by Blignaut etc))....and to be honest I dont think bangladesh have been that bad really becuase of the bowling,more to do with the horrific batting collapses they have.

so why should we exclude those figures..if that was the case Hayden didnt break the world record score,because it was against Zimbabwe

 

[Mr. P]

all i said was i had no clue what his point was.....
ahh nevermind i think i better play a bit of cricket craziness the record for which i broke just yesterday

I held it for a week though.

I just can't go well anymore. For some reason, I've stopped being able to play the staight drive well.

 

[Mr. P]

OK everyone i'm off. It's midnight in Aussie and I need shut eye. Don't kill each other.

 

[Waughney]

He mentioned both, though you get the idea I hope. K just think, how come after the disastrous NZ tour, then average NZ series at home, India played so well in Australia? Wasn't a lot of credit given to Sehwag and Chopra for the middle-order performances? That's why the middle order found it's feet again. Same with when India went to OZ in '99.

No doubt India is a top side. And they are improving. Just remember the NZ home series saw some of the flattest pitches ever
Don't get your comment about '99 though

 

[chicane]

If that was backstabbing then....

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

Now who's being illogical and biased? (assuming it was Ponting) What was more hilarious waswhen you hinted at Mark Waugh being more thrilling to watch than SRT. Oh...

 

[Swervy]

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.

its called trying to take an objective look at the facts.

beleive it or not, if you have a dodgy first wicket, then that has to be considered when discussing the relative strengths of a batting line up.

You are right, the problems with the openers is very crucial,and that is why that must be looked at

 

[Mr. P]

Now who's being illogical and biased? (assuming it was Ponting) What was more hilarious waswhen you hinted at Mark Waugh being more thrilling to watch than SRT. Oh...

Not thrilling, elegant. Read closer.

 

[chicane]

well Zimbabwe werent a push over with Streak etc in the bowling line up(it wasnt that long ago since Zimbabwe beat India by bowling India out cheaply twice,5 wickets by Blignaut etc))....and to be honest I dont think bangladesh have been that bad really becuase of the bowling,more to do with the horrific batting collapses they have.

so why should we exclude those figures..if that was the case Hayden didnt break the world record score,because it was against Zimbabwe

Ooooh so they had Streak! What a fool I've been, and let's not forget Blessing Mahwire! Hayden's record is acclaimed for it's sheer magnitude, yet it wasn't exactly one of the best of all-time, unlike BCL's 375 and 400*.

 

[chicane]

its called trying to take an objective look at the facts.

beleive it or not, if you have a dodgy first wicket, then that has to be considered when discussing the relative strengths of a batting line up.

You are right, the problems with the openers is very crucial,and that is why that must be looked at

Just remember to never take stats outright, it has to be reasoned with. And incase you've been asleep and are not aware, India are beginning to find a solution to their opening problem and that's whythe batting has performed so well over the past 7 odd tests.

 

[Waughney]

OK everyone i'm off. It's midnight in Aussie and I need shut eye. Don't kill each other.

I'd better head off to. I just hope that when I wake up that this thread isn't closed

 

[delkap]

I am off as well.. End this argument peacefully...

PS: Posted this just to reach 200 posts

 

[chicane]

No doubt India is a top side. And they are improving. Just remember the NZ home series saw some of the flattest pitches ever
Don't get your comment about '99 though

In '99 our batting failed miserably, and one of the reasons was not having a good opening pair. I think that was pointed out several times in the form of comparison in the recent series TV coverage.

 

[chicane]

Not thrilling, elegant. Read closer.

You said Waugh is better to watch than SRT, and that's plain ridiculous.(or extremely biased )

 

[Jnr.]

Mark Waugh is better to watch than SRT, in terms of elegance, which is what Mr. Ponting is getting at.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

guys guys guys, first off thanx for digging this topic up, I forgot I even made it

but grrrr you are all having a slugfest.

I have to agree with the aussies that their batting lineup is overall better. Though a couple of you said, Ponting > Dravid, which I have to disagree with. Dravid is the first guy I will have in my world test team. As for style/elegance/flair, I will have Laxman, Lara, Sachin, M. Waugh, Dravid in that order.