• 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.

Who would you rather have come in at No. 6 for your team with 15 overs to go?

4 down, 15 to go, who comes in?

  • Player A

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • Player B

    Votes: 11 73.3%
  • Total voters
    15
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If we had stats showing how Player A does in this particular situation (ie) his SR when he enters at 4 wickets down and around 15 overs to go, maybe there'd be some sense in this. Otherwise, an overall strike rate can miselad greatly. Player A's SR may be low because he's come in numerous times in a situation which demands caution, thereby reducing his SR. Or maybe he's chasing a small total and thus bats only as fast as needed and cutting out all risks. This approach reduces his SR, but it's exactly what is required for the situation.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
OverratedSanity said:
If we had stats showing how Player A does in this particular situation (ie) his SR when he enters at 4 wickets down and around 15 overs to go, maybe there'd be some sense in this. Otherwise, an overall strike rate can miselad greatly. Player A's SR may be low because he's come in numerous times in a situation which demands caution, thereby reducing his SR. Or maybe he's chasing a small total and thus bats only as fast as needed and cutting out all risks. This approach reduces his SR, but it's exactly what is required for the situation.
Click to expand...
Heres all the context you need.

Player A will average 29 actual runs scored per match while averaging over 50 and striking at 75.

Player B will average 27 actual runs scored per match while averaging just over 30 and striking at 120.

If you need more context, you are really over complicating the question.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
OverratedSanity said:
Nope. Need more.
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for you.

Player A will on average face 40 balls per match and score 29 runs, and be not out more than a third of the time at bats to boost the average to over 50

Player B will on average face 22 balls per match and score 27 runs leaving 18 balls for the remaining batsmen to face to score off. Player B will rarely be not out.
 
Last edited:
kiwiviktor81

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
OK, I'll put it as simply as possible.

In the scenario above, on average, Player A finishes the innings not out on 34 (45).
Player B goes out in the 45th over, having scored 30 (24). The remaining batsmen then presumably hit out until they're all out (unlikely) or the innings ends.

Player B therefore scores 4 runs fewer than player A on average, and leaves, on average, 21 extra balls for the other batsmen to score from.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
The context we need is how and why the players in question have compiled that particular combination of average and strike rate; not context about this hypothetical match as such.

It's extremely unlikely that someone who averages 55+ and strikes at 75 over a long period has a lot of those runs coming in at 4 down with 15 overs to go. His record in that situation is probably a lot different. It's not that people think having someone come in and score 34* (45) on average is going to be more useful than having someone score 30 (25) instead; it's that
a) #6 batsmen are confronted with more than just this situation
b) someone with an average of 55 and a strike rate of 75 would very likely do something different in that situation.

If we lift the curtain and admit we're still talking about Bevan and Maxwell, I'd consider taking a high strike rate/mediocre average player like Maxwell in this specific situation (assuming batting first). But Bevan's overall career numbers aren't really the reason. When Bevan batted second he always scored at close to the optimal rate of what he was chasing, and given Australia had a really good attack, this meant he often didn't score very quickly in the second innings -- he just didn't need to. In first innings when he was setting a total, he averaged 52 and struck at 80 instead, which I think is a more accurate way to look at Bevan than as a 55/75 player. It's also worth noting that during Bevan's career, the global strike rate for all players was 72.19. During Maxwell's it's been 83.32. A strike rate of 80 during Bevan's career was roughly worth a strike rate of 92 during Maxwell's, which again isn't really near what Maxwell produces, but we've definitely moved away from the misleading blanket career number.

A player's strike rate is not just formed by his natural scoring ability, but the context of the situations he faces. If you give him a situation different from the one he's compiled most of the runs in his average and strike rate in, he will very likely produce a different average and strike rate in that new context.
 
Last edited:
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
PEWS utterly missing the "VOTE B OR YOU'RE A MORON!!!" point of this thread with his nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Pitiful.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bevan SR in losing chases was 69. Higher than his SR in winning chases of 67.

Sorry PEWS, I don't agree with your point as a rule of his 'optimal' chasing.

But hey, lets continue to celebrate the players of yesterday with their high batting averages and low team scores and put all these bigger team scores today down to field restriction changes, poor bowling and big bats.

Batting strategy has not entered the equation at all. Teams batting deeper into the innings and more wickets falling is just a correlation.
 
Last edited:
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Prince EWS said:
The context we need is how and why the players in question have compiled that particular combination of average and strike rate; not context about this hypothetical match as such.

It's extremely unlikely that someone who averages 55+ and strikes at 75 over a long period has a lot of those runs coming in at 4 down with 15 overs to go. His record in that situation is probably a lot different. It's not that people think having someone come in and score 34* (45) on average is going to be more useful than having score 30 (25) instead; it's that
a) #6 batsmen are confronted with more than just this situation
b) someone with an average of 55 and a strike rate of 75 would very likely do something different in that situation.

If we lift the curtain and admit we're still talking about Bevan and Maxwell, I'd consider taking a high strike rate/mediocre average player like Maxwell in this specific situation (assuming batting first). But Bevan's overall career numbers aren't really the reason. When Bevan batted second he always scored at close to the optimal rate of what he was chasing, and given Australia had a really good attack, this meant he often didn't score very quickly in the second innings -- he just didn't need to. In first innings when he was setting a total, he averaged 52 and struck at 80 instead, which I think is a more accurate way to look at Bevan than as a 55/75 player. It's also worth noting that during Bevan's career, the global strike rate for all players was 72.19. During Maxwell's it's been 83.32. A strike rate of 80 during Bevan's career was roughly worth a strike rate of 92 during Maxwell's, which again isn't real near what Maxwell produces, but we've definitely moved away from the misleading blanket career number.

A player's strike rate is not just formed by his natural scoring ability, but the context of the situations he faces. If you give him a situation different from the one he's compiled most of the runs in his average and strike rate in, he will very likely produce a different average and strike rate in that new context.
Click to expand...
Just to add to this, the original posed scenario doesn't even include the opposing team. For instance, Bevan averages 40+ against South Africa, Maxwell averages less than 10. It's next to useless as a hypothetical.
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Eh, with modern day cricket I don't think it's so far-fetched. Wouldn't bet against someone like Maxwell, Buttler or Coriander Sun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top