But why?!ClownSymonds said:Dog = Ntini. Andre Nel is not Dog.
Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings. Although, granted, in his ODI career to date (not outs or outs) he has played extraordinarily well.Slats4ever said:ummm try making your argument...
thats still a fantastic average for someone who bats at 6/7,and even better if you compared him to every other cricketer with the not outs taken off their average,i'm pretty sure he'd still have the highest average.Not that i'm condoning your argument,your still wrong.ohtani's jacket said:Well, Hussey's innings average in ODIs of 43.14 is a lot more realistic than his actual average of 151.00. You could make an argument that since it's limited overs, not outs are irrelevant.
umm so therefore when he's not out he shuld be classed as out? I think it is harder to have done what he has done and played so many innings and still remained unbeaten. He has had to come in a variety of situations, get settled each and every time he's gone out there. I think that it's stupid to suggest that the fact that he has been not out so many times detracts from his record.howardj said:Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings. Although, granted, in his ODI career to date (not outs or outs) he has played extraordinarily well.
What an absurd statement.ohtani's jacket said:Well, Hussey's innings average in ODIs of 43.14 is a lot more realistic than his actual average of 151.00. You could make an argument that since it's limited overs, not outs are irrelevant.
Come on mate this is a ridiculous argument.howardj said:Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings. Although, granted, in his ODI career to date (not outs or outs) he has played extraordinarily well.
yeah but who cares how many anybody makes per innings. It's not the batsmans fault if he has to come in with 3 overs to go.Mister Wright said:It all depends on what people think a batsman's average should represent. If you think it should represent the amount of runs he scores in a batting innings, then you would be of the belief that his average should be calculated on the amount of innings played. If you believe a batsman's average should reflect the batsman's ability with the bat then you would want to measure the batsman on the amount of runs he makes before getting out. IMO the current system we have is fine.
I don't understand this.howardj said:Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings..
umm where did i say that? oh thats right, i didnt. you just thought youd make it up to try and make your argument sound better.Slats4ever said:umm so therefore when he's not out he shuld be classed as out? .
i didnt say that either. just that it gives - particularly in ODI cricket where the overs are limited - an inflated picture of his ability. tho, as i acknowledged, he has performed extremely well.Slats4ever said:I think that it's stupid to suggest that the fact that he has been not out so many times detracts from his record.
I didnt say that. Im just saying that they can give an inaccurate picture of a batsman's abilities. For instance, do you think - going on averages - that Hussey is three times the player that Gilchrist is? I don't think so.sqwerty said:Any argument that suggests that not outs should be disregarded in working out averages should be dismissed without a second thought.
As is an average when a batsman has been dismissed so few times.sqwerty said:What an absurd statement.
Who cares what anyone's 'innings' average is. It's totally I R R E L E V A N T.
The term 'average' was not created by cricketers. Average is a mathematical term which means: A number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function.benchmark00 said:By pure definition, the term 'average' relates to how many runs a player makes per dismissal, not per innings, so you cant change what an 'average' is based on because it then wouldnt be an 'average' at all. Its just the way it is, no matter how inaccurate it can be in measuring a players ability.