DoG's Test Innings and Bowling Performances. Updates thread.

[cnerd123]

Meant his batting.

Want to see which of his 6 ducks ranks the highest.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hundred at Lord's, ****. Yet another feat Tendulkar couldn't manage.

 

[cnerd123]

Sachin's such an overrated hack.

 

[Days of Grace]

Meant his batting.

Want to see which of his 6 ducks ranks the highest.

Ha! They would all be 0.00 since for scores under 100, you rating is multiplied by (score/100)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ha! They would all be 0.00 since for scores under 100, you rating is multiplied by (score/100)

Unfair on great ducks like Anderson vs Sri Lanka.

 

[Days of Grace]

Unfair on great ducks like Anderson vs Sri Lanka.

Should have qualified my earlier statement. In 4th inns draws and losses and 3rd inns draws and losses when facing a deficit of 100 or more, any batsman who scores at less than 45 runs per ball will have his runs adjusted up to (balls faced*0.45). Which is why du Plessis makes the top 100.

 

[Riggins]

Should have qualified my earlier statement. In 4th inns draws and losses and 3rd inns draws and losses when facing a deficit of 100 or more, any batsman who scores at less than 45 runs per ball will have his runs adjusted up to (balls faced*0.45). Which is why du Plessis makes the top 100.

I think you're unfairly penalising the guys scoring more than 45 runs per ball.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, when you're batting to draw a test chasing an impossible total, runs scored is practically immaterial, but there are situations in the 3rd and 4th innings where runs are vital... even though a draw is the batsman's main ebjective. Not an easy thing to measure the value of such innings though.

 

[Riggins]

No total is impossible to chase down when you're scoring 45 runs per ball.

 

[Days of Grace]

I think you're unfairly penalising the guys scoring more than 45 runs per ball.

Not really, since you get points for strike-rate.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yeah, when you're batting to draw a test chasing an impossible total, runs scored is practically immaterial, but there are situations in the 3rd and 4th innings where runs are vital... even though a draw is the batsman's main ebjective. Not an easy thing to measure the value of such innings though.

That's why this special measure is only for draws and losses.

 

[Spark]

people missing riggins' joke is the best thing

 

[weldone]

Haha ya, 45 runs per ball lol.

 

[longranger]

I'd be curious to know Virat Kohli's and Ajinkya Rahane's highest rated knocks till date

 

[weldone]

Ya I'd like to know the score for all of Rahane's centuries.

 

[honestbharani]

I should start demanding an Agarkar subsection.

Well, as nice as it always is to know how great AA was, we need a new cult hero here soon from the ones playing... It is an absolute fact that no one has reached his levels of heroism in CW since.

 

[Migara]

Hmmmm why?

I'd consider a batsman who consistently produces good innings more valuable than one who occasionally produces great ones. The first one helps you win more matches in the long term. Makes sense that guys like Waugh, Hammond and Sachin have no Top 100 knocks and yet are ATGs. They were key players in very successful sides, consistently producing the goods.

You aren't a less special player for being consistent. That's just silly. I'd take a top order full of consistent if unspectacular batsmen over one full of inconsistent match-winning ones anyday.

Having ATG innings doesn't mean a player is not consistent. it only shows they came when the going was tough. No one will blame you for failing if three of your collegues ton up in the same innings on a flat track. But getting them at difficult situations is special.

 

[Days of Grace]

people missing riggins' joke is the best thing

Haha, yeah, I get it now.

0.45 runs per ball is the average s/r for all test batsmen across the history of the game.

I'd be curious to know Virat Kohli's and Ajinkya Rahane's highest rated knocks till date

Could you narrow it down a bit by linking to some scorecards?

 

[cnerd123]

Having ATG innings doesn't mean a player is not consistent. it only shows they came when the going was tough. No one will blame you for failing if three of your collegues ton up in the same innings on a flat track. But getting them at difficult situations is special.

Actually it shows neither. I was just debating on a matter of principle - a inconsisten producer of ATG innnings like Lara vs a regular run machine like Waugh/Sachin.

However there is more to it than just the batsman's bottle or whatever. Waugh and Sachin (and even Viv) were both in sides filled with ATGs; most of the time their great knocks would be overshadowed (like how Dravid's 180 loses out to VVS's 281), and very rarely did they find themselves in situations where it was up to them alone to win a game. Lara and Sanga were in much weaker sides and their great innings stand out more + they had more opportunities to produce such ATG innings.

I do believe a consistent batsman is worth more to a team; but all good sides have both. The value you place in a batsman who consistently scores runs vs one who scores them when the rest fail is quite subjective and down to personal bias.

So really you can't use this as a means to push your Sanga > All agenda (and dont act like that wasn't your intention)

 

[weldone]

Could you narrow it down a bit by linking to some scorecards?

The 3 Rahane centuries:
Scorecard - 2013-2014 New Zealand v India - 2nd Test - 14/02/2014
Scorecard - 2014 Pataudi Trophy - 2nd Test - 17/07/2014
Scorecard - 2014-2015 Border-Gavaskar Trophy - 3rd Test - 26/12/2014