Showing a real lack of cricket insight here.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
Using England's scores this series and comparing them with Australia's doesn't make any sense because one side is in great form whilst the other is not.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Anyways this thread is not for exploring why we don't post 500s more often, but why we collapse for cheap scores. And in that case Watson doesn't come anywhere near close as the problem.
The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.
One of the biggest instigators for Australia's success was the conversion rates of Langer, Slater and Hayden, the three mainstay openers between 1995 and 2006.
Slater: 21 x 50, 14 x 100 [40%]
Hayden: 29 x 50, 30 x 100 [51%]
Langer (as opener): 18 x 50, 16 x 100 [47%]
Katich (as opener): 17 x 50, 8 x 100 [32%]
Watson (as opener): 12 x 50, 2 x 100 [14%]
EDIT: the other factor is ensuring that you keep the fielding team out there for longer. Especially for the sake of the second innings; would you rather be facing a team that bowled for 90 overs, or 130 overs, in the first innings? It makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to a collapse in the second innings.
Last edited by vic_orthdox; 07-12-2010 at 09:57 PM.
Its not even so much that coming in at 300/3 gives batsmen the psychological advantage. Its about the fact that a bowler who is bowling at 300/3 has already been completely demoralized by having been caned around the park. However, coming in when the team is 120/3 is quite a bit different because most bowlers bowl better and have their tail up when they sense opportunity.
Last edited by tooextracool; 07-12-2010 at 10:04 PM.
Some player score runs by getting very high scores and very low scores (e.g. Marcus North) while others seem to get many intermediate scores (e.g. Watson). The difference between Watson and North, is that North has a ****ty average whilst Watson doesn't. The pattern of scoring is irrelevant.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)