What is harder - a 5 wicket haul or a 100 ?

[PhoenixFire]

You could basically fluke a 5 wicket haul, whereas it would be a load harder to fluke a 100.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sehwag, easily.

 

[ret]

There's been some fairly stiff competition but that could well be the daftest logic ever on this forum.

it would be nice if you could explain why is that so .... nah, i am not claiming it's some classic but for me it's one of the ways to simplify the answer to a general question

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You could basically fluke a 5 wicket haul, whereas it would be a load harder to fluke a 100.

My point precisely. Anyone remember Malinga's 4 in 4 balls at the 07 WC ? One fluke over may be enough for a 5 wicket haul, but you need at least 5-7 fluke overs for a century.

Moreover, a bowler can get smashed around and still comeback and take wickets. For the batsman, the margin of error is smaller.

 

[four_or_six]

hundreds vs 5-wickets

Was expecting the hundreds to stand out more than that tbh.

 

[NUFAN]

My point precisely. Anyone remember Malinga's 4 in 4 balls at the 07 WC ? One fluke over may be enough for a 5 wicket haul, but you need at least 5-7 fluke overs for a century.

Moreover, a bowler can get smashed around and still comeback and take wickets. For the batsman, the margin of error is smaller.

That's a pretty poor example. It's like a batsman saying he only needs 19 balls to make 100. Bloody tough to do, hit sixes every ball, same as getting 5 wickets in an over.

 

[wpdavid]

I suppose 5 wickets depends on the rest of the attack not taking 6 between them, whereas making a ton only depends on you not running out of partners or, very occasionally, time. I'd guess that soft hundreds have outnumbered soft 5-fors over the years.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

it would be nice if you could explain why is that so .... nah, i am not claiming it's some classic but for me it's one of the ways to simplify the answer to a general question

It's obvious that if you take any team score over 200 using that "method" then the 5 wicket haul is going to add up to more than 100. Any team score below 200 and the 5 wicket haul will add up to under 100. Which proves precisely squat in terms of answering the question. (Admittedly it's an equally stupid question in the first place.)

 

[ret]

It's obvious that if you take any team score over 200 using that "method" then the 5 wicket haul is going to add up to more than 100. Any team score below 200 and the 5 wicket haul will add up to under 100. Which proves precisely squat in terms of answering the question. (Admittedly it's an equally stupid question in the first place.)

That's why I suggested to take the average inning score for a period .... Like you said if the avg score is say 200 then it does show that getting a 100 is as difficult as getting a 5 for (because now in bowler friendly conditions, a bowler is competing with other bowlers for wkts)

Anyways, this is just playing with numbers, nothing serious in it

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah it's not much of a question. A century is always 100 runs to your team's score, but a five-wicket haul can mean 5/193 or 5/12. There's just no way you can even begin to make a comparison.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Reckon a 5 wicket haul personally. 3 or 4 isn't so difficult but the 5th one usually doesn't come so easily.

 

[Richard]

Yeah it's not much of a question. A century is always 100 runs to your team's score, but a five-wicket haul can mean 5/193 or 5/12. There's just no way you can even begin to make a comparison.

Ind33d. That's why I've never been a fan of this equating a five-for for a bowler to century for a batsman.

 

[andyc]

Yeah it's not much of a question. A century is always 100 runs to your team's score, but a five-wicket haul can mean 5/193 or 5/12. There's just no way you can even begin to make a comparison.

Works both ways mind, a century can be 100 out of 180 all out or 100 out of 5/640 dec.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah it's not much of a question. A century is always 100 runs to your team's score, but a five-wicket haul can mean 5/193 or 5/12. There's just no way you can even begin to make a comparison.

For which one do you think is easier to achieve I think you can, although it's pretty subjective.

 

[Sir Alex]

I think taking 50% of wickets is difficult than scoring 50% of runs. So yes a fifer for me.

 

[Richard]

Works both ways mind, a century can be 100 out of 180 all out or 100 out of 5/640 dec.

But the 100 is still worth the same amount - it's just a case of whether it came when others did or did not perform.

5-50 out of 300 and 5-50 out of 210 is still the same set of bowling figures; it's simply that like the above the opposition team total depends on the performance of others.

A century is a fixed number; a five-for only becomes a fixed once you also give the number conceded. A bowler's job is two-fold; a batsman's is one. A bowler has the aim of both not conceding runs and taking wickets (sometimes the two are in direct conflict as a tactic that increases your chances of conceding runs can often increase it of taking wickets); a batsman has the aim only of scoring runs.

That's why comparing batting and bowling performances is so pointless in my book.

 

[Richard]

I think taking 50% of wickets is difficult than scoring 50% of runs. So yes a fifer for me.

But the number of wickets that must be taken to get a side all-out is fixed at ten; there is no fixed number on the number of runs that must be scored.

 

[Jakester1288]

I've actually been thinking about this, but a 5 wicket haul could be easier, because a bowler has so many chances, and a bit of luck can get them wickets, where as a batsman only has to make 1 mistake and its all over for him. Definitely a good question and topic.

 

[Richard]

Basically then what Morris said here:

You could basically fluke a 5 wicket haul, whereas it would be a load harder to fluke a 100.

Nonetheless, all that proves is that it's easier to get a five-for without bowling well than it is to get a century without batting especially well.

 

[AaronK]

I fully support that...... 5 for much tougher and involves more factors which aren't in bowler's control...... For example.... Salman Butt fumbling a sitter 5 times, before dropping it.....if i was Asif i would respectfully ask Butt to remove his helmet and punch him in the face...!