• 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.

Hypothetical selection decision - consistency

Which batsman would you rather have in your team?

  • Batsman D - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 400, 0, 0, 0

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Simple scenario here - which one of these fine hypothetical gentlemen would you most like to have in your batting lineup?

Batsman A - Scores 40 runs every innings - if this guy bats a thousand times, he scores 40 a thousand times.

Batsmen B - Scores a century 4/10 times - for every ten times this gentleman bats, he scores 100 exactly four times, and gets ducks every other time.

Batsman C - Scores a double-century 2/10 times - for every ten times this man bats, he scores 200 exactly twice, and gets ducks on the other eight occasions.

Batsman D - Scores 400 once out of ten - for every ten times this bloke comes to the crease, he scores one score of 400, but gets a duck every other time.

Obviously a kind of silly hypothetical, but it has a semi-serious issue of batting consistency at its heart.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Very tough, I went for the Marcus North option - nothing and 100s..

It does depend what country he's playing for, for example a Bangladeshi would probably welcome a guy who scores 100s so consistently.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tough question. I'd want consistency, but not converting starts is a bit crap.

Went B, FWIW.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
For NZ, I'd take option A and make him an opener. I'd also specify that he can score those 40 runs in 100 balls, thanksverymuch.

Otherwise, would agree with the rest of you and go for the ducks and hundreds.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
To over simplify things-- for forty read 0. They dont help anyone. Hundreds do. Good players help you win games. Whilst there are occasionally 40s that make a difference, on most occasions they mainly pass the buck to someone else that has to do the heavy lifting. As a simple rule of thumb, you need 100s to win. What you want is one batsman, hopefully two, to fire in the same innings. It doesnt have to be the same player every innings

Everyday 40s are a waste of space.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
To over simplify things-- for forty read 0. They dont help anyone. Hundreds do. Good players help you win games. Whilst there are occasionally 40s that make a difference, on most occasions they mainly pass the buck to someone else that has to do the heavy lifting. As a simple rule of thumb, you need 100s to win. What you want is one batsman, hopefully two, to fire in the same innings. It doesnt have to be the same player every innings

Everyday 40s are a waste of space.
Yeah ****ing Fleming.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
100's win matches :)
And ducks lose them.

The 40-40-40-40 man has a lot going for him in my view. If you could really guarantee 40 runs per innings, he's a useful man to have in the team.

Interesting thread, btw. I've often wondered about something very similar, namely if you had one batsman who scored 100, 0, 100, 0, 100, 0, would you prefer him to a batsman who scored 50 every time. Still can't make up my mind.
 

ret

International Debutant
to me those options reads more like

A - Dravid
B - Tendulkar
C - Sehwag
D - Someone like Wasim Akram going berserk on Zim

Option B for me!
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
I think batsmen C and D would be out of the question due to severe inconsistency - see the case of someone like Mathew Sinclair. 4 centuries per 10 innings would get my vote - those could be match changing innings, and although 6/10 ducks is not a particularly good statistic, the other 4 knocks make up for that shortcoming more than a player than never scores more than 40, and would come in for some criticism for never producing a potentially match changing performance - as in Stephen Fleming's situation at times during his career.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't really see the point in this sort of hypothesis, because obviously it's so far from realistic as to touch the confines of absurdity. Equally, the point isn't really taken by such things. The needs of each hour are different. Those who say "hundreds win matches", well, they're wrong. Different matches are won by different scores. And certain batsmen are more likely to make those scores - whether they be 65 in a low-scoring game or 165 in a high-scoring one - than others.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Taking a recent example, Phil Hughes's 35 at Cardiff was a very valuable low score. The difference between the situation when he walked out to bat- with 40 minutes to bat before lunch, Flintoff going nuts and a brand new ball to face- and the situation when he left- 60 runs on the board, Flintoff wrecked and Stuart Broad on, you have to say it was a pretty important innings. Likewise if he had stuck around that little bit longer in either innings at Lord's, Anderson would have been out of the attack, Ponting could have got himself set against less dangerous bowlers and an older ball, and the course of the match could have been a lot different.

Obviously you'll take the guy who scores a century every other game. But it all depends on the match situation. 40 can be good, 100 can be useless and Alec Stewart taught us that 9* can be positively heroic.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I have to disagree with Goughy, because while hundreds do win matches, if a person in my team was guaranteed to score 40 every innings, he'd be immediatly on the list. It's a contribution you can count on.

I wouldn't have option D, it's way too many matches lost for one match potentially won but most likely drawn. For C, a double is very valuable but he'd be too much dead weight in too many other games.

So it's A or B. B is nice because you can get lucky and he can score 2 centuries in one game, and when he does fire, chances are you'll post good totals - 3/10. For a team like Bangaldesh, I'd go C, since that'll give me the best chance of winning a few matches, even if I lose the others.

It's a tough choice between A or B - I suppose it depends on the needs of the team. For India, I'd go player A, since we do have Sehwag and a couple others who can score big. But Dravid like solidity is also needed on many occassions, just holding down the fort and what not.

B would probably be useful for both types of teams, and I'd say that guy would be selected most widely. Though I don't think he is a clear winner over player A.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
To over simplify things-- for forty read 0. They dont help anyone. Hundreds do. Good players help you win games. Whilst there are occasionally 40s that make a difference, on most occasions they mainly pass the buck to someone else that has to do the heavy lifting. As a simple rule of thumb, you need 100s to win. What you want is one batsman, hopefully two, to fire in the same innings. It doesnt have to be the same player every innings

Everyday 40s are a waste of space.
Were you watching India's tour of New Zealand in March? India scored four centuries over three games, while New Zealand score six. Rahul Dravid hit four half-centuries and no hundreds, but his runs were regularly the difference between the two sides.

Brendon McCullum hit one century on a seriously flat pitch in a drawn game. Don't tell me you'd rather a batsman do that.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Perhaps one way of looking at this is to work out what would happen if all of your top 5 batsmen were of a particular type.

Batsman A: simple to work out - the top 5 will always score 200 between them. Which isn't great, but it's competitive, particularly if you know that they will score 200 in the 2nd innings too.

Batsman B: I find this harder to work out because I'm not a mathematician.

From my maths I can work out that the chance of getting zero runs is about 7.7% (60% x 60% x 60% x 60% x 60%)

The chance of getting 500 runs is about 1% (40% x x 40% x 40% x 40% x 40%)

Beyond that my maths breaks down. Can anyone else help?
 

Top