View Full Version : What's In A Number
GhostofJimJess
7 Feb 2004, 22:25
Just a query aimed at all cricketers out there.
There is so much emphasis on numbers and stats in cricket - it's a wonder the Yanks haven't lapped the game up, really.
Centuries and, to a lesser extent, half-centuries, are revered in our game of cricket, and players are often left with a hollow feeling if dismissed in the 90's or even late 40's.
So, here's the question ...
Would you prefer to score a 100 and a 50, or two 99's ??
The first option has an average 24 runs less than the latter, but I'd be interested to know who'd still prefer that option ?
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Just a query aimed at all cricketers out there.
There is so much emphasis on numbers and stats in cricket - it's a wonder the Yanks haven't lapped the game up, really.
Centuries and, to a lesser extent, half-centuries, are revered in our game of cricket, and players are often left with a hollow feeling if dismissed in the 90's or even late 40's.
So, here's the question ...
Would you prefer to score a 100 and a 50, or two 99's ??
The first option has an average 24 runs less than the latter, but I'd be interested to know who'd still prefer that option ?
I will take the two 99's, as long as they were not out.
Tons are milestones in cricket, so everyone loves to score a ton. The whole hypothetical situation comes down to what is best for the team. Cricket is a team game with individual performances. I would take a win before an individual performance anyday of the week. No fun drinking by yourself.:)
Depends on the innings too. I mean, a ton in the first and a 50 in the second is pretty good.
dan warna
8 Feb 2004, 07:25
concur
depends on when the innings was score, under what circumstances.
not always are the highest scores, the most rated!
(as seen by the recent 'greatest' innings thread.
swans_supporter
8 Feb 2004, 16:05
Id be stoked with a fifty for starters.
It would depend on what would be best for the team. If the 50 was when we needed an extra 30 odd runs id take the 2 99s, all depends on whats best in any situation
If only we could ask Greg Blewett.
Kenny_01
8 Feb 2004, 19:36
Good post. If Martyn had scored 100 instead of 95, would he still be under as much pressure, even though it's only 5 more runs?
Shrapnel
8 Feb 2004, 19:39
Im pretty sure Martyn got 67.
Kenny_01
8 Feb 2004, 19:47
Originally posted by Shrapnel
Im pretty sure Martyn got 67.
Wasn't talking about today sorry.
I've made a few hundreds, and there are special. But a couple of other innings stick in my mind as being better. One was a 38 and the other 56n.o. Both were to win matches for the side where no one else was making runs. Felt just as good as making a hundred.
TigerCraig
9 Feb 2004, 10:15
double figures would do me at the moment
dr nick
10 Feb 2004, 08:16
i've had two 49's in a row before. Would rather 50 and 48, even probably a 98 and 0.
TigerCraig
10 Feb 2004, 14:25
49 from you on Saturday will do Nicko
I've made countless amounts of 50's, but never a century. Twice i've made it to 97 and once i was run out on 90, so i would take the 100 and 50. But from a team aspect the 2 99's obviusly.
Rooboy 34
11 Feb 2004, 15:46
Take it from someone who has made a 99 - it is easily the worst score to be dismissed on (particularly if you know that you are on it!). Assuming the obvious (in a winning team) I'd take the 100 & 50 over the 2 99's...
I've made heaps of 50's - but never a century, and it's probably the bigges driving force in my cricket these days.
Scored 93 once, and was caught at a leg slip that snuck up from short fine leg whilst the bowler was mucking around at the top of his run...
I'm opening on Sunday, and have a full day at the crease if I can manage it - could be the day!
dr nick
11 Feb 2004, 18:36
Originally posted by Zeke
Scored 93 once, and was caught at a leg slip that snuck up from short fine leg whilst the bowler was mucking around at the top of his run... I'm not 100% sure but i think that is supposed to be a no-ball. Something about not being allowed to change position whilst the bowler is about to run in (unbeknownst to the batsman). Someone here would know the rule better than me, but what level were you playing?
and before someone picks up on it, walking in is a lot different than changing from a fine leg to a leg slip. You are also not allowed to move sidewards when walking in i think. I remember this because Mike Pawley wanted us to use that as a tactic, fielders in the circle walking clockwise instead of towards the batsman, but someone said you couldn't do it.
TheSheik
12 Feb 2004, 07:55
Originally posted by TigerCraig
double figures would do me at the moment
You'd just be happy to get a hit !!
TheSheik
12 Feb 2004, 07:56
Originally posted by TigerCraig
49 from you on Saturday will do Nicko
I second that !!
TheSheik
12 Feb 2004, 08:00
Originally posted by nicko18
I'm not 100% sure but i think that is supposed to be a no-ball. Something about not being allowed to change position whilst the bowler is about to run in (unbeknownst to the batsman). Someone here would know the rule better than me, but what level were you playing?
and before someone picks up on it, walking in is a lot different than changing from a fine leg to a leg slip. You are also not allowed to move sidewards when walking in i think. I remember this because Mike Pawley wanted us to use that as a tactic, fielders in the circle walking clockwise instead of towards the batsman, but someone said you couldn't do it.
You can move the field placement b/w balls but you don't have to make it obvious to the batsman. If the fieldsman changed as the bowler was running in (eg moved from second slip to a wide gully) then yes, it is a no-ball. But such movements should be the responsibility of the non-striker to call out and warn his partner. He can then pull away and recheck the field.
I must say I like Pawley's left of centre thinking there, I actually find it hard to find fault with it.