Compare 5fer v. 100

[goose]

So Texan and I got discussing the question of how a 5fer ranks versus a century in terms of difficulty. My logic is that they both rank the same.

   5 hours ago,  goose said: 

Why do you say that? You've seen it's 20 pts for a wicket right?

I believe there is a decent consensus in world cricket that a 5fer and ton are worth the same.

Texan said : Not really. Maximum of 2 bowlers can take 5-fers in an innings, but many batsmen could score 100s. I feel a wicket is more valuable. Look at overall batting & bowling averages and general consensus would be that a wicket is more valuable than 20 runs. 

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by goose

[Cricketics]

5fers for seamers are harder to get and should rank higher in points compared to fifers for spinners. Spinners in general get more wickets for a reason so its much easier for a spinner to get a fifer than it is a for a fast bowler.

 

 

Similarly a century by anyone in top 4 is much easier than someone from number 5 and down. So points for getting a century for a guy coming to bat at number 5 and down should be higher. 

 

This is how I see it, one might agree with it or not.

 

 

[beetle]

18 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

5fers for seamers are harder to get and should rank higher in points compared to fifers for spinners. Spinners in general get more wickets for a reason so its much easier for a spinner to get a fifer than it is a for a fast bowler.

 

 

Similarly a century by anyone in top 4 is much easier than someone from number 5 and down. So points for getting a century for a guy coming to bat at number 5 and down should be higher. 

 

This is how I see it, one might agree with it or not.

 

 

Similarly.....wkts of first 6 should be valued more than the wkts of tailenders.

[speedheat]

3 minutes ago, beetle said:

Similarly.....wkts of first 6 should be valued more than the wkts of tailenders.

Why?? Sometimes tailenders are better bat than top 6, example bhuvi better batsman than Dhoni, kuldeep shielding dhoni from lakmal and Pradeep in first odi vs srilanka.

[speedheat]

25 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

5fers for seamers are harder to get and should rank higher in points compared to fifers for spinners. Spinners in general get more wickets for a reason so its much easier for a spinner to get a fifer than it is a for a fast bowler.

 

 

Similarly a century by anyone in top 4 is much easier than someone from number 5 and down. So points for getting a century for a guy coming to bat at number 5 and down should be higher. 

 

This is how I see it, one might agree with it or not.

 

 

Agree 100% and don't forget spinners always has one extra way of getting wickets that is stumping which pacers can't.

[maniac]

5fr is more difficult.

[Cricketics]

9 minutes ago, speedheat said:

Agree 100% and don't forget spinners always has one extra way of getting wickets that is stumping which pacers can't.

Yes, spinners are not used as attacking weapon and field is spread out for them because they know the batsman will go after them and it will be either a six or a catch on the boundary line. Seamers depend a lot on slip catching etc, unless you are a Dwayne Bravo who is not a fast bowler but a change of pace bowler who gets a lot of wickets as he forces the batsman to go after him.

 

 

[Cricketics]

19 minutes ago, beetle said:

Similarly.....wkts of first 6 should be valued more than the wkts of tailenders.

its debatable but its always hard to get even tailenders these days. May be number 10 and 11 are easier to get but I won't include all 6-11. 6th to 9th from most teams can score runs these days and are hard to get wickets of.

[Gollum]

12 minutes ago, speedheat said:

Why?? Sometimes tailenders are better bat than top 6, example bhuvi better batsman than Dhoni, kuldeep shielding dhoni from lakmal and Pradeep in first odi vs srilanka.

Bhai this applies only to India, that too only when Cool is playing. Baaki sab team itne bhi gire hue nahin hai, yeh sab MSD ki meherbani hai. 

[maniac]

Just now, Cricketics said:

its debatable but its always hard to get even tailenders these days. May be number 10 and 11 are easier to get but I won't include all 6-11. 6th to 9th from most teams can score runs these days and are hard to get wickets of.

You need to be like Starc...82 mph won’t get tailenders out....pace chahiye pace!!!

[Gollum]

1 wicket=25 runs sounds fair enough, a 4 wicket haul is as good as a 100, especially in the easy batting era of post 2010. 

[Laaloo]

11 minutes ago, maniac said:

5fr is more difficult.

What was more difficult?

 

Ishant Sharma 5-fer or Rohit Sharma 100 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Laaloo said:

What was more difficult?

 

Ishant Sharma 5-fer or Rohit Sharma 100 

Ishu deals in 7frs at home of cricket and Rohit with odi 200s... both impossible for mere mortals:

 

[Cricketics]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

You need to be like Starc...82 mph won’t get tailenders out....pace chahiye pace!!!

For associate level 82 to is extremely good pace. Some of the top 10 test playing nations barely have bowlers bowling consistently 85-87. Just look at English county cricke tand bowlers in Ashes. English county games come on WatchEspn, check out the speed of some of their young bowlers. I mean Collingwood was bowling faster than some of the prospects.

 

 

[Temujin Khaghan]

but which 5 fer and which 100 ... ?

40-X-150-5 is less valuable than say 100(150)

 

whereas 18-X-58-5 is pure gold compared to the same 100(150) 

 

so context is very important here. bowling and batting strike rates are very important here....

 

as per the current trend a batsman who bowls through out the day faces 270 balls... if he scores a 150ish score after an entire day then it is very competent. 

in the same vein, a fast bowler might bowl 22 overs in the 90 overs quota of the day... if he returns with a 22-X-75-4. then its very competent. 

[goose]

Someone has to take the 10 wickets to fall, especially in the 1st innings. Whereas nothing to stop a batsman getting a duck.

 

 

[zen]

If you look at runs scored and wkts taken by many of the key players (not considering outliers like Bradman, Hadlee, Murali, etc) after 100 tests, the number is usually around 8000 runs and 400 wkts respectively, giving 1 wkt = roughly 20 runs in tests 

 

However, 5-er are difficult to take considering that a group of bowlers are competing for 10 wkts. On the other hand, a batsman has a case too as he is only allowed one mistake while a bowler can keep making a comeback 

 

Another way to look at it is if a batsman gets a 100+ score, while others just chip in, a team could end up with 250-300 runs, so a 100 here is 33-40% of the total. A 4wkt haul is 40% too, if all 10 wkts are taken. So may be a 100 equals a 4-er (or 1 wkt = 25 runs)

 

PS One more way to look at it. Lara and McGrath played, by and large, around the same time and have roughly similar number of games. Lara has 11,953 runs, while McGrath has 563 wkts, giving 21.23 runs per wkt so it can be rounded to 20 .... For 100s vs 5-ers, it is 34 100s vs 29 5-ers, so again not a huge difference from a big picture PoV

 

Considering different scenarios esp relating to top performers, overall, I would settle for 1 wkt = 20 runs  

Edited January 3, 2018 by zen

[MechEng]

Well at least bowlers are allowed to make mistakes, there is always time to come back. The batsman on the other hand if he loses his concentration even by a very slight margin can end up losing his wicket, and they only have 2 chances to bat in a test match. Remember in international cricket the hard heavy leather ball comes to you at 85 mph, which makes the margin of error very small for lapse in concentration.

 

International cricket is challenging, irrespective of whether you bat, bowl, wicket keep or field.

Edited January 3, 2018 by MechEng

[vishalvirsingh]

2 hours ago, goose said:

So Texan and I got discussing the question of how a 5fer ranks versus a century in terms of difficulty. My logic is that they both rank the same.

   5 hours ago,  goose said: 

Why do you say that? You've seen it's 20 pts for a wicket right?

I believe there is a decent consensus in world cricket that a 5fer and ton are worth the same.

Texan said : Not really. Maximum of 2 bowlers can take 5-fers in an innings, but many batsmen could score 100s. I feel a wicket is more valuable. Look at overall batting & bowling averages and general consensus would be that a wicket is more valuable than 20 runs. 

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

1 wicket = 25 runs

[fineleg]

Like everything it depends on context of the match and the individual's contribution in the context of pitch/conditions/opposition - whether batting friendly or bowling friendly conditions.

In 'general' - 5-fer is GREATER than a batsman 100. But reality varies as per conditions above.