CSK Fan Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 No that's like saying someone scoring more hatricks makes them a better player. nope. Hattricks can be more like the equivalent of 3 sixes in a row. Hundreds are the equivalent of taking 5-fers or 10-fers in a match. and they do make you a better bowler
Bradman99 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 nope. Hattricks can be more like the equivalent of 3 sixes in a row. Hundreds are the equivalent of taking 5-fers or 10-fers in a match. and they do make you a better bowler Not really, you could get out after 18 runs. That isn't equivelant to a hatrick. A players batting average is more of a determinant of a better player, than 100's is.
CSK Fan Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Not really, you could get out after 18 runs. That isn't equivelant to a hatrick. A players batting average is more of a determinant of a better player, than 100's is. So 5-fers and 10-fers dont count for in a bowler?
Bradman99 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 So 5-fers and 10-fers dont count for in a bowler? I'd say they do count, I'm not saying centuries don't count either. I'm just saying that I don't think they make you a superior batsman if you have more of them than someone else. Do you believe that someone who has a lower average but more centuries is a better batsman then someone with less centuries but a better average afte the same amount of innings ?
CSK Fan Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I'd say they do count' date=' I'm not saying centuries don't count either. I'm just saying that I don't think they make you a superior batsman if you have more of them than someone else. Do you believe that someone who has a lower average but more centuries is a better batsman then someone with less centuries but a better average afte the same amount of innings ?[/quote'] A very interesting question. How does average help in the team goal. Is it better to score big frequently with low scores in between (as a person having more 100s and less average) or to score consistantly without making huge scores (like a batsmen with more average with less 100s). i think both have their own values. But if their are two batsmen wit equivalent avergaes, wouldnt the one having more 100s be better?
Bradman99 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 A very interesting question. How does average help in the team goal. Is it better to score big frequently with low scores in between (as a person having more 100s and less average) or to score consistantly without making huge scores (like a batsmen with more average with less 100s). i think both have their own values. But if their are two batsmen wit equivalent avergaes' date=' wouldnt the one having more 100s be better?[/quote'] Not neccesarily, as that means they've most likely had more lower scores. In which case their scores are maybe less consistent. I do get your point however sometimes a team needs a consistent player who they know will always score runs. For example, Marcus North, he either gets a big score or goes cheaply.
Roshanrocks Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 hmmmm scores of 100, 0 , 100, 0 , 100, 0 ( 3 potentially match winning scores) vs 50,50,50,50,50,50 ( 6 potentially ...ummmm..... maybe match winning scores) so MTC ur saying option number 1 is better and bradman is saying 2 is better?
vvvslaxman Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 nope. Hattricks can be more like the equivalent of 3 sixes in a row. Hundreds are the equivalent of taking 5-fers or 10-fers in a match. and they do make you a better bowler :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Bradman99 Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Indeed, a better comparison would have been something like 5 wickets in an innings is equivalent to a hatrick in football.
Gunner_Mania Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 nope. Hattricks can be more like the equivalent of 3 sixes in a row. Hundreds are the equivalent of taking 5-fers or 10-fers in a match. and they do make you a better bowler which means 1 six = 1 wicket?
CSK Fan Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: ok, maybe its the equivalent of 5-6 sixes ina row. Both can turn matches on their head and rarely happen. But wouldnt you agree a 100 would be a n equivalent of a 5-fer?
CSK Fan Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 hmmmm scores of 100, 0 , 100, 0 , 100, 0 ( 3 potentially match winning scores) vs 50,50,50,50,50,50 ( 6 potentially ...ummmm..... maybe match winning scores) so MTC ur saying option number 1 is better and bradman is saying 2 is better? Not really. But if two batsmen have more or less equal average then wouldnt the one with more 100s be a better bat?
CSK Fan Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 which means 1 six = 1 wicket? No. Three sixes in a row is not equal to three sixes hit anytime time in an innings. Similarly, 3 wickets in 3 deliveries is not equal to three wickets taken during the whole innings. Both of them (3 sixes in a row or a hattrick) are very unlikely to happen and can turn a match on its head
Bradman99 Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 Not really. But if two batsmen have more or less equal average then wouldnt the one with more 100s be a better bat? Well, look at that example they have the same average. So take your pick ? Like I said, I know what you mean, but I just don't thinkit makes them a BETTER batsman, certainly if they have more centuries but a similar average it can't be looked at badly, but I don't think it should be looked at as them being a superior batsman. For the extra century that player may have got, he may have stuffed up when the team needed him to consolidate, the other player with less centuries may have got a 70 odd.
b555 Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 BUMP http://www.cricinfo.com/england-v-australia-2010/content/story/465693.html Ponting feels the next few months are crucial ... for once I hope the padosees land some lusty blows during the series in Eng and then hopefully our guys can add some more misery .... :P we should only do something they r useless bunch.. 9-0 as said
Roshanrocks Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 Tracking the gap for Runs and 100s in Tests. In the near future Ponting has 2 tests comming up shortly vs NZ 2 tests vs Pak in July'10 Possible 2 tests vs Ind in Oct/Nov 5 Tests vs Eng in Dec/Jan Hopefully our babus keep their word and go with the prposed tests vs SL/NZ & Aus Runs : 100s : BB i think u need to extend the graphs to the present date :icflove:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now