200+ match aggregate in wins

[ganeshran]

Whinga better than Hammond, Hutton and Sobers :aha: :yay:

[The Outsider]

Like any other stat, this one is going to have qualifiers and shortcomings, but by dismissing it because Tendulkar does not feature in it, the fan boys are just exposing their limited capacity to reason. This stat would be a reflection of two broad circumstances: 1. When this was achieved on a good batting pitch with other similar batting contributions, a lot of credit would go the bowlers. 2. When this was achieved as a stand out batting performance across a test match in conditions which were not the best for batting. Like any other stat, one would need to look at the individual innings for more understanding but to compare Dravid in the list with Inzamam, Langer, and Greenidge is sheer lunacy on part of the fan boys, not that anything else can be expected from this depraved bunch of morons infesting the internet. Inzamam, Langer, and Greenidge all had vastly more superior bowling attacks to back up their batting. Comparison can be drawn in such stats only when the strength of the bowling and team are comparable. Not that I expect this bunch to understand this because even after posting something similar earlier in the thread the baraatis are still doing their baraati dance uninhibited. Enough time wasted, time to something more productive.

[akshayxyz]

speak for yourself.. this is one of the reason I rate Dravid highly mainly not some random averages over the course. You have to consider how much impact he made in a single test that was won. Infact i posted related to this fact. Infact this thread's idea came to me from that. I decided to find out how many times Dravid has done well in both the innings.so i used this 200 cut off mark to judge that.

And how many of those 200+ ( per test ) winning scores are not due 200+ ( or close to it), in single innings of the match? And why does it have to be 200, to be considered to have "done well in both innings". Edit: finally clicked at your link. Even for DGB, only 2 out of 12 times he appears in the list, he actually did well in "both innings".... what a creative metric to evaluate "performing well in both innings". I used a cutt-off of 50 (peanuts for DGB) for doing well in an innings, otherwise for DGB, he will be reduced to only one instance.

[Khalpat]

And how many of those 200+ ( per test ) winning scores are not due 200+ ( or close to it), in single innings of the match? And why does it have to be 200, to be considered to have "done well in both innings". Edit: finally clicked at your link. Even for DGB, only 2 out of 12 times he appears in the list, he actually did well in "both innings".... what a creative metric to evaluate "performing well in both innings". I used a cutt-off of 50 (peanuts for DGB) for doing well in an innings, otherwise for DGB, he will be reduced to only one instance.

Oh come on, you will have to admit that it was the best tribute ever given by anybody to any player. VVS is embarassing himself, he should admit what exactly his niyat or intention was while opening this thread. Any ways he has opened the thread he will any how try to justify it thats acceptable but onething I do not understand what is the problem with someother guys , i mean I am amazed we all are saying this thread is an insult to Dravid and lizard is coming slowly as if ek hi dialogue soch ke aaya hai you Sachin fans moron dharti ke bojh how come you are saying this. Fist time I am getting galliyan for shielding Dravid.

[akshayxyz]

@vvs Here is a more sensible metric to show - "done well in both innings." (at least a 50 in both innings, regardless of win/loss). http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=player;qualmax1=2;qualmin1=2;qualval1=innings;runsmin1=50;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=batting;view=match Interestingly DGB appears only 4 times, while most of the modern greats ( and not so greats too), appear more than twice. That too when 50 is peanuts by DGB's standards, for him qualification criteria should be at least 80 in both innings. Edit: And before you ask - why remove the filter "only wins".. well a batsman's job is to score runs, winning is a parameter to evaluate team performance.

[Ultimate_Game]

IMO a better metric/stat would be %ge of teams' total runs scored by a batsman in the teams' wins. Thus, if a batsman scores just 140 in both the innings out of a teams' total of say 280 across both innings, that's 50% of the teams' runs scored by the batsman, which would be a better achievement than say someone scoring 200 out of 600 runs scored by the team thus making only 33% of the team runs. This stat would take out other factors such as bowling strength and pitch conditions/venue. Thus, even a low score in a low scoring match would come in higher than scoring boatloads on a batting friendly pitch.

[akshayxyz]

hence proved - vvs failed on two accounts - OP as a beshtestest...est ever 'tribute to Dravid', and claiming that 200+ total in a match (that too only won) is a metric to say - performed well in both innings. So, vvs babu...any more lols on offer for the day?

[vvvslaxman]

hence proved - vvs failed on two accounts - OP as a beshtestest...est ever 'tribute to Dravid', and claiming that 200+ total in a match (that too only won) is a metric to say - performed well in both innings. So, vvs babu...any more lols on offer for the day?

No sir.. 200 in one innings is lot of runs... i am not failing on anything. Do you think i don't know viru made 309 runs and India own the match, 293 runs and India won the match :facepalm: .. Instead of trying "prove point" join the discussion. You need so many filters to find out who did well in both innings that helped a team win.

[Old guy]

Edit: And before you ask - why remove the filter "only wins".. well a batsman's job is to score runs, winning is a parameter to evaluate team performance.

totally agree with this i never got he is a match winner.. cos team won more..itsn ot as simple as that it just shows he was part of better team.. personally i like lara more then both tendulkar and pontng but lara's record is dismal cos of weak team he played in :( but i do understand that some knocks are just special like laxman's 281..but runs scored will never harm... :P

[Khalpat]

IMO a better metric/stat would be %ge of teams' total runs scored by a batsman in the teams' wins. Thus, if a batsman scores just 140 in both the innings out of a teams' total of say 280 across both innings, that's 50% of the teams' runs scored by the batsman, which would be a better achievement than say someone scoring 200 out of 600 runs scored by the team thus making only 33% of the team runs. This stat would take out other factors such as bowling strength and pitch conditions/venue. Thus, even a low score in a low scoring match would come in higher than scoring boatloads on a batting friendly pitch.

You mean something like this http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63587.html oops sorry out before again I am called as Bhakth

[akshayxyz]

No sir.. 200 in one innings is lot of runs... i am not failing on anything. Do you think i don't know viru made 309 runs and India own the match' date=' 293 runs and India won the match :facepalm: .. Instead of trying "prove point" join the discussion. You need so many filters to find out who did well in both innings that helped a team win.[/quote'] I am surprised you are still backing up your ridiculous stat-ment. Tell me, how a 200/300 in ONE innings of a match is a metric to evaluate - "performed well in both innings" - your latest defense for "200+" filter.

[vvvslaxman]

I am surprised you are still backing up your ridiculous stat-ment. Tell me, how a 200/300 in ONE innings of a match is a metric to evaluate - "performed well in both innings" - your latest defense for "200+" filter.

Sorry sir..all you are doing here trying to find fault with OP.. which is frankly an useless exercise.. contributes nothing towards what i wanted to say. I know everything you posted myself. You don't have to reeducate me. I know people have got 200 in same innings not done well in 2nd inniings. You are just making a fool out of yourself by going around in circles without really contributing anything useful to this thread. I know what you will say. "Now you have new defense". you are like ishant sharma now.. so predictable.. . plz spare us with your new discoveries.

[Old guy]

Sorry sir..all you are doing here trying to find fault with OP.. which is frankly an useless exercise.. contributes nothing towards what i wanted to say. I know everything you posted myself. You don't have to reeducate me. I know people have got 200 in same innings not done well in 2nd inniings. You are just making a fool out of yourself by going around in circles without really contributing anything useful to this thread. I know what you will say. "Now you have new defense". you are like ishant sharma now.. so predictable.. . plz spare us with your new discoveries.

whos in ur avatar? :hmmm:

[vvvslaxman]

whos in ur avatar? :hmmm:

Rose byrne :winky:

[Old guy]

Rose byrne :winky:

good choice :nice: B->

[akshayxyz]

Sorry sir..all you are doing here trying to find fault with OP.. which is frankly an useless exercise.. contributes nothing towards what i wanted to say. I know everything you posted myself. You don't have to reeducate me. I know people have got 200 in same innings not done well in 2nd inniings. You are just making a fool out of yourself by going around in circles without really contributing anything useful to this thread. I know what you will say. "Now you have new defense". you are like ishant sharma now.. so predictable.. . plz spare us with your new discoveries.

So it was a sincerely useless tribute to Dravid? kya phoonk rahey ho thakur (what you smoking)? aapki stat-trolling ki maa-behan ho gayi tou ye naya - "I can read your mind"- paintra?

[Raghav_12]

Like any other stat' date=' this one is going to have qualifiers and shortcomings, but by dismissing it [b']because Tendulkar does not feature in it, the fan boys are just exposing their limited capacity to reason. This stat would be a reflection of two broad circumstances: 1. When this was achieved on a good batting pitch with other similar batting contributions, a lot of credit would go the bowlers. 2. When this was achieved as a stand out batting performance across a test match in conditions which were not the best for batting. Like any other stat, one would need to look at the individual innings for more understanding but to compare Dravid in the list with Inzamam, Langer, and Greenidge is sheer lunacy on part of the fan boys, not that anything else can be expected from this depraved bunch of morons infesting the internet. Inzamam, Langer, and Greenidge all had vastly more superior bowling attacks to back up their batting. Comparison can be drawn in such stats only when the strength of the bowling and team are comparable. Not that I expect this bunch to understand this because even after posting something similar earlier in the thread the baraatis are still doing their baraati dance uninhibited. Enough time wasted, time to something more productive.

This is figment of your imagination. I regect this list because it doesn't put Dravid at his deserving places in pantheons of modern great bats. If you want to pay tribute to Dravid come up with the kind of stats I quoted in my post, not with some stats which relegates him towards mediocrity. From the list that OP posted only Ponting and Kallis can be considered at par with Dravid. But there too, list shows if Ponting was much-much superior to Dravid.

[vvvslaxman]

So it was a sincerely useless tribute to Dravid? kya phoonk rahey ho thakur (what you smoking)? aapki stat-trolling ki maa-behan ho gayi tou ye naya - "I can read your mind"- paintra?

Yes.. from YOU

[Crookbond]

You mean something like this http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63587.html oops sorry out before again I am called as Bhakth

Probably, UG meant something like this - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/india/content/records/283999.html PS - Some more filtering required.

[vvvslaxman]

Probably' date=' UG meant something like this - [url']http://stats.espncricinfo.com/india/content/records/283999.html PS - Some more filtering required.

interesting..we have to check manually how many resulted in win? is there a way to find out?