• 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.

Pietersen 2nd to Bradman?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And whether some people like it or not, not getting out DOES deserve some credit.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And whether some people like it or not, not getting out DOES deserve some credit.
Who was the enlarged "some people" directed at. Pretty poor form if they think that keeping your wicket intact is irrelevant.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
There's a fair few people who've talked down the worth of not-outs down the years. CBA to name 'em all, and even if I did I'd be bound to miss some, which would lead to "why say me? X and B and J said exactly the same thing..." etc.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
There's a fair few people who've talked down the worth of not-outs down the years. CBA to name 'em all, and even if I did I'd be bound to miss some, which would lead to "why say me? X and B and J said exactly the same thing..." etc.
You know Richard, you must learn to at least try and see another point of view. It might, at times, enhance yours. Thhis is meant as no criticism. :)

There IS merit in taking into account the not outs, but it has to be tempered. I have thought a lot about this over the years. And here is my take on it.

The reason why we do not consider a players not out innings has an implicit assumption that he could go on to play another 'full innings' from the end of the undefeated one. Of course, this cant be true for all the unbeaten innings. A batsman DOES have to get out sometimes and it is safe to assume that Lara batting at 400 might be closer to getting out than Lara batting at 10. I know, I know all about being in and being set at the crease but as I said before, a batsman will eventually get out.

I, therefore, have always felt a slightly modified form of accounting for not outs may be a better approximation than the currently prevalent one. Mind you it is NOT perfect and nothing can be in these 'hypothetical situations.

I think all unbeaten innings of lower than a batsman's average innings score should be not be counted as a complete innings and all his unbeaten innings above his average score should be counted as out.

As I just said this is not perfect but I think it is better than assuming that at the end of each unbeaten innings, Bradman would have scored another 99 runs before getting out (as the present system assumes) OR

That at the end of every unbeaten innings, he would have got out without scoring, if he had continued as counting all not out innings as out assumes.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You know Richard, you must learn to at least try and see another point of view. It might, at times, enhance yours. Thhis is meant as no criticism. :)
Haha. Sorry if I was coming across as obtuse there.
There IS merit in taking into account the not outs, but it has to be tempered. I have thought a lot about this over the years. And here is my take on it.

The reason why we do not consider a players not out innings has an implicit assumption that he could go on to play another 'full innings' from the end of the undefeated one. Of course, this cant be true for all the unbeaten innings. A batsman DOES have to get out sometimes and it is safe to assume that Lara batting at 400 might be closer to getting out than Lara batting at 10. I know, I know all about being in and being set at the crease but as I said before, a batsman will eventually get out.

I, therefore, have always felt a slightly modified form of accounting for not outs may be a better approximation than the currently prevalent one. Mind you it is NOT perfect and nothing can be in these 'hypothetical situations.

I think all unbeaten innings of lower than a batsman's average innings score should be not be counted as a complete innings and all his unbeaten innings above his average score should be counted as out.

As I just said this is not perfect but I think it is better than assuming that at the end of each unbeaten innings, Bradman would have scored another 99 runs before getting out (as the present system assumes) OR

That at the end of every unbeaten innings, he would have got out without scoring, if he had continued as counting all not out innings as out assumes.
TBH, I just see it as that not getting out is a positive of batsmanship. Therefore, if someone has got out, I see that it should be treated differently to if they haven't, regardless of how many they've scored.

The scheme you suggested seems, to me, to have all sorts of complications. A bit like the crazy system we currently have in the Test and ODI rankings.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Us mere Staffies don't get any say in that sort of stuff any more. :p 'Tis all completely down to Mods and Mods alone.
 

Will Scarlet

U19 Debutant
As much as I think Bradman's average is unrealistically high, Bradman is leagues ahead of Pietersen; as was Viv Richards, Graeme Pollock, and many others. Ponting is far superior to Pietersen in every aspect other than arrogance - as they are about even.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Sehwag aside, and obviously Bradman, I guess the rest of the list >> KP.

You can't knock his efforts v Australia, but how much crap bowling and flat wickets has been out there?
 

Top