• 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.

Why....

pasag

pasag

RTDAS
Why do stats against minnows get removed to prove a point, like those runs shouldn't count because the oppo is poor but when a player fails against said poor opposition little is made of it.

I've seen this question raised before and it's a valid question. Fine if you want to say a ton against Bangladesh or Holland shouldn't count that much because of their quality, but then the players that don't perform shouldn't it be counted as double failure? Seems like we only see one side of the story here.

Thoughts?
 
sideshowtim

sideshowtim

Banned
More often than not it's just an abberation. If you can score runs against Australia but not against Bangladesh, I think it's safe to say you're a good batsman since you've scored runs against the best, no one looks at people's records and checks to see if they performed against the worst.

If you can score runs against Bangladesh but not against Australia, I think it's fair to question one's value as a quality batsman.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
It's something I only take note of if someone's scoring habits against these sides aren't in sync with their general batsmanship.
 
andruid

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
but does this take into account conditions on the day. After all if one get out first ball to a yorker from a Bangladeshis bowler does that make that duck less worth statistically than cashing in on half volleys and full tosses on a flat track against a bowler representing Australia to score a century?
 
Dasa

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
vic_orthdox said:
It's something I only take note of if someone's scoring habits against these sides aren't in sync with their general batsmanship.
Click to expand...
Yeah, same. Although it can still be difficult to say what constitutes a good attack/team or not. I would rate this Gilchrist's innings in this match much higher than Pietersen's in this match although the former was against a team identified as a 'minnow'.
 
sideshowtim

sideshowtim

Banned
Dasa said:
Yeah, same. Although it can still be difficult to say what constitutes a good attack/team or not. I would rate this Gilchrist's innings in this match much higher than Pietersen's in this match although the former was against a team identified as a 'minnow'.
Click to expand...
This is true. I also felt Ponting's innings that won us the second test was one of his better innings of all time, regardless of the opponent, due to the situation.

EDIT: Oops, it was indeed in that test. Wonderful innings.
 
Last edited:
pup11

pup11

International Coach
There is a particular breed of batsmen know as the "minnow bashers" who improve their overall stats by thumping the weaker teams which hides their shortcomings against the better sides so i have a problem with records of such batsmen and they are the one's who dilute the quality of the runs scored against the minnow teams even by better batsmen, but its also true that scoring runs is not only about facing good or bad calls its also about concentration and i think one needs to concentrate more against weaker teams because while playing against complacency could creep in.
Its pretty obvious that the quality of bowling of the minnow sides is not as good as compared to the bowling of better teams, but still one can't completly ridicule a player's record against a minnow team.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
pasag said:
Why do stats against minnows get removed to prove a point, like those runs shouldn't count because the oppo is poor but when a player fails against said poor opposition little is made of it.

I've seen this question raised before and it's a valid question. Fine if you want to say a ton against Bangladesh or Holland shouldn't count that much because of their quality, but then the players that don't perform shouldn't it be counted as double failure? Seems like we only see one side of the story here.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Simple. People with what I might call an educated mind have realised that Bangladesh are not Test-class; that Bermuda are not ODI-class; etc. (there are quite a few teams who've never been ODI-class; there are a few teams who have at certain times been both Test- and\or ODI-class and not so at certain others).

With this in mind, anything - no picking and choosing, no removing runs but not removing innings; no removing innings above a certain score but leaving innings below a certain score - that happens in games such as these is not counted when we are assessing what we know is proper Test\ODI cricket.

Of course, someone should be disappointed not to score runs against Holland or Canada, but no more so than they should if they don't score them against Western Australia or Kent.

Usually (and not always correctly IMO) people are willing to completely write-off what happens at the level below Test\ODI if the player is a success at Tests\ODIs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top