What does this refer to?That means Australia scored more in the Laker match
they did, but this doesn't really mean thatThat means Australia scored more in the Laker match
If this is the lowest total since 1948 then any match played in the last 71 years would've recorded a higher score. Laker's match was during this period. **** me, how do you have a uni degree? And here I am stressing over my future.they did, but this doesn't really mean that
It wasn’t. Forgotten the 60 all out already. It was England’s lowest score.If this is the lowest total since 1948 then any match played in the last 71 years would've recorded a higher score. Laker's match was during this period. **** me, how do you have a uni degree? And here I am stressing over my future.
I know English might not be your first language, but there's a really crucial bit of grammar you're missing.If this is the lowest total since 1948 then any match played in the last 71 years would've recorded a higher score. Laker's match was during this period. **** me, how do you have a uni degree? And here I am stressing over my future.
ffs Trundler. This is England's lowest score since 1948. Laker was bowling against Australia.If this is the lowest total since 1948 then any match played in the last 71 years would've recorded a higher score. Laker's match was during this period. **** me, how do you have a uni degree? And here I am stressing over my future.
ok fieryedit: oh and I have 2 uni degrees
Idk just felt like it. Nothing personal.ffs Trundler. This is England's lowest score since 1948. Laker was bowling against Australia.
when did you turn into such a **** btw?
edit: oh and I have 2 uni degrees
Yet you spend most of your time arguing on a cricket forum,edit: oh and I have 2 uni degrees
define "most"Yet you spend most of your time arguing on a cricket forum,
And it is a pity people continue to underrate Sir Jadeja.Only 4 cricketers in history have a bowling average of less than 25 and batting average of greater than 30 (minimum 1500 runs and 150 wickets). Imran, Miller, Pollock and Jadeja.
As things stand, the odds are that he would end up as an ATG. People who did not like him initially have started to develop a grudging respect towards him.And it is a pity people continue to underrate Sir Jadeja.
Those all-rounder stats always make for some curious reading if you don't select thresholds that are equally stiff for batting and bowling. Like Kapil Dev was the only player to take 400 wickets and score 4000 runs at some point (still is?). Each wicket is worth roughly 20-25 runs. So if 400 wickets is the cut-off for bowling, 8000 runs should be cut-off for batting; no player hit both.Only 4 cricketers in history have a bowling average of less than 25 and batting average of greater than 30 (minimum 1500 runs and 150 wickets). Imran, Miller, Pollock and Jadeja.
I selected batting average of 30 because I felt that is the point a bowling allrounder really crosses great utility mark. On the converse, an ATG batsman who averages 40 with the ball wouldn't add as much in his secondary discipline as he is an opportunity cost for superior bowlers.Those all-rounder stats always make for some curious reading if you don't select thresholds that are equally stiff for batting and bowling. Like Kapil Dev was the only player to take 400 wickets and score 4000 runs at some point (still is?). Each wicket is worth roughly 20-25 runs. So if 400 wickets is the cut-off for bowling, 8000 runs should be cut-off for batting; no player hit both.
For averages if <25 is the cut-off for bowling, >50 should be the cut-off for batting; no player hit both.