New here - been enjoying reading posts but thought it was time I'd finally jump in and join with the discussions.
Anyway, something that I've been wondering about is about batsmen and how they score and their resultant usefulness to a team - I'm talking in terms of consistency of scoring.
Perhaps if I give you a hypothical example, might explain better:
Batsman 1, has a batting average of 50.00
Batsman 2, has a batting average of 50.00
Batsman 1 scores consistently in in the 50s and 60s
Batsman 2 scores the odd century or even a double century, but also gets out cheaply often.
Batsman 1 scores in 10 innings - 49, 51, 47, 43, 56, 50, 46, 52, 49, 57
Batsman 2 scores in 10 innings - 3, 127, 13, 18, 8, 216, 13, 0, 9, 106
So both batsman have the same aggregate number of runs (500) with the same average, but they differ in consistency.
The question is, who would you value more in your team - batsman 1 with his almost certain half-century of runs, or batsman 2 who could get a really big score, or more likely get out cheaply?
(assume this is for tests, first class cricket)