-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Top Centuries
- Thread starter full_length
- Start date
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
I rate Lara's higher for 2 reasons : First his complete lack of gameplay coming into it, and facing a SA side which should have been destined to win the opening game of their World Cup.full_length said:
Fleming's was a good knock, but I take Lara as it was setting rather than chasing.
royGilchrist
State 12th Man
I think making a big score chasing is tougher than setting a target, the pressure is much greater. Especially an imposing total like SAs. And Marc you said one reason why Lara's was better is becasue he scored it against SA, well so did Fleming. Also, the reson that Lara was out of touch is also not valid as an individual's personal circumstances are immaterial in my opinion, even if Lara was batting with his right hand it would not matter.
I think Fleming's was a much better knock under the pressure.
I think Fleming's was a much better knock under the pressure.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
But my point wasn't that it was against SA so much as it was in the first game of SA's World Cup, a game they must surely be well up for since it's at home and all.
As for chasing vs. setting, I rate setting as harder, since you don't know how to pace the innings.
Fleming knew what he had to do, Lara didn't to an extent.
As for chasing vs. setting, I rate setting as harder, since you don't know how to pace the innings.
Fleming knew what he had to do, Lara didn't to an extent.
Simon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
thats exactly right, same in test cricket, scoring 1st inning centuries mean a lot more because the match is set up in the first innings, you cant win a test match in the first innings but with good batting you can assure your team wont lose the game.marc71178 said:
Having said that they were both terrific centuries and realistically they both the match for their team, so i would say they were equally as good as each other.
royGilchrist
State 12th Man
First of all this is the WC and SA or any other team comes prepared for every game, it doesnt matter which game you consider, SA will try their hardest, I really dont see any increasing difficulty in facing SA in the first game as opposed to the later games. If anything, teams settle down and play better as the tournament goes on.
I completely disagree with this notion of first innings centuries being tougher than the second innings centuries. Its the exact opposite. What do you say about a team chasing atarget as opposed to teams setting a target? I think its a well established rule of thumb, that if there isnt anything extraordinary in the conditions or other special circumstances its much easier and safer to bat first and set a target as opposed to chasing a target. And by the same definition scoring a century in the first innings is easier than scoring a century in the second.
I completely disagree with this notion of first innings centuries being tougher than the second innings centuries. Its the exact opposite. What do you say about a team chasing atarget as opposed to teams setting a target? I think its a well established rule of thumb, that if there isnt anything extraordinary in the conditions or other special circumstances its much easier and safer to bat first and set a target as opposed to chasing a target. And by the same definition scoring a century in the first innings is easier than scoring a century in the second.
krkode
State Captain
In my personal opinion, I think both 1st innings and 2nd innings hundreds are equally hard to make. But usually, if one has made a second innings hundred it is a given that the score he was chasing was probably a large one (in ODIs), so second innings hundreds are relatively hard. First innings hundreds are also hard in their own way...if the bowling is inept, then it might be easy, but against a good bowling line up, a 100 is always hard...
royGilchrist
State 12th Man
THis is quite surprising to hear. Anyways, Im not sure if there is a way of doing an overall percentage of matches won by a team batting second, for all the international ODI matches ever, that will prove it one way or the other, and over such a long time, any other anomalies and special cases will even out. Do you think Marc, we could get that number somehow? I dont know how we can do it.
Gotchya
State Vice-Captain
Thats precisely what teams batting first dont have to worry about as much as the ones batting second. How to pace the innings. Consequently a good knock in the second innings is harder. The equation now includes the term *Required* run rate....a few dot balls and another variable *Pressure* comes in. I thought there was no debating this issue. Batting second is definitely harder then batting first. Especially if the other team posted a good total, or have a good bowling attack or field well. Dont you think that a boundary or a wicket in the second innings has more meaning then the ones occuring in the first ?marc71178 said:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Inconclusive.
As at 12/04/02 there had been 1760 results in ODIs - 865 by the team batting first, and 895 by the team batting second - slightly favouring the team batting second, which is my theory - they know how they have to pace the innings better than when batting first and setting a target.
As at 12/04/02 there had been 1760 results in ODIs - 865 by the team batting first, and 895 by the team batting second - slightly favouring the team batting second, which is my theory - they know how they have to pace the innings better than when batting first and setting a target.
Simon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
i dont think that stat proves anything, over the years there have been many changes that would effect that stat, most obviously the introduction of day nighters. from all accounts its harder to score under lights than in the brightness of day.
i mind betting since 1995 the team that batted first has won more games than the team batting 2nd.
i mind betting since 1995 the team that batted first has won more games than the team batting 2nd.
royGilchrist
State 12th Man
Quite surprising results I think!! Thanks for the effort though Marc, I dont think its inconclusive, atleast it shows there isnt an advantage one way or the other, and the conclusion is batting first or second is not an advantage. The percentage is 49% to 51% in favour of the side batting second. I would have thought it will be around 45-55 in favour of side batting first.
It will be great if we can verify this using statsguru, Im in Pakistan these days, and I dont think I can manage this with the crappy internet connection. But if we can accomplish this it will also be interesting to see this for every decade, which might give soem revealing results, becasue if I remember correctly in the olden times, early eighties and late seventies, side batting second used to have an advantage, but the advent of Sharjah, and then subsequently the jayasuria revolution in 96 has made it a high scoring game, which means batting second has become harder. Still this is all conjecture and with the results you have produced, all my arguments are proven useless.
Also, another interesting stat would be to see the break-up on a team by team basis, Pakistan (and even India) must be better setters, than chasers, I'd be willing to put some money on this
It will be great if we can verify this using statsguru, Im in Pakistan these days, and I dont think I can manage this with the crappy internet connection. But if we can accomplish this it will also be interesting to see this for every decade, which might give soem revealing results, becasue if I remember correctly in the olden times, early eighties and late seventies, side batting second used to have an advantage, but the advent of Sharjah, and then subsequently the jayasuria revolution in 96 has made it a high scoring game, which means batting second has become harder. Still this is all conjecture and with the results you have produced, all my arguments are proven useless.
Also, another interesting stat would be to see the break-up on a team by team basis, Pakistan (and even India) must be better setters, than chasers, I'd be willing to put some money on this