What is form?

[Hurricane]

So this is a thread I have had at the back of my mind for a few days.

What is form? How does form work? Can good form be responsible for a bad player being able to post good numbers, or can good form only allow a good player to be better. Are there limits on how much good form can transform a batsman.

Here is what some random dude I found through google has to say about form. I like the quote.
Why does form matter in cricket? - Quora

"FORM reflects the frame of mind of the batsman and his confidence level in recent times.When a batsman carries good form from one game to another,his confidence level is generally high.Somehow as a batsman you feel your feet are moving the way they should and you are middling a lot of balls than you normally would.Your stance is almost perfect.
An out of form batsman is more likely to play a false stroke than an inform batsman.
You can have as many mental conditioning experts as you like but nothing motivates a batsman like having a lots of runs under his belt in the last few innings.
And yes bad form sometimes brings the worst out of the batsman and may aggravate the flaws in their technique and even produce some new ones.But it takes one good innings for a good batman to return to form."

Some other quotes I have heard
"Form is 100% state of mind"
"You move your feet better when you are in form" (which indicates it isn't just a state of mind thing)

So have at it - some questions for the thread
1) What does form mean to you
2) If you had a total of 100 points to give out how many would you give to a players ability and how to much form to explain how good he is at any one point in time. And would you change your answer depending on certain variables
3) Is it possible for a player to just score runs 90% just through form and state of mind.

What are my opinions?
I suspect that certain FC stalwarts e.g. gareth hopkins beast it at provincial level through sheer form and with average levels of talent.
Form is something that seems to affect everyone and sometimes dramatically. Take Ian Bell in that English Ashes series some years ago. There was no getting him out. Haddin had a turn of being impossible to get out. At the other end of the scale Michael Clarke had the wisdom to realise it was just form when he had a terrible run some years ago that peaked with some teenager giving him batting advice at a press conference.

I could go on but will hopefully open it up to some replies.

 

[Compton]

Not much of an answer, but the form:talent ratio depends greatly on how much talent you have in the first place.

Ultimately talent is a reflection of a whole career's worth of work, form is a snapshot of performance at a given time, over say a period of a few weeks or a series. Players with less 'talent' for a discipline will outperform players that are 'better' than them when they're going through a purple patch (see: Brad Haddin's batting career). Ultimately over a career this balances out as players with more talent will find a way to stay in form for longer; and find form more often.

On the extent to which they're mutually exclusive, it's easier for a player with talent to find form. If you're a batsman that's out of nick, it helps if you can time a cover drive 9 times out of 10. Similarly a bowler out of form can find it pretty quickly when they can bowl swinging yorkers that crush toes at 90mph.

A supremely talented batsman will - when in form - score runs by the bucketload and make it look very, very simple (see: Joe Root). A player in form with less talent will probably see that last a few matches, a series at best, a great player will make those spells of good form last for 18 months.

 

[Hurricane]

Not much of an answer, but the form:talent ratio depends greatly on how much talent you have in the first place.

Ultimately talent is a reflection of a whole career's worth of work, form is a snapshot of performance at a given time, over say a period of a few weeks or a series. Players with less 'talent' for a discipline will outperform players that are 'better' than them when they're going through a purple patch (see: Brad Haddin's batting career). Ultimately over a career this balances out as players with more talent will find a way to stay in form for longer; and find form more often.

On the extent to which they're mutually exclusive, it's easier for a player with talent to find form. If you're a batsman that's out of nick, it helps if you can time a cover drive 9 times out of 10. Similarly a bowler out of form can find it pretty quickly when they can bowl swinging yorkers that crush toes at 90mph.

A supremely talented batsman will - when in form - score runs by the bucketload and make it look very, very simple (see: Joe Root). A player in form with less talent will probably see that last a few matches, a series at best, a great player will make those spells of good form last for 18 months.

Wonderful answer and welcome to CW Compton. Look forward to more of your insightful posts.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Great idea for a thread.

Examples of players in great form coming up....

 

[G.I.Joe]

 

[Hurricane]

Not much of an answer, but the form:talent ratio depends greatly on how much talent you have in the first place.

Ultimately talent is a reflection of a whole career's worth of work, form is a snapshot of performance at a given time, over say a period of a few weeks or a series. Players with less 'talent' for a discipline will outperform players that are 'better' than them when they're going through a purple patch (see: Brad Haddin's batting career). Ultimately over a career this balances out as players with more talent will find a way to stay in form for longer; and find form more often.

On the extent to which they're mutually exclusive, it's easier for a player with talent to find form. If you're a batsman that's out of nick, it helps if you can time a cover drive 9 times out of 10. Similarly a bowler out of form can find it pretty quickly when they can bowl swinging yorkers that crush toes at 90mph.

A supremely talented batsman will - when in form - score runs by the bucketload and make it look very, very simple (see: Joe Root). A player in form with less talent will probably see that last a few matches, a series at best, a great player will make those spells of good form last for 18 months.

And potentially even go through a period where they are tonning up while not being in great form. I don't think form is purely reflected by how good your scores have been over a given period. Even though that is a very good approximation.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The thing about form I find curious is that a lot of it, I think, can be explained by statistical variation. When I was running some simulations I found that, take Kane Williamson for example, would often average 40 and often 54 in ODIs over a 300 match 'career' (this is with an average of 47.4 in the simulator).

That is to say that in separate simulations, with all factors being exactly the same except for the luck of sometimes getting good balls early and sometimes not, two identical players could average 40 or 54 or anything in between.

To my mind when people talk about form they're often talking about the natural statistical variations that will occur when you have numbers represented the way they are in cricket. I don't doubt that at some point KW will have a run of low scores and people will talk about him being out of form, when more likely he just good balls or unlucky edges for a bit.

So I think the very idea of form is exaggerated; people at high levels of skill don't change that much from day to day.

 

[Hurricane]

The thing about form I find curious is that a lot of it, I think, can be explained by statistical variation. When I was running some simulations I found that, take Kane Williamson for example, would often average 40 and often 54 in ODIs over a 300 match 'career' (this is with an average of 47.4 in the simulator).

That is to say that in separate simulations, with all factors being exactly the same except for the luck of sometimes getting good balls early and sometimes not, two identical players could average 40 or 54 or anything in between.

To my mind when people talk about form they're often talking about the natural statistical variations that will occur when you have numbers represented the way they are in cricket. I don't doubt that at some point KW will have a run of low scores and people will talk about him being out of form, when more likely he just good balls or unlucky edges for a bit.

So I think the very idea of form is exaggerated; people at high levels of skill don't change that much from day to day.

DWTA

If Kane gets on a bad run he will probably get more tentative and cautious at the crease for a start.

 

[Compton]

In the last few years there have been plenty of examples of highly skilled players being out of form.

Look at Alastair Cook. He's a world class opening batsman, but he got out of nick and all of a sudden started doing daft things like nibbling at balls outside of off-stump and driving at balls that he left when he was in form. Players behaviours change because they feel under pressure to perform or because they don't understand what is causing their downturn. You get desperate to score quick runs and hit yourself back into form and force the issue.

Out of form players get out to balls that in form players would have left or defended.

 

[cpr]

Form is the rap sheet of the criminally wasteful batsman.

 

[mr_mister]

all good stuff ITT


from experience it was going out expecting to make runs rather than hoping to make runs. It was very rare for me to have batting confidence, but my 3 highest scores ever came in the span of maybe 10 innings and I've batted over 200 times probably

the main thing I noticed during this period was I wasn't playing and missing.


edit - bowling was always consistent my whole 'career'. never really had a bad patch, had periods where I didn't take wickets but I wasn't bowling any different I felt. But that is just me



as for catching, there were some seasons where everything stuck and some where I was nervous every time the ball came to me

 

[smash84]

What is form?

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more!

 

[fredfertang]

Somebody famously said "form is temporary, class is permanent", though iI suppose if it was that famous I'd remember who it was - maybe it was Lilian Thomson?

 

[harsh.ag]

Form could be a state of mind in an absolute sense. Consider that if you could, before the start of an innings, hypnotise a batsman into believing he is in a great run of form and seeing the ball very well, then maybe he will be more likely to succeed. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Prince EWS]

Relevant reading:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/42481-class-permanent-form-illusion.html?

 

[Hurricane]

I guess I would have to review his analysis. I accept his finding that your next score is not influenced by your previous score. But what about your next 5 scores?
Maybe if Neill is reading this he can elaborate on the parameters of his analysis.

When I play in club cricket I rarely post back to back big scores. If anything I do worse in my next dig because I am not hungry or determined enough.

But I do have whole seasons where I am in or out of form. Some seasons there will be a pattern of good scores. Other seasons not so much.

A good season usually starts with me scratching out a slow and painful 30 or 40. And then I become fluent and hit my straps. With each good score I set my heights even higher for next time.

For example one season I scored two 50s and I told myself next time I would last until the 40th over. Sure enough I lasted until the 42nd over and made 60 odd.
(The sounds like slow batting but it felt quick and we finished on 210 which is good for club cricket)