Shehezaada Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 dhondy yaar...i think we're gonna win this test match. Only 150 runs behind and we have 3 batsmen left and the tail will contribute. We can do this yaar...let's go! Link to comment
King Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I'd take 6 good 30s and 5 scratchy ones for 350 odd every time - compared to 260 odd containing a nice century. After reading through the depressing Test thread, where India roared back into the contest with 6/30, it still sounds like most of you are expecting to lose but as long as Sach gets a ton, you'll be happy. The idea of a team effort seems long gone. Absolutely Donny. Same here a 350 with no century is way better than 260 with one super century. Link to comment
varun Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Firstly ' date=' i[b']t is VERY rare for a team to have scored 350 and 6 of its batsman getting 30's. Any team total more than 300 , will have atleast ONE major contribution from a batsman. Besides , I really wish one of the remaining Indian batsman seizes this chance and makes a big score. We need a moment of individual brilliance to turn a test match as closely poised as this. Hmm, that got me wondering and I did a quick stats check. Out of 6640 innings so far, there have been: - 222 cases where the team scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century. - 31 cases where they have scored above 350 without anyone scoring above 75 - 136 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring above 75 - 550 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring a century The same stats for matches in England: Out of 1566 innings so far, there have been: - 56 cases where the team scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century. - 7 cases where they have scored above 350 without anyone scoring above 75 - 28 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring above 75 - 127 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring a century For India: Out of 1433 innings for India: - Only 30 cases where we've scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century - Out of the 30, only 7 times after 1990. In comparison: Saffies 18 times, Aussies 15 times, English 13 times, Kiwis 12 times, Pakistan 9 times, Sri Lanka 8 times, WI 7 times. Seems like the Subcontinental teams rely on centuries to give them momentum to pull them across the 350 mark. The windies are similar as well, prolly 'coz of Lara. - Only 2 cases where we've scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century In England (In 1982, and 1986) Link to comment
Gaurav Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Not good reading that :-( Nice stats btw. Dhoni will make 150! Link to comment
Ram Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 - Only 2 cases where we've scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century In England (In 1982, and 1986) This kinda suggests that we wont cross 350 unless one of our batsman cross 100, which seems highly unlikely , given Gangs is on 25 and only Dhoni and Lax are left. For us to have a distinctive advantage going into the second innings , i would like to think we should have atleast a lead 90-100 runs. Even if the scores are level and england make 200 in the 2nd innings , they would believe they can defend that score. Link to comment
Donny Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Isn't that rather obvious, mm ? Are you suggesting India wouldn't see it that way if the situation was reversed ? Link to comment
Cricketics Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 This kinda suggests that we wont cross 350 unless one of our batsman cross 100, which seems highly unlikely , given Gangs is on 25 and only Dhoni and Lax are left. For us to have a distinctive advantage going into the second innings , i would like to think we should have atleast a lead 90-100 runs. Even if the scores are level and england make 200 in the 2nd innings , they would believe they can defend that score. does stats from the past really matter??? i mean surely even we have been in such situations before also the way we are in rite now with only 2 batsman to come.. and we might have failed to reach around 350 mark in the past during such situations.. but then does it really matter with old stats?? its a new day of test cricket everytime.. stats are just numbers in such things.. we had a 100% defeat written in test when we were forced to follow on in kolkata 01 test.. stats @ that time would have suggested that we would loose too. Link to comment
Ram Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Isn't that rather obvious' date=' mm ? Are you suggesting India [i']wouldn't see it that way if the situation was reversed ? Yes.. definitely India would see it that way if they had a total of 200 too.. Which is why i think it is VITAL for us to get a first innings lead of some worth. England must start the second innings knowing that even a small let-up by them could mean an Indian victory. If England and India finish the first innings with honours shared , I would say England are ahead then. Link to comment
Ram Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 does stats from the past really matter??? i mean surely even we have been in such situations before also the way we are in rite now with only 2 batsman to come.. and we might have failed to reach around 350 mark in the past during such situations.. but then does it really matter with old stats?? its a new day of test cricket everytime.. stats are just numbers in such things.. we had a 100% defeat written in test when we were forced to follow on in kolkata 01 test.. stats @ that time would have suggested that we would loose too. Cricketics , ofcourse stats arent gospel that tell you without doubt what is going to happen. But they do give us an idea of what is within the realms of possibility.They are an honest guide. Numbers dont lie. I am not saying India wont pass 350 if none of our batsman pass 100. I am saying the likelihood of India crossing 350 without one of our batsman making a "significant" contribution ( A 100 , or a low 90's even) is quite less. I could be proved wrong. Infact , i would be happy to be proved wrong in this case. Link to comment
Dhondy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Hmm, that got me wondering and I did a quick stats check. Out of 6640 innings so far, there have been: - 222 cases where the team scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century. - 31 cases where they have scored above 350 without anyone scoring above 75 - 136 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring above 75 - 550 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring a century The same stats for matches in England: Out of 1566 innings so far, there have been: - 56 cases where the team scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century. - 7 cases where they have scored above 350 without anyone scoring above 75 - 28 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring above 75 - 127 cases where the team scored above 300 without anyone scoring a century For India: Out of 1433 innings for India: - Only 30 cases where we've scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century - Out of the 30, only 7 times after 1990. In comparison: Saffies 18 times, Aussies 15 times, English 13 times, Kiwis 12 times, Pakistan 9 times, Sri Lanka 8 times, WI 7 times. Seems like the Subcontinental teams rely on centuries to give them momentum to pull them across the 350 mark. The windies are similar as well, prolly 'coz of Lara. - Only 2 cases where we've scored above 350 without any of the batsmen scoring a century In England (In 1982, and 1986) Wow! Can you put percentages to that, Varun? Link to comment
observer1 Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 Wow! Can you put percentages to that, Varun? My thoughts too. Stunning set of stats, and more importantly, you seem to know how to retrieve answers. You guys should be testing this prospectively. I already said that when we were discussing Dravid's stats. You have enough numbers for narrow confidence intervals. Link to comment
varun Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Wow! Can you put percentages to that, Varun? Damn doc, get yer calculator out :P Overall: +--------------+-----------+----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+ | Team | # Innings | % Score >350 with all 350 with all 300 with all 300 with all After 1990: [code] +--------------+-----------+----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+ | Team | # Innings | % Score >350 with all 350 with all 300 with all 300 with all In England Overall: [code] +--------------+-----------+----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+ | Team | # Innings | % Score >350 with all 350 with all 300 with all 300 with all In England after 1990: [code] +--------------+-----------+----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+ | Team | # Innings | % Score >350 with all 350 with all 300 with all 300 with all Link to comment
Dhondy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Thanks Varun. It's quite clear that the last 17 years or so, Indian batting has been all about individuals, and sadly not the team. Confirms most suspicions. Brilliant stuff. Link to comment
observer1 Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 Thanks Varun. It's quite clear that the last 17 years or so, Indian batting has been all about individuals, and sadly not the team. Confirms most suspicions. Brilliant stuff. But, Dhondy, the mere presence of a century does not mean the batting has been about individuals - it would be if, and only if the difference between the top batter and the second highest is more than say 50 runs in a score of 350 Link to comment
Dhondy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 But' date=' Dhondy, the mere presence of a century does not mean the batting has been about individuals - it would be if, and only if the difference between the top batter and the second highest is more than say 50 runs in a score of 350[/quote'] No, that, and my observations of this team over a long, long time. Link to comment
varun Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 But' date=' Dhondy, the mere presence of a century does not mean the batting has been about individuals - it would be if, and only if the difference between the top batter and the second highest is more than say 50 runs in a score of 350[/quote'] Ooh good one. Here are some stats for the Avg Difference between Highest and 2nd Highest Overall: +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | team | Avg diff between highest and 2nd highest | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | West Indies | 35.7443 | | Sri Lanka | 34.0762 | | Pakistan | 33.4784 | | England | 33.2242 | | Australia | 33.2019 | | [B]India[/B] | 31.8939 | | South Africa | 29.7915 | | New Zealand | 27.9967 | | Zimbabwe | 27.7643 | | Bangladesh | 22.3232 | | ICC World XI | 17.5000 | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ After 1990: +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | team | Avg diff between highest and 2nd highest | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | [B]India[/B] | 37.8596 | | Pakistan | 36.1270 | | Sri Lanka | 35.7742 | | West Indies | 35.5960 | | Australia | 33.6982 | | England | 33.2813 | | South Africa | 32.7901 | | Zimbabwe | 27.7643 | | New Zealand | 27.5583 | | Bangladesh | 22.3232 | | ICC World XI | 17.5000 | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ Overall for 350+ Scores: +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | team | Avg diff between highest and 2nd highest | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | West Indies | 60.7313 | | Sri Lanka | 60.5541 | | Zimbabwe | 54.5909 | | England | 54.4427 | | [B]India[/B] | 51.6897 | | Australia | 51.4825 | | Pakistan | 51.3020 | | New Zealand | 50.1776 | | South Africa | 46.6119 | | Bangladesh | 33.0000 | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ After 1990 for 350+ Scores: +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | team | Avg diff between highest and 2nd highest | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ | West Indies | 71.7576 | | [B]India[/B] | 61.1220 | | Sri Lanka | 60.7576 | | Zimbabwe | 54.5909 | | England | 49.0851 | | New Zealand | 48.5577 | | Australia | 47.6744 | | Pakistan | 46.8000 | | South Africa | 45.7595 | | Bangladesh | 33.0000 | +--------------+------------------------------------------+ Another way to look at it would be quite simply the average standard deviations among the top order Overall Standard Deviation among the top 5 +--------------+----------------+-----------+ | Team | Top 5 Std. Dev | Top 5 Avg | +--------------+----------------+-----------+ | West Indies | 30.78 | 37.24 | | Australia | 30.12 | 37.48 | | Sri Lanka | 29.56 | 35.04 | | Pakistan | 29.09 | 35.23 | | [B]India[/B] | 29.04 | 35.75 | | England | 28.65 | 35.37 | | South Africa | 27.40 | 33.76 | | New Zealand | 25.11 | 29.46 | | Zimbabwe | 24.33 | 27.93 | | ICC World XI | 22.08 | 24.20 | | Bangladesh | 19.34 | 23.21 | +--------------+----------------+-----------+ Standard Deviation and Average after 1990: +--------------+----------------+-----------+ | Team | Top 5 Std. Dev | Top 5 Avg | +--------------+----------------+-----------+ | [B]India[/B] | 32.69 | 39.90 | | Australia | 32.50 | 41.19 | | South Africa | 30.49 | 37.56 | | Sri Lanka | 30.49 | 36.59 | | Pakistan | 30.45 | 36.98 | | West Indies | 29.59 | 34.65 | | England | 29.31 | 36.03 | | New Zealand | 26.14 | 30.99 | | Zimbabwe | 24.33 | 27.93 | | ICC World XI | 22.08 | 24.20 | | Bangladesh | 19.34 | 23.21 | +--------------+----------------+-----------+ After 1990, while we have a lower average than Australia for the top 5, we have a higher standard deviation. Link to comment
Dhondy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Yeah, I reckon that's answered Observer's question. Link to comment
Dhondy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Although I must point out Varun, that the SD calculated for the top 5 doesn't indicate the dispersion of individual scores between those top five (i.e. it doesn't indicate that one person usually scores far in excess of others), but represents the variation in that mean itself, i.e. the inconsistency of that top five, collectively. Link to comment
varun Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Although I must point out Varun' date=' that the SD calculated for the top 5 doesn't indicate the dispersion of individual scores between those top five (i.e. it doesn't indicate that one person usually scores far in excess of others), but represents the variation in that mean itself, i.e. the inconsistency of that top five, collectively.[/quote'] Agreed Link to comment
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