The Very Best Batsmen Under Pressure

[theguyinallblue]

BheemBhai...you must watermark such rare stats...and copyright it... seriously Doc...BheemBhai..is a kohinoor which we at ICFans are lucky to have..

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kumble_rocks]

The usual suspects that come to my mind are Sachin , Ponting , kallis , Lara, De Silva,Waugh ,Border , Gavasker. Some of the innings of Kallis that are itched in my mind are FIrst test against Australia in MCG were he scored a century in the second innings and saved the match for SA, his unbeaten 88 which paved way for victory against West Indies in the 4 th test in the year 1999 or his century against Pakistan in 2002 which SA won etc. As regards to Sachin , Bheembhai has already provided the list above, enough said. Ponting is another batsmen who has excelled under pressure in my opinion. Some of the innings I can think are the 96 and 51 for a losing cause in the first test against Srilanka in the year 1999 or his century against New Zealand in the 3 rd test in 2005 which paved way for Aussie victory etc or his century in 2005 ashes third test which ensured draw. As regards to Lara , who can forget his unbeaten 153 against Australia which ensured that Windies won by 1 wicket in the third test in 1999 , his scores of 221 and 130 against Srilanka in the third test in 2001.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Dhondy]

Excellent, KR, although some of those innings won't meet the very stringent criteria applied here.

[observer1]

Do you guys see now what a treasure trove you've got here in this man? Come up with any reasonable query, and he'll have an answer. No money needed, just a kind word.

Not that good, Dhondy. He is still unable to prove that IVAR was the best batsman of the 80s. Until he does that, he will remain someone who is capable of much more, the perpetual underachiever... PS: I have tried kind words in English, Kannada etc. You cant fault me for lack of trying.

[Dhondy]

:haha::haha:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Shehezaada]

Bheembhai...i'm amazed at youi. Not only are you factually excellent, but you do it in quick time! Do you use some kind of search function or code to get your results?

[Don]

Bheembhai is to this forum wat Tendulkar is to Indian cricket. Cant praise higher then that.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kumble_rocks]

Thanks shehezaada & don baba... its done using code .... took me many months and 1000s of lines of code to get here plus me being a mindless number cruncher helps :D... the benefits are just beginning to show.

Do you use Microsoft access or SQL server ? I am assuming you have built in queries using SQL.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[castled]

I read the forum here regularly though I dont actually post. But I cannot pass this offer. Would you be able to provide the stat about how many times these batsmen failed as well, when coming under pressure as indiacted above. The one and only reason for my question: People say match winning innings, match saving innings, performing well under pressure etc. I would like to see actually how does it compare; how many times they failed and how many times they did well. For example, Ponting scoring well under pressure has got a higher chance compared to say a Lara, going down as a match saving or winning innings because of the team. Similarly even if Ponting fails under pressure, no one remembers that failure as another team member of his plays a great innings or rest of the team, but may not be the case with say Sachin or Lara as that will be remembered as failure as none of the other team members perform as well. So, if we can compare the number of times they did well and did not do well under pressure would give an idea irrespective of the result, how good a batsmen is under pressure. Many thanks in advance.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[castled]

Can do it very easily ..... I just need to know the criteria for what constitues a failure in your opinion .... A score below 20 , 30 , 40 , 50 .... ? BTW welcome to the forum :two_thumbs_up:

Was expecting that question: But difficult to determine I suppose. i guess I have to leave that upto to you. I would probably say scoring less than 40. But thats just to get some sort of idea. I know there will be some innings where 40 can be called a success (I remember Lara scoring 40 odd in the second innings in that test where India could not get 120) Thanks!

[kabira]

it should be less than 20...First 20 runs are always tough.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[coffee_rules]

Was expecting that question: But difficult to determine I suppose. i guess I have to leave that upto to you. I would probably say scoring less than 40. But thats just to get some sort of idea. I know there will be some innings where 40 can be called a success (I remember Lara scoring 40 odd in the second innings in that test where India could not get 120) Thanks!

Take the average of the top 5 batsmen in the innings and if it is less than 50% of the average, then it can be called a failure. I just threw in 50%, it can be more statistical thing too, like std deviation etc.

[observer1]

Ok will do it for Runs < 40 (for now) .... if someone comes up with a better criteria we can revise. Stay tuned for the answer.

My idea of failure would be if the batsman came in at 20 for 2, or whatever you have chosen, and made less than 20% of the team total - say the team scored 200, and he scored less than 40 - it would mean that the others who came in after him scored OK. If, on the other hand, he scored 40, and the team only scored 100, he MUST be excused - it was either a minefield or he did not get support. In addition, rather than numbers of times, you should come up with a percentage likelihood (with 95% confidence intervals - otherwise the more experienced batsman will be shown in poor light, and sangakkara etc, good as they are, will be made to look better)