• 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?

NotMcKenzie

State Vice-Captain
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.
One word: "Context"


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.
Not necessarily. It depends on how disciplined the batsman is, and how he prefers to play, so as to whether or not he'll eaft away at wide deliveries he cannot control, for example. One cannot "get outs to any ball", because some deliveries are very difficult to hit, (e.g., wide down the leg side.) If one does not care about getting bat on ball, but is content to runs byes to keep the score moving, they'll be fine.

Also, keep in mind that batting generally gets easier relative to bowling as skill level increases. In club cricket, sub-100 scores are much more common at lower levels.

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.
Only if one makes zero effort to understand and contextualise them.

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.
Depends on their toughness and discipline. Whilst much shorter term, you see batters in baseball swing at pitches that would have passed outside the strike zone, because there is a pressure to score before being struck out.


Are you speaking about batting strike rate (runs/balls X100) or something else?
Bowling strike rate. A person who actually wants to find out more about cricket would look up these terms themselves to see what they mean.
 

SillyCowCorner1

International Coach
Honestly...I feel that this thread will follow the same fate as "Basic Questions" thread.

The same theme from both threads.
 

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
Honestly...I feel that this thread will follow the same fate as "Basic Questions" thread.

The same theme from both threads.
Yep we're getting sucked into another discussion on pressure basically.

I mean Stephen isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but even he should realise this by now.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
I want to hear more about how psychological factors are irrelevant to professional sportsmen because they are all robots
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
I want to hear more about how psychological factors are irrelevant to professional sportsmen because they are all robots
To be fair, cricket is a bit exceptional in that you do basically the same thing repeatedly and wait for the batsman to make a fatal mistake. Baseball isn't really like that. Even great batters get out without making it to base more often than not, so I get the confusion.

In cricket as a batsman you have not only to predict where the ball will be when it gets to you but you have to properly position yourself for the shot you need to play. That really makes it unlike baseball, where there is only two motions you need to know to hit the ball - the weight-forward horizontal swing and the bunt.

In cricket you have to move forward or back and position yourself properly on the crease to play your shot. This means you're more susceptible to the bowler "training" you that they're doing one thing and then doing something different so you're playing your shot while not balanced properly or have positioned yourself incorrectly.

This is doubly so since in cricket there is a genuine possibility of physical harm if you play the ball wrong. Unlike in baseball it's legal for the batter to get hit by a ball and so bouncers can be used to instill a bit of that fear factor that baseball doesn't have (getting pinged by a pitcher isn't the same at all).

So I can genuinely see why rodk doesn't understand how cricket is all about pressure and why the term exists and is talked about so frequently. Because I genuinely think cricket is different from other sports in how it works. And it's part of the beauty of the game that is entirely lost on those that don't follow the game closely or play it.

Ultimately batting in cricket is as close to playing an 80s arcade game as it is to baseball. You're trying to extend your innings as long as possible so you can score runs.

Anyway I'm mostly posting because I find it a fun thought experiment to think about what makes cricket different.
 

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
This is doubly so since in cricket there is a genuine possibility of physical harm if you play the ball wrong. Unlike in baseball it's legal for the batter to get hit by a ball and so bouncers can be used to instill a bit of that fear factor that baseball doesn't have (getting pinged by a pitcher isn't the same at all).
I would not try baseball if I were you and were thinking that.


https://www.mlb.com/news/marlins-gi...t-thankful-hit-to-face-wasnt-worse/c-95316098

A number of pitchers use fear as a tactic, and when they do, it also precipitates fights, so there's two ways to get hurt.
 

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
Clearing the benches is one of the worse things in baseball.
Agreed, but don't know a way around it.

There's contact between the players (on plays that cricket would call run outs) and pitchers want to own the hitting zone and not let batters get comfortable hitting them and retribution when your own batters get hit, and that's going to mean rough play afterwards to balance it out and 1 (+bat) vs. 9 is not exactly good odds so the benches empty.

Ice hockey and basketball have fights but the scenario rarely starts 1 vs 9 so the powers there were able to impose additional leaving the bench penalties. The justification for allowing fighting in ice hockey is that the boys would start swinging their sticks at one another if dropping the sticks and using fists was equally punished. I'm not sure I buy it but it is what it is.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
There's a difference between doing something dangerous illegally (i.e. pinging a batsman) and betting legally allowed to target a batsman's body.
 

rodk

School Boy/Girl Captain
There's a difference between doing something dangerous illegally (i.e. pinging a batsman) and betting legally allowed to target a batsman's body.
Yes. But headhunting (hardly "pinging") as a bloodsport is often deemed in the category of fighting fire with fire so the other team is deterred from doing its own illegal stuff, like barrelling the other team's player.

Fosse never made it back to baseball, so the back and forth between dangerous and illegal play and fighting back to discourage it is ongoing.

The rest of it is that pitching inside is perfectly legal and the right strategy in some situations, but to a batter not wearing a full suit of armor as a cricket batmen do, it is hard to tell if a pitch that hit him at 90 mph was a tactical inside one to prevent a good sacrifice bunt or an intent to injure him, and in some cases they do not care because it hurts the same either way.
 

Top