Gilchrist v Dhoni

[Athlai]

They're not scoring half those runs though! They're scoring the same amount of runs, just scoring them over the course of two innings instead of in one. It may be a lesser contribution- although considering that in Dhoni's case it means India have won I'd dispute even that- but it's no less difficult. The man who scores 35*, 35 has done EXACTLY the same thing as the guy who scores 70.

Actually if we extend this slightly further and throw in a duck it would appear they haven't.

Player A: 35*, 35, 0 = 70 @ 35
Played B: 70, 70, 0 = 140 @ 46.67

(Ikki did say two 70s right?)

 

[vic_orthdox]

You're not comparing like with like: one batsman has been defeated twice by the bowlers, the other only once. And yes the one who's been defeated twice has scored twice the aggregate runs and in that respect has contributed more, but that's because he has been given the opportunity to contribute more (when he got his 35* he was either left stranded by running out of partners, or he won the game for his team, etc).

But which is the better batsman? Which of the two has more ability? I say Mr 35

In one day cricket, when you come in and fielding restrictions aren't in play, then getting a start really isn't that hard as compared to the longer, and possibly shorter, format.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yep when it comes to making big scores the element of concentration comes into play. Which as I've acknowledged is the factor that my/uppercut's argument leaves out of account. But when we're talking about 35no and 35 v 70, the tricky start point is IMHO decisive

Disagree. Not that it's not a factor but that it's decisive.

 

[Ikki]

They're not scoring half those runs though! They're scoring the same amount of runs, just scoring them over the course of two innings instead of in one. It may be a lesser contribution- although considering that in Dhoni's case it means India have won I'd dispute even that- but it's no less difficult. The man who scores 35*, 35 has done EXACTLY the same thing as the guy who scores 70.

Two 70s btw so that is half the runs. You compare 2 innings with 2 innings, not just 1. And the only thing they've done exactly the same is score as many runs per dismissal.

In fact, something that just came to me is the fact that Dhoni scores more runs per innings anyway. So Dhoni comes out better regardless and it isn't a point that would overturn the difference. It would lessen it however.

 

[Top_Cat]

In one day cricket, when you come in and fielding restrictions aren't in play, then getting a start really isn't that hard as compared to the longer, and possibly shorter, format.

Agreed completely. Think UC and Z are overestimating how difficult it is to get going with the field out.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I love Dhoni, because he takes the responsibility so often and gets his team home. It's so invaluable.

Someone spoke earlier of how Gilchrist only "batted one way", seemingly marking him down for it. That's probably because the situation was the same every time he came in - 0/0. His job, whether chasing 300 or 150, was to get the side off to a quick start and take the attack to the bowlers. See the ball and hit.

 

[zaremba]

Yes, but it doesn't matter if they've been beaten twice. Only the runs count in the end. In ODI, they don't even need your wicket.

Even in tests, you could be the wicket remaining while your team loses because it has lost others.

I accept that different considerations may apply to ODIs than Tests. But all ODI stats need to be taken with an even bigger pinch of salt than Test stats anyhow.

As for your second point, this is just another example of a way in which Mr 35 might be denied an opportunity to score the runs that he is capable of scoring and therefore to make the same contribution as Mr 70.

 

[zaremba]

Agreed completely. Think UC and Z are overestimating how difficult it is to get going with the field out.

Maybe it applies less to OD cricket than to Test cricket. But by the same token, so
does the countervailing concentration-to-build-a-long-innings point.

 

[Ikki]

I accept that different considerations may apply to ODIs than Tests. But all ODI stats need to be taken with an even bigger pinch of salt than Test stats anyhow.

As for your second point, this is just another example of a way in which Mr 35 might be denied an opportunity to score the runs that he is capable of scoring and therefore to make the same contribution as Mr 70.

But that's the point. How likely is it for someone who may average over a specific number when their per innings scores are consistently below it?

Remember that link I gave you? How likely is it that the batsman would achieve 155 (his average) when he's never gotten higher than 50? For me, that's an important consideration because I don't prescribe to your shared view with Uppercut that it is "reasonable" to assume he'd get it.

 

[Uppercut]

Agreed completely. Think UC and Z are overestimating how difficult it is to get going with the field out.

Oh you're absolutely right- but it is still, undeniably, harder to bat on 0 than it is on 35.

Two 70s btw so that is half the runs. You compare 2 innings with 2 innings, not just 1. And the only thing they've done exactly the same is score as many runs per dismissal.

Have you thought about why you've decided to compare 2 innings with 2 innings rather than 2 dismissals with 2 dismissals? Surely when comparing two players, the latter is much more accurate- after all, how often they get out is down to their ability as a batsman. How many innings they play is not.

 

[Ikki]

Oh you're absolutely right- but it is still, undeniably, harder to bat on 0 than it is on 35.

And harder to score 70 than 35.

Have you thought about why you've decided to compare 2 innings with 2 innings rather than 2 dismissals with 2 dismissals? Surely when comparing two players, the latter is much more accurate- after all, how often they get out is down to their ability as a batsman. How many innings they play is not.

Because in terms of contributing to his team, it is not relevant that he's been dismissed, especially in ODIs.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh you're absolutely right- but it is still, undeniably, harder to bat on 0 than it is on 35.

I dunno, Mark Ramprakash managed to still look nervous on 235.

 

[Uppercut]

And harder to score 70 than 35.

Lol but you're still scoring 70 runs. You can't average 70 without scoring 70 runs. Whether you do it over the course of two innings or over the course of one isn't relevant.

Because in terms of contributing to his team, it is not relevant that he's been dismissed, especially in ODIs.

It's a measure of ability, not contribution.

 

[zaremba]

But that's the point. How likely is it for someone who may average over a specific number when their per innings scores are consistently below it?

Remember that link I gave you? How likely is it that the batsman would achieve 155 (his average) when he's never gotten higher than 50? For me, that's an important consideration because I don't prescribe to your shared view with Uppercut that it is "reasonable" to assume he'd get it.

But that's another example which could be highly misleading if not recognised as the extreme case that it truly is.

First, we need to agree that any average is unreliable in the absence of a decent sample size. Second, if we therefore assume that someone is averaging 155 over a significant number of innings without ever scoring 50, they are a statistical freak in a way that surpasses Bradman. It would require an astronomical number of not outs which would speak of an uncanny ability to defy the bowlers and to score runs, coupled with stunning bad luck in continually running out of partners or otherwise having his scoring opportunities cut short.

Would I expect such a preternaturally gifted player to score in excess of 155 on a regular basis if given the opportunities to do so? Too right I would.

 

[Ikki]

Lol but you're still scoring 70 runs. You can't average 70 without scoring 70 runs. Whether you do it over the course of two innings or over the course of one isn't relevant.

You're scoring 70 runs over 2 matches. The other guy is scoring 70 runs in both. In a match situation, it is actually very relevant.

It's a measure of ability, not contribution.

As a measure of ability it is not an even comparison. With the hair grown on my tongue (fingers?) I'll say again: keeping a not-out as an opener is very difficult. I'd hazard to guess that most openers are only not out 5-10% of their innings. In normal instances, where the opposition has put on a decent score or where your own team doesn't crumble, you are likely to score a 100 as an opener if you indeed stay in long enough. This is a completely different kettle of fish for a batsman that comes on towards the end.

 

[Ikki]

But that's another example which could be highly misleading if not understood as the extreme case that it truly is. First, we need to agree that any average is unreliable in the absence of a decent sample size. Second, if we therefore assume that some us averaging 155 over a significant number of innings without ever scoring 50, they are a statistical freak in a way that surpasses Bradman. It would require an astronomical number of not outs which would speak of an uncanny ability to defy the bowlers and to score runs, coupled with stunning bad luck in continually running out of partners or otherwise having his scoring opportunities cur short.

Would I expect such a preternaturally gifted player to score in excess of 155 on a regular basis if given the opportunities to do so? Too right I would.

It was an exaggeration, but it is still befitting the argument. Dhoni for example averages 50, yet he has only scored 50 or more in about 1/3rd of his innings - he doesn't have many 100s btw.

Would you care if I went back to the 1*x25+50 example? Because you don't need to be better than Bradman to achieve that. The point was clearly that it helps. I doubt there will ever be a case as clear as I put it; I was merely pointing out the principle.

 

[Uppercut]

You're scoring 70 runs over 2 matches. The other guy is scoring 70 runs in both. In a match situation, it is actually very relevant.

Why are you making one of your theoretical batsmen score double the other? There's no good reason to.

As a measure of ability it is not an even comparison. With the hair grown on my tongue (fingers?) I'll say again: keeping a not-out as an opener is very difficult. I'd hazard to guess that most openers are only not out 5-10% of their innings. In normal instances, where the opposition has put on a decent score or where your own team doesn't crumble, you are likely to score a 100 as an opener if you indeed stay in long enough. This is a completely different kettle of fish for a batsman that comes on towards the end.

Yeah. So? He still only has two options- score runs and be dismissed. His ability as a batsman, as far as can be measured statistically, is determined solely by how often (and, in the case of the former, how quickly) he does each of those things.

 

[zaremba]

You're scoring 70 runs over 2 matches. The other guy is scoring 70 runs in both. In a match situation, it is actually very relevant.

Yes but whether you're left stranded on 35no will be determined by factors othrr than your ability, eg where you are put in the batting order, how your team mates bat etc.

 

[Ikki]

Why are you making one of your theoretical batsmen score double the other? There's no good reason to.

Because it shows the fallacies of using an average to equate two batsmen, with regards to not-outs.

Yeah. So? He still only has two options- score runs and be dismissed. His ability as a batsman, as far as can be measured statistically, is determined solely by how often (and, in the case of the former, how quickly) he does each of those things.

Yes, but the likelihood of his achieving not-outs to increase his average is much lower than the finisher. See the part quoted above in this post.

 

[Ikki]

Yes but whether you're left stranded on 35no will be determined by factors othrr than your ability, eg where you are put in the batting order, how your team mates bat etc.

Sure, but it contributes to your average and many people use that to determine your ability .