What is a crisis situation in Test cricket?

[Vijay.Sharma]

This is a spin off from the thread that Sumantra started. I was hoping he would define "crisis situation" but as it is apparent he hasn't gotten to quantify it other than leave at the level of perception.

I call upon you all to help in defining 'crisis situation' although it is a very subjective term. Here are some of my initial thoughts -

Team batting in the first innings of the Test -
a. They are < 100 for 4
b. They are < 125 for 5
c. They are < 60 for 3

Team batting in the second innings of a Test -
Actual data of Test cricket sez that batsmen number 1 to 6 score about 72-75% of the team's runs and the rest by batsmen 7 to 11. Based on this (and assuming that if team 2 scores even 90% of runs as team 1 in their first innings it's decent),
a. They are less than 60% runs of opposition and have only 6 wickets in hand
b. They are less than 70% runs of opposition and have only 5 wickets in hand

Team batting in the third innings of a Test -
a. They are < 80 for 4
b. They are < 100 for 5
c. They still trail by 25% from first innings lead of opponent and are already 3 down. For ex - if team 1 scores 300 in innings 1 and team 2 scores 450 in inn2. Now team 1 trails by 100 runs which is 33.33% of team 2. Suppose team 1 loses it's third wicket given their second innings score is < 38 (i.e. they will be trailing by 450 - (300 + 38) = 112 which is 25% of 450) then it is a crisis situation.
d. Same as above - 15% from first innings and 4th wicket down
e. Same as above - 10% from first innings and 5th wicket down

Team batting in the fourth innings of a Test -
a. They are < 50 for 4
b. They are < 40 for 3
c. They are < 30 for 2
d. They are < 65 for 5
e. They trail by 100 runs with 5 wickets remaining

Please provide your inputs and let's see if this Dravid thing is a myth or the truth

 

[sumantra]

This is a spin off from the thread that Sumantra started. I was hoping he would define "crisis situation" but as it is apparent he hasn't gotten to quantify it other than leave at the level of perception.

I call upon you all to help in defining 'crisis situation' although it is a very subjective term. Here are some of my initial thoughts -

Team batting in the first innings of the Test -
a. They are < 100 for 4
b. They are < 125 for 5
c. They are < 60 for 3

Team batting in the second innings of a Test -
Actual data of Test cricket sez that batsmen number 1 to 6 score about 72-75% of the team's runs and the rest by batsmen 7 to 11. Based on this (and assuming that if team 2 scores even 90% of runs as team 1 in their first innings it's decent),
a. They are less than 60% runs of opposition and have only 6 wickets in hand
b. They are less than 70% runs of opposition and have only 5 wickets in hand

Team batting in the third innings of a Test -
a. They are < 80 for 4
b. They are < 100 for 5
c. They still trail by 25% from first innings lead of opponent and are already 3 down. For ex - if team 1 scores 300 in innings 1 and team 2 scores 450 in inn2. Now team 1 trails by 100 runs which is 33.33% of team 2. Suppose team 1 loses it's third wicket given their second innings score is < 38 (i.e. they will be trailing by 450 - (300 + 38) = 112 which is 25% of 450) then it is a crisis situation.
d. Same as above - 15% from first innings and 4th wicket down
e. Same as above - 10% from first innings and 5th wicket down

Team batting in the fourth innings of a Test -
a. They are < 50 for 4
b. They are < 40 for 3
c. They are < 30 for 2
d. They are < 65 for 5
e. They trail by 100 runs with 5 wickets remaining

Please provide your inputs and let's see if this Dravid thing is a myth or the truth

all your projects, ever written on the site, will be targeting only only one thing, that is to prove that Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time...u have already done your PHD on that subject...the problem is, your argument went like this, tendulkar is the best, now let's prove it...

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

all your projects, ever written on the site, will be targeting only only one thing, that is to prove that Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time...u have already done your PHD on that subject...the problem is, your argument went like this, tendulkar is the best, now let's prove it...

That's again a defeatist attitude. Instead of going off loose tongued again, why not you determine what constitutes proof and let us test it?

You can sit there and keep yapping about the form of my argument. But you would make more sense if you could at least be a little smart and produce a way to test / evaluate performances. The moment you produce it then you can immediately see for yourself that we start with a clean slate and then see what facts tell us.

It's easy to throw dirt on people and say that they decided the outcome first and worked backwards to the criteria. However, if you truly believe it is so then it shouldn't take you much to establish a fresh set of criteria that will show me as being dishonest or pre-determined in the outcome.

I tell you Sumantra, before you throw mud on others first verify whether your position is solid enough. If your position is solid enough then go ahead present your case and prove that I am a dishonest, disingenuous person who has predetermined the outcome. Go on, do it.

 

[miscer]

id say 170/8 chasing 260
or 90/5 in response to 530
or following on

edit: im off by a couple of runs here and there but all those are situations where an indian team has come back to win. All three occasions involve laxman btw.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sumantra, please take the pissing contests somewhere else.

You are not the only one who has interpreted Vijay Sharma's analysis in the other thread as being conclusion-driven, but this is neither the place nor the manner in which to deal with it. I am not in the mood for what ought to be enlightening discussion being brought down to the level of playground name-calling. Term starts again next week and I have enough of that to deal with there.

Regarding the topic at hand, I think it is facile to deem a cut-off point where a crisis starts: there is precious little difference between 3/59 and 3/62 - the difference between the keeper getting a glove on a leg-side wide and parrying it to fine leg, and the ball going to the boundary. One, by your initial definitions, is a crisis, the other is plain sailing. The only way to analyse this with any degree of empirical validity is to invoke a sliding scale - where the ultimate crisis is such like Trueman having India four down without a run on the board, and everything else is progressively less perilous.

 

[smash84]

That's again a defeatist attitude. Instead of going off loose tongued again, why not you determine what constitutes proof and let us test it?

You can sit there and keep yapping about the form of my argument. But you would make more sense if you could at least be a little smart and produce a way to test / evaluate performances. The moment you produce it then you can immediately see for yourself that we start with a clean slate and then see what facts tell us.

It's easy to throw dirt on people and say that they decided the outcome first and worked backwards to the criteria. However, if you truly believe it is so then it shouldn't take you much to establish a fresh set of criteria that will show me as being dishonest or pre-determined in the outcome.

I tell you Sumantra, before you throw mud on others first verify whether your position is solid enough. If your position is solid enough then go ahead present your case and prove that I am a dishonest, disingenuous person who has predetermined the outcome. Go on, do it.

This

I do quite appreciate your attempt at trying to quantify what exactly is a crisis situation but this is an extremely simplistic view of things. There are so many other factors like pitch conditions, bowling attacks, relative strengths of teams etc etc.

Sumantra, please take the pissing contests somewhere else.

You are not the only one who has interpreted Vijay Sharma's analysis in the other thread as being conclusion-driven, but this is neither the place nor the manner in which to deal with it. I am not in the mood for what ought to be enlightening discussion being brought down to the level of playground name-calling. Term starts again next week and I have enough of that to deal with there.

Regarding the topic at hand, I think it is facile to deem a cut-off point where a crisis starts: there is precious little difference between 3/59 and 3/62 - the difference between the keeper getting a glove on a leg-side wide and parrying it to fine leg, and the ball going to the boundary. One, by your initial definitions, is a crisis, the other is plain sailing. The only way to analyse this with any degree of empirical validity is to invoke a sliding scale - where the ultimate crisis is such like Trueman having India four down without a run on the board, and everything else is progressively less perilous.

This. Much more articulate

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

id say 170/8 chasing 260
or 90/5 in response to 530
or following on

edit: im off by a couple of runs here and there but all those are situations where an indian team has come back to win. All three occasions involve laxman btw.

How about
a. being 11/3, 43/4 and going on to post 330 in the third innings and win by 90 runs
b. being 14/2 in a low scoring game where your first innings was 103 and Aus scores 204 in theirs and then you go on to win the game by 14 runs
c. being 109/4 and 127/5 in the 4th innings and scoring a century to save the game
d. being 68/4 before lunch and scoring 379 in the day only to lose the test
e. being 55/4 and all out for 176 and scoring 76 on day 1 of the Test...of course lost it
f. being 93/4 when the opposition has put 400+ on board and scoring a century...going on to win the game
g. being 24/2 and 68/3 and going on to post 500 odd
h. being 56/2 on day 1 and after you get out the rest of the team folds up for 45 odd runs to post 290. you go on to win the game
i. being 33/4 and 58/5 when the opposition has scored 500+ to rescue the team and avoid follow on...but they lost
j, k. l, m....z, aa, ab, ac....az, ba, bb, .....bz

There's no dearth of crisis performances...thing is we tend to forget the crisis performances of some and remember the crisis performances of others

 

[Spark]

Think it's pretty ludicrous to be defining specific cutoffs for crisis situations. I've seen 3/200 be a far more urgent crisis than 5/100 plenty of times.

As with all things in cricket, it's all about context.

 

[NUFAN]

Also, it's not just when a batsman starts an innings. He could come in at 1/42, but still be in at 5/123, 8/221 and the only reason why it's not exactly a crisis at 8/221 is due to the batsman being on say 90*.

Batsman in poor teams, batsman who bat below poor openers and just simply openers are going to be in crisis positions varying amounts compared batsman in differing circumstances.

Runs in crisis situations are huge in my opinion, but I wouldn't be using a wickets down for runs scored measure to determine what constitutes a crisis.
.

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[ankitj]

I think a crisis situation is one where a batsman is playing overseas while his woman is making out with his neighbour back home. Anyone knows how batsmen have performed in such circumstances?

 

[ankitj]

I think a crisis situation is one where a batsman is playing overseas while his woman is making out with his neighbour back home. Anyone knows how batsmen have performed in such circumstances?

And I call upon you all to help guess how will smileyshah respond to above:

(a)
(b)
(c) This
(d) AWTA

 

[G.I.Joe]

WTF

Gilchrist hit a double century under the strain of such allegations FTR.

 

[G.I.Joe]

And I call upon you all to help guess how will smileyshah respond to above:

(a)
(b)
(c) This
(d) AWTA

I don't think he does AWTA anywhere near the frequency with which he abuses the first three options.

 

[The Sean]

Regarding the topic at hand, I think it is facile to deem a cut-off point where a crisis starts: there is precious little difference between 3/59 and 3/62 - the difference between the keeper getting a glove on a leg-side wide and parrying it to fine leg, and the ball going to the boundary. One, by your initial definitions, is a crisis, the other is plain sailing. The only way to analyse this with any degree of empirical validity is to invoke a sliding scale - where the ultimate crisis is such like Trueman having India four down without a run on the board, and everything else is progressively less perilous.

Also, it's not just when a batsman starts an innings. He could come in at 1/42, but still be in at 5/123, 8/221 and the only reason why it's not exactly a crisis at 8/221 is due to the batsman being on say 90*.

Batsman in poor teams, batsman who bat below poor openers and just simply openers are going to be in crisis positions varying amounts compared batsman in differing circumstances.

Runs in crisis situations are huge in my opinion, but I wouldn't be using a wickets down for runs scored measure to determine what constitutes a crisis.

Both of these.

 

[centurymaker]

And I call upon you all to help guess how will smileyshah respond to above:

(a)
(b)
(c) This
(d) AWTA

a times 3

 

[Howe_zat]

Regarding the topic at hand, I think it is facile to deem a cut-off point where a crisis starts: there is precious little difference between 3/59 and 3/62 - the difference between the keeper getting a glove on a leg-side wide and parrying it to fine leg, and the ball going to the boundary. One, by your initial definitions, is a crisis, the other is plain sailing. The only way to analyse this with any degree of empirical validity is to invoke a sliding scale - where the ultimate crisis is such like Trueman having India four down without a run on the board, and everything else is progressively less perilous.

You're coming about this from the right direction, sure, but there have been far, far worse crises than that, simply because it happened so early in the match. There have been plenty of instances on the final couple of days of a test where your side is all but guaranteed to lose. Four down for nothing, while a disastrous start, doesn't quite have that.

And I call upon you all to help guess how will smileyshah respond to above:

(a)
(b)
(c) This
(d) AWTA

Pfft, you've got to do better than that to make smalishah laugh.

 

[The Sean]

Further to NUFAN's point I also remember it being discussed, here and elsewhere, that frequently a player will produce a performance so good that any even potential crisis will be avoided and so he won't be seen as a "crisis" player.

Bradman is the ultimate example of this - it's hard to rescue your team from a crisis when you're making so many runs every innings that they're so rarely in one.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Further to NUFAN's point I also remember it being discussed, here and elsewhere, that frequently a player will produce a performance so good that any even potential crisis will be avoided and so he won't be seen as a "crisis" player.

Bradman is the ultimate example of this - it's hard to rescue your team from a crisis when you're making so many runs every innings that they're so rarely in one.

For a fair while, Gilchrist was like that. He could come out with 5 down for bugger all and then you'd forget there had been a collapse.

 

[ankitj]

Pfft, you've got to do better than that to make smalishah laugh.

He's the only one who laughs at all my lame jokes.