There are always exceptions to any rule. Yes I can look up a game and point out one time when someone scored a chanceless 40 where he consequently top scored and the team ended up winning by 39 runs. The point however, is that in the vast majority of games, 40s and 50s dont win games, 100s do. Although there are times when 100s dont either.Were you watching India's tour of New Zealand in March? India scored four centuries over three games, while New Zealand score six. Rahul Dravid hit four half-centuries and no hundreds, but his runs were regularly the difference between the two sides.
Brendon McCullum hit one century on a seriously flat pitch in a drawn game. Don't tell me you'd rather a batsman do that.
Perhaps so, although one would think, every time the team lost said player would be the first one to be criticized for not going on to convert his starts. For me A reminds me of Mark Butcher for the latter half of his career. Decent enough, but he was always going to be the man who would be first to make way for someone else.I have to disagree with Goughy, because while hundreds do win matches, if a person in my team was guaranteed to score 40 every innings, he'd be immediatly on the list. It's a contribution you can count on.
Perhaps one way of looking at this is to work out what would happen if all of your top 5 batsmen were of a particular type.
Batsman A: simple to work out - the top 5 will always score 200 between them. Which isn't great, but it's competitive, particularly if you know that they will score 200 in the 2nd innings too.
Batsman B: I find this harder to work out because I'm not a mathematician.
From my maths I can work out that the chance of getting zero runs is about 7.7% (60% x 60% x 60% x 60% x 60%)
The chance of getting 500 runs is about 1% (40% x x 40% x 40% x 40% x 40%)
Beyond that my maths breaks down. Can anyone else help?
Yea, I'd take Player A. Guaranteed 200/5 in a Test match (both innings) from your top five is better than the 1/4 of the time where our team will be 100/5.0 7.776%
100 25.92%
200 31.104%
300 26.496%
400 7.68%
500 1.024%
I think. This would make the average score 203.456, fwiw, but it might be that I've made a mistake and the average should be 200, which would make sense. idk.
Yeah, you've made a mistake. 200 should be 34.56 % (10 * .6 * .6 * .6 * .4 * .4), 300 should be 23.04 %.0 7.776%
100 25.92%
200 31.104%
300 26.496%
400 7.68%
500 1.024%
I think. This would make the average score 203.456, fwiw, but it might be that I've made a mistake and the average should be 200, which would make sense. idk.
You are looking at it from a team perspective, while I'm looking at is as an individual performance.Yea, I'd take Player A. Guaranteed 200/5 in a Test match (both innings) from your top five is better than the 1/4 of the time where our team will be 100/5.
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but that's not the best analysis you've ever done. Teams are more likely to win matches when their players score more runs? ...Nothing is 100% but cricket is a team game. You dont need everyone to fire ever game. What you need is big scores (and partnerships) from a couple of different players each game. Thats why a top 7 is key and depth important. It increases those odds, what you dont want is players that play regular cameos.
I dont know the answers but Id be interested if someone knows of a quick way to check.
What proportion of wins involved a century by a player from the winning team?
What proportion of losses include a century by a player from the losing team?
What is the ratio of 100s in wins to 100s in losses?
EDIT- Answer
100s 1366 winnng team, 468 losing team
Ratio 2.92-1
50s
2693 winning team, 2340 losing team
Ratio 1.15-1
Hundreds are key. The heavy lifting is often done by the strongest. 40s and even fifties are seldom the difference between winning and losing. The ability to score big in wins is essential to success. Its what separates the quality players from the ordinary. We are not looking for exceptions but trends and how to maximise the chance of victory. A 40 every game doesnt cut it.
We're talking about as a selector when picking a team. I would take 200/5 100% of the time over 100/5 a third of the time, even if it means sometimes you'd get 400/5.You are looking at it from a team perspective, while I'm looking at is as an individual performance.
Hundreds are only key because its rare that everyone always fires so you need hundreds. We're talking about them always scoring 40 runs. In this hypothetical situation, that analysis does not apply. A more interesting way to look at it would be to see what the winning percentage of a team is when the score is around 200/5 (say, plus or minus twenty runs) in both innings.Hundreds are key. The heavy lifting is often done by the strongest. 40s and even fifties are seldom the difference between winning and losing. The ability to score big in wins is essential to success. Its what separates the quality players from the ordinary. We are not looking for exceptions but trends and how to maximise the chance of victory. A 40 every game doesnt cut it.
I think his point was that you wouldn't actually get a whole team full of Player As, Player Bs or Player Cs - you'd get a "normal" team with one of those batsmen added in. So 200/5 isn't really correct - more 40/1.We're talking about as a selector when picking a team. I would take 200/5 100% of the time over 100/5 a third of the time, even if it means sometimes you'd get 400/5.
Not looking good, itbt.Hundreds are only key because its rare that everyone always fires so you need hundreds. We're talking about them always scoring 40 runs. In this hypothetical situation, that analysis does not apply. A more interesting way to look at it would be to see what the winning percentage of a team is when the score is around 200/5 (say, plus or minus twenty runs) in both innings.
I was going to make this point myself. But that damn Ulsterman is always one step aheadI don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but that's not the best analysis you've ever done. Teams are more likely to win matches when their players score more runs? ...
But if the strongest fail to do any heavy lifting at all, they're not much use. And that's Batsman B six times out of ten.Hundreds are key. The heavy lifting is often done by the strongest. 40s and even fifties are seldom the difference between winning and losing. The ability to score big in wins is essential to success. Its what separates the quality players from the ordinary. We are not looking for exceptions but trends and how to maximise the chance of victory. A 40 every game doesnt cut it.
Indeed, and Batsman B is Marcus North.Player A appears to be Shane Watson.