• 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.

How many runs?

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The catch will take precedence since it happened first. If it was later discovered to be a no ball then the run out would apply if the ball hadn't been declared dead before it.
 

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
The catch will take precedence since it happened first. If it was later discovered to be a no ball then the run out would apply if the ball hadn't been declared dead before it.
Understand. But is it generally correct that the fielding side has to appeal for an out before it is given?
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Understand. But is it generally correct that the fielding side has to appeal for an out before it is given?
Technically, but in practice a celebration is usually taken as an appeal. For obvious outs (bowled, most caughts) the batsman will walk and no appeal is necessary.
 

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
What kinda fly does the batsman hit?

Housefly
Fruitfly
Hey! Don't fault my usage. Encyclopedia Britannica refers to cricket shots in the air as being fly balls. https://www.britannica.com/sports/cricket-sport

A ball hit to or beyond the boundary scores four points if it hits the ground and then reaches the boundary, six points if it reaches the boundary from the air (a fly ball).
OK, it refers to runs as points too, but still, it is Encyclopedia Britannica.
 
Last edited:

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
Technically, but in practice a celebration is usually taken as an appeal. For obvious outs (bowled, most caughts) the batsman will walk and no appeal is necessary.
Forgive if I am mistaken, but wasn't there a time when fielding teams felt it was dishonorable to appeal for decisions that they knew for certain would be incorrect, even if it was to their advantage? Perhaps a fielder knew he trapped a ball or that it touched the rope and that the umpire had not seen it. If so, has that changed with video coverage and DRS?
 

Dendarii

International Debutant
Forgive if I am mistaken, but wasn't there a time when fielding teams felt it was dishonorable to appeal for decisions that they knew for certain would be incorrect, even if it was to their advantage? Perhaps a fielder knew he trapped a ball or that it touched the rope and that the umpire had not seen it. If so, has that changed with video coverage and DRS?
That still happens. The rest of the team might be celebrating, but the fielder who caught the ball will be the one to indicate that they didn't catch it cleanly/touched the rope. Although the more likely scenario is that they'll indicate that they're not sure and leave it up to the umpires to make the decision.

If a fielder claims a catch and replays reveal that he didn't actually catch it then you can expect there to be an uproar on social media and forums.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Forgive if I am mistaken, but wasn't there a time when fielding teams felt it was dishonorable to appeal for decisions that they knew for certain would be incorrect, even if it was to their advantage? Perhaps a fielder knew he trapped a ball or that it touched the rope and that the umpire had not seen it.
Yep. Umpires used to take their word for it too. Australia was notorious for such incidents.
 

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
As an observer, I'm trying to appreciate the usual bowling metrics like Economy (aka average runs per over) and Average (aka runs per wicket) and finding them wanting. There's something pretty about a maiden in a test until you consider that it really didn't get you any closer to the end of the match, whereas you can watch a guy like Mitchell Starc seemingly not know where the ball goes after it leaves his hand, get hit hard, and give up a ton of extras when the balls bounce over the heads of the batsmen, but then he gets a disproportionate share of wickets and does get you closer to the end.

Moreover, the stats really don't help a captain either. A guy who burns overs with or without taking wickets would seem fabulous in the limited over matches where taking them is secondary to run prevention. But Starc would seem to be the man you would use if you need to get to 10.

Is there something else that is used to assess the effectiveness of a bowler?
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Average measures how well you pick up wickets over time, and may be of less use over a single match; it shows whether it is worth any wickets you may take given the runs you'll concede. The can help the selection committee, and within a single match, may be of help to the captain deciding who to allocate more overs to.

Economy indicates how much the batsmen like facing you, and/or how many wides and no-balls you bowl. In a single match, it can show (to the captain), for example, whether or not you can be trusted to bowl those few overs at the end.

A maiden may get you closer to the end of a match by affecting the mental state of the batsman. The mental aspect of cricket and the pressure to score is something that has been brought up approximately fifteen-hundred times in answers to your questions, and does not bear repeating. That Starc takes wickets in spite of bowling loosely is due to luck if nothing else, and he may not have brought the match closer to the end in a beneficial way to his side if he gives away too many runs whilst doing so.

In general, a captain may do a mysterious thing called 'having a balanced attack', by picking the correct bowlers and allocating their overs so that, f'r'instance, an economical bowler can apply pressure to the batsmen, drying their runs up, and then they have to take more risks against Starc. The methods of managing an attack well are closely guarded secrets not to be disclosed in public but only those having undergone the appropriate initiation.

There is also a thing called 'strike rate', which measures balls per wicket; no appliaction has yet been discovered for this metric.
 
Last edited:

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
Average measures how well you pick up wickets over time, and may be of less use over a single match; it shows whether it is worth any wickets you may take given the runs you'll concede. The can help the selection committee, and within a single match, may be of help to the captain deciding who to allocate more overs to.

Economy indicates how much the batsmen like facing you, and/or how many wides and no-balls you bowl. In a single match, it can show (to the captain), for example, whether or not you can be trusted to bowl those few overs at the end.
Are you saying the eye test is more significant than the data sets? That's pretty old school, but I like it. For instance, economy is great unless not getting wickets against is the opponent's strategy is just to burn overs until the match ends in a draw, in which case economy achieved by defensive batting and stalling is hurting rather than helping.

A maiden may get you closer to the end of a match by affecting the mental state of the batsman. * * * * That Starc takes wickets in spite of bowling loosely is due to luck if nothing else, and he may not have brought the match closer to the end in a beneficial way to his side if he gives away too many runs whilst doing so.
I get that, but IMHO, being "loose" and wild seems like it would make batsmen very uncomfortable when facing him because he can get outs on any ball, and that the fact they get big bombs off him or that they can get tips and deflections for boundaries and extras from regularly doesn't mean they can feel they also feel they can really handle themselves against him sufficiently to prolong a game against him to a win or a draw. The data sets Economy and Average does not seem to me to reflect that he is effective at getting the game over despite giving up runs.

In general, a captain may do a mysterious thing called 'having a balanced attack', by picking the correct bowlers and allocating their overs so that, f'r'instance, an economical bowler can apply pressure to the batsmen, drying their runs up, and then they have to take more risks against Starc.
Ok. I get that. I'm not sure why a pro necessarily has to yield to psychological pressure, but if you say that is happening, so be it.

There is also a thing called 'strike rate', which measures balls per wicket; no appliaction has yet been discovered for this metric.
Are you speaking about batting strike rate (runs/balls X100) or something else? I can see batting strike rate as being an ambiguous metric. I take a strike rate of 100 as being a good thing if the batsman is out there for hours wearing out the opposition with a century but as a bad thing if it is a six, four dots and a bowled out wicket, and a what do you make of it thing if all he is doing is burning up overs at an insufficient run rate to catch the other side. In isolation, they are the same on paper; in reality very different animals. Is there something else besides run rate on a scorecard or elsewhere that is more indicative of how well it is going for a batsman?
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think a little was missed in the earlier answers. What's the point of bowling maidens? Maidens (and any time you get multiple balls in a row to a batsman) allows you to set up the batsman.

One common way to set up a batsman might be to bowl three out swingers (balls that move in the air away from the batter) in a row and then for the fourth ball, bowl the "same" ball but without the swing and try to get the batsman out bowled or lbw.

There are any number of traps like this that a bowler can set up. But they only work if the batsman isn't scoring. If the batsman is scoring the plans don't tend to work as well (the batsman had the blood pumping and is moving their feet better and effectively gets a mental reset when they get some runs).

A bowler who is able to bowl to plans is generally going to take wickets more frequently at a lower cost.

That's not always the case (as you saw with Starc) and that's part of the beauty of cricket - the battle between bat and ball.

The most thrilling cricket to watch is when batsmen manage to score runs in spite of high quality bowling. All out for 100 is fun occasionally, as is 5/500 declared, but the best cricket is when both sides score between 200 and 350 and there are many little moments and battles in the game that form an interesting micro-narrative.

The first test between Australia and India was one such game. It was an incredible game of cricket, even though my side lost. All the little moments mattered and the side that played the best cricket over the course of 5 days won.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Batting strike rate tells you how aggressive a batsman tends to be. People don't tend to care about it in tests much but it has a lot of meaning in the limited overs formats.

Batting averages are a good start to measure a player's career. They're not perfect but are a good starting point. Generally speaking a player with a 50 average is better than a player with a 40 average. But a player with a 53 average might not be as good as a player with 51 average, so you can't just look at average, you also need to take into account the quality of the opposition they faced, how many home vs away runs they've scored and their role in a team (openers tend to average less than batsmen in other positions).

As a rule: average 50+ is an all time great player, 45-50 is an excellent player, 40-45 is a good player, under 40 is varying degrees of mediocre to terrible. This equation changes for all round players and bowlers. An all rounder is generally defined as someone who bats and bowls well. A great all rounder is usually defined as a player who has a higher batting average than bowling average.

Bowling averages are similar to batting averages except for bowlers. Great bowlers tend to average in the low 20s. very good bowlers average under 30. Mediocre bowlers average 30+. Subtract 5-10 runs when you're talking about spin bowlers (though this is less clear cut - Lyon and Ashwin are similarly skilled but Lyon averages more due to playing more in Australia where spin bowling is less effective).
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is there something else besides run rate on a scorecard or elsewhere that is more indicative of how well it is going for a batsman?
Cricinfo has a new stat - control - which is a useful way of seeing how well the batsman is playing. A high percent and they're generally doing well. A low percent and they're generally struggling.

One of the beautiful things about cricket is that a batsman can have 100 percent control, make one mistake and then lose their wicket. A different player may fluke their way to a higher score, despite nor being in control of any of their shots.
 

Top