• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What is a meaningless game ?

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Just for the records.

635 or 36.8 % of all test matches played so far have been drawn. Must be a pretty large number of these that were boring draws I suppose.

India (45.3%) Pakistan (43 %) and NZL (42.3%) top the list of teams as far as proportion of draws are concerned.

India-Pakistan matches take pride of place with 64.8% of these games ending in no result.

Wonder how many big innings, five fors etc should be deleted from the record books to bring some sanity to cricket statistics :dry:
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I don't see a big deal in agreeing to draws when its inevitable. Chess as I said does the same and its not as if they are not a sport which keeps track of records. Chess in fact is more record centric with each move saved.

Too much important is given to records.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Pratyush said:
I don't see a big deal in agreeing to draws when its inevitable. Chess as I said does the same and its not as if they are not a sport which keeps track of records. Chess in fact is more record centric with each move saved.

Too much important is given to records.
Chess cannot be compared to Cricket. The top players in chess invariably perform to par, and dramatic collapses are virtually unheard of. Not so in cricket. The best of players can bungle up inexplicably. As for records, maintaining a record of each move is similar to Television footage in cricket. The only function is to replay the game to future audiences. To call chess record-centric is to misinterpret it. Chess enthusiasts talk of how a player might have played a particular gambit in a few games, but nobody uses those recordings to asess players on the basis of one player having used the same set of moves in" 43.35% of his games while another did so in 35% only "or whatever. You dont hear such talk.It simply doesnt matter to them. On the other hand, cricket is diametrically opposite with infinite stats being recorded and discussed.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Deja moo said:
Chess cannot be compared to Cricket. The top players in chess invariably perform to par, and dramatic collapses are virtually unheard of. Not so in cricket. The best of players can bungle up inexplicably. As for records, maintaining a record of each move is similar to Television footage in cricket. The only function is to replay the game to future audiences. To call chess record-centric is to misinterpret it. Chess enthusiasts talk of how a player might have played a particular gambit in a few games, but nobody uses those recordings to asess players on the basis of one player having used the same set of moves in" 43.35% of his games while another did so in 35% only "or whatever. You dont hear such talk.It simply doesnt matter to them. On the other hand, cricket is diametrically opposite with infinite stats being recorded and discussed.
Record centric in the sense it maintains records in much more detail than cricket. The record obsession is present in cricket and isn't necessary - my point.

Regarding dramatic collapses - chess tests a lot of aspects the mental strength and even aspects like physical fitness. It is very vital to remain fit or else you become lethargic in chess while you play. All top players work out and try to keep at top physical shape because of this aspect. There are collapses and blunder moves in chess as well. If there are x good and y bad shots in cricket, there are many more moves in chess and a lot of variables in that aspect.
 
Last edited:

Deja moo

International Captain
Pratyush said:
Record centric in the sense it maintains records in much more detail than cricket. The record obsession is present in cricket and isn't necessary - my point.

Regarding dramatic collapses - chess tests a lot of aspects the mental strength and even aspects like physical fitness. It is very vital to remain fit or else you become lethargic in chess while you play. All top players work out and try to kepe at top physical shape because of this aspect. There are collapses and blunder moves in chess as well. If there are x good and y bad shots in cricket, there are many more moves in chess and a lot of variables in that aspect.
Yes, but those variables are not aggregated and talked of in terms of averages. Thats not so in cricket.
And I still dont get how you can term chess as record-centric. Yes, they record moves, but that performs the same function as television coverage in cricket, and nothing more. If you want to watch a cricket game in future, you reach for the tape. If you want to see how a chess game played out, you reach for the recorded moves. That is all. You could term chess as record-centric only if the recorded moves were then used to derive certain numerically expressible facets of the game. The mere noting down of moves means zilch unless you use them to expose various facets of the game. That is how a game becomes record-centric. You cannot do that in chess, or only to a very limited degree, but you can do that to an infinte degree in cricket.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Deja moo said:
And I still dont get how you can term chess as record-centric. Yes, they record moves, but that performs the same function as television coverage in cricket, and nothing more.
Record centric in the sense records are kept in more detail than cricket - for purpose of spectators, players and fans to analyse the game. Its not record obsessed like cricket and I totally agree with you. You didn't get me. :)
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
social said:
Sorry but the last series was an isolated example and a shock to all concerned given that India were the overwhelming favourites at the time.

BTW, if Pakistan are so important to India, then please explain why the BCCI has thrown there lot in with Aus and Eng.
Did u forget that India already have reached an agreement with the PCB? The ECB and CA deals were just an extension of the similar formula.
 

Top