PDA

View Full Version : bdesh middle order


tiger1000
May 19, 2006, 07:13 AM
link http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/247851.html
bdesh has the 3rd best Combined ave
stand for the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th wicket in ODI run-chases
since April 2005<TABLE class=editorialTable2 style="WIDTH: 278px; HEIGHT: 259px" align=center><THEAD><TR><TH>



Team
</TH><TH>




Average stand
</TH><TH>




Strike rate
</TH></TR></THEAD><TBODY><!-- table data go in the following pairs of rows ---><TR><TD>India</TD><TD> 51.71</TD><TD> 90.03</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD>South Africa</TD><TD> 44.68</TD><TD> 82.48</TD></TR><TR><TD>Bangladesh</TD><TD> 41.82</TD><TD> 82.29</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD>New Zealand</TD><TD> 40.03</TD><TD> 83.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>Australia</TD><TD> 36.43</TD><TD> 77.98</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD>Pakistan</TD><TD> 34.00</TD><TD> 77.40</TD></TR><TR><TD>West Indies</TD><TD> 29.47</TD><TD> 77.54</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD>Sri Lanka</TD><TD> 27.70</TD><TD> 77.54</TD></TR><TR><TD>England</TD><TD> 26.00</TD><TD> 77.05</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD>Zimbabwe</TD><TD> 25.50</TD><TD> NA
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

LateCut
May 19, 2006, 12:42 PM
Another useless article from Rajesh. Only reason for it is that it puts India on the top of the list. What does it prove? Some say statistics don't lie. Well, this one does. How come Aussies are behind four other teams? Even rediculous is the second table where they are dead last and behind Sharjah! This is a waste of papers (is it electrons?) it is written on.

tiger1000
May 19, 2006, 03:50 PM
i dont think it is a lie
cricinfo is a world wide web
it has the most info on cricket in the world

roaring_tiger
May 19, 2006, 10:20 PM
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/247851.html

Although the discussion is about India's good showing...
but its great to see Tigers position in these tables.

Spitfire_x86
May 19, 2006, 10:57 PM
How come Aussies are behind four other teams?
This article clearly says "From April 2005". In the last one, Aussie middle order hasn't done very well.

Frost
May 20, 2006, 01:21 AM
Tiger1000, I think you missed the main point here. Yes, you are right that the stats are correct; but it has no or very little significance. In this type of stats Bangladesh looks like a better team but we all know what the truth is. There is a book on how to use (or missuse) statistics, "How to Lie With Statistics - by Darrell Huff & Irving Geis". Rajesh might have read that book and using those techniques.:D

Ahmed_B
May 20, 2006, 03:18 AM
well... doesn't matter what the stats are for.. but tiger1000 did come up with a much better thread-topic this time. Good to see he is improving.. rather than just posting one-liner threads/polls. :)

About the stats: Yes these are solely meant to highlight Indian team's performance... but BD's mid order looks bit better than the past. That's a good sign... no matter what the purpose of the stats was.

tiger1000
May 20, 2006, 03:19 AM
truth is that bdesh middle order since
april 2005 averaged 41 .28 at a strike rate of 82.29
in odi run chases
and the 3rd best
<TABLE class=editorialTable2 style="WIDTH: 278px; HEIGHT: 44px" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Miraz
May 20, 2006, 05:21 AM
tiger1000, better thread this time :)

Statistics can be a bunch of lie, still it's nice to see Bangladesh in a better position than many others :lol:

Sovik
May 20, 2006, 07:14 AM
woohoo. we are ahead of australia

thebest
May 20, 2006, 07:47 AM
There are three kinds of lie "Lie, Damn Lie and Statistics". We may have a higher average than 7 other big shots. But we may also have the worst (ie highest standard deviation) of the lot and data are skewed by the outliers. According to this stat we have the 3rd best middle order for the last one year, do any of us believe that?

tiger1000
May 21, 2006, 08:51 AM
woohoo. we are ahead of australia

only s.africa &india ar ahead of us

we are 3rd

Zaheed Mahmood
May 22, 2006, 04:10 AM
These stats certainly don't reveal a team's potential in batting!! Just take this example, when Pontying, Gilchrist and the top-order Co. occupy the crease for most of the ODI overs, the middle order gets little chance (some don't even get the chance at all) to bat on, and again, after coming to bat after 40th over, they don't get to play their natural games but in many occasions loose wicket in an attempt to clobber some last-overs handful runs!! These phenomena make the stats of the middle order look low on the runs and certainly don't reflect the ultimate huge score that Aussie put on the board and therefore in no way could be a parameter to judge a team's potential!! For teams like BD and a few others, frequent failure of the top-order makes way for the middle to take time, settle and play their natural strokes to score comparatively bigger runs!
Zaheed

tiger1000
May 22, 2006, 04:42 AM
These stats certainly don't reveal a team's potential in batting!! Just take this example, when Pontying, Gilchrist and the top-order Co. occupy the crease for most of the ODI overs, the middle order gets little chance (some don't even get the chance at all) to bat on, and again, after coming to bat after 40th over, they don't get to play their natural games but in many occasions loose wicket in an attempt to clobber some last-overs handful runs!! These phenomena make the stats of the middle order look low on the runs and certainly don't reflect the ultimate huge score that Aussie put on the board and therefore in no way could be a parameter to judge a team's potential!! For teams like BD and a few others, frequent failure of the top-order makes way for the middle to take time, settle and play their natural strokes to score comparatively bigger runs!
Zaheed

do u mean ponting or pontying
who's pontying. if the aus mid order try to play fast how come there strike rate is only 77
77 is not that fast, for an mid order wich averages below 40.

Andy-Flower
May 22, 2006, 05:28 AM
this might be true but a lot of factors contibute to a strong middle order..

1} weak opening players leaving responsibility to the middle order
2} over reliance on a few players in the middle
3} not going for the kill, maybe because the game will be well out of reach that the batsmen will just be playing to reduce the defeat

tiger1000
May 22, 2006, 05:45 AM
this might be true but a lot of factors contibute to a strong middle order..

1} weak opening players leaving responsibility to the middle order
2} over reliance on a few players in the middle
3} not going for the kill, maybe because the game will be well out of reach that the batsmen will just be playing to reduce the defeat

first two are right but 3 is wrong
because the bdesh mid order strike rate is above 80 wich is fast
and if they where trying to reduce the the defeat
ther strike rate would be around 68
but around 80 shows that they are playing fast and attacking
not defencive.

Baundule
May 22, 2006, 07:59 AM
Too much fuss about the stats :)
First of all, thanks to tiger for bringing up something that shows BD is not at the bottom.
The stat does not say, we have the 3rd strongest middle-order and the stat is skewed by playing against the Kenyans. But at the end of the day, it matters. We dont need to compare if we are better than the Australians; but it certainly shows that we are improving. That's the hell important thing for us at the moment.

tiger1000
May 22, 2006, 04:27 PM
baundule ur right it dont show who has the
strongest mid order it shows the
stand for the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th wicket combind average
in ODI run-chases since April 2005

Zaheed Mahmood
May 23, 2006, 05:27 AM
do u mean ponting or pontying
who's pontying. if the aus mid order try to play fast how come there strike rate is only 77
77 is not that fast, for an mid order wich averages below 40.

Despite the fact that I mentioned Ponting's name along with Gilchrist's, it came up as a bit of surprise when an inadvertent slight spelling mistake made him an anonymous person!!

tiger1000
May 23, 2006, 07:05 AM
Despite the fact that I mentioned Ponting's name along with Gilchrist's, it came up as a bit of surprise when an inadvertent slight spelling mistake made him an anonymous person!!

it was a joke