PDA

View Full Version : BD Batting outperformed Indian's Batting


Nafi
January 13, 2010, 05:50 PM
Disregard the 2nd innings they mean bullshit, ok! We dont play cricket with bars of soap on a ice rink. Where the ball doesnt turn, and travels like speedy Gonzalez through the wet (frictionless) outfield

We never bowled 1st innings in this tourney, therefore we didn't do any bowling worth mentioning. So Im just analysing our batting. Because we batted all matches in the first innings

These pitches weren't flat in the first innings, the ball swung, odd times it kept low or had risen, gripped and turned. They were good pitches, that had movement for bowler, and the ball came on to the bat nicely for the batsmen.

Compare the first innings posted by SL, India's and BD's batting line ups

India

India 279/9 (50 ov)
India 245 (48.2 ov)

Average total: 262 runs
Average runs per wicket: 27.58
Run Rate: 5.32


Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka 213 (46.1 ov)

Average total: 213
Average runs per wicket: 21.3
Run Rate: 4.61


Bangladesh

Bangladesh 260/7 (50 ov)
Bangladesh 296/6 (50 ov)
Bangladesh 247/6 (50 ov)
Bangladesh 249/9 (50 ov)

Average total: 263 runs
Average runs per wicket: 37.57
Run Rate: 5.26

Sri Lanka had only one batting performance (allbeit without Dilshan) where they performed the worst out of the three nations

Bangladesh's performances were on par with Indian batting during this tournament being on marginally close concerning inning totals and run-rate and beating them significantly regarding Batting averages/keeping wickets intact.

Bangladesh batting > Indian batting > Sri Lankan Batting

According to this tournament. (statistics don't lie)


PS I got an A in my statistics module for Maths A level, I know what I'm talking about ;)

Maximumpro
January 13, 2010, 05:56 PM
ur stats are misleading since india never batted first against us, nor did srilanka. maybe they would have score much more , had they batted first? they only had to make what bd made in first innings. u cant compare indian batsmen with ours, thats a joke. but i think our batsmen are pretty par with the srilankans overall,it just the bowling and fielding that are making the difference

Nafi
January 13, 2010, 06:07 PM
ur stats are misleading since india never batted first against us, nor did srilanka.

1/So what? If anything that makes the study even more consistent, because it is regarding only teams batting against Indian and Sri lankan bowling sides.

2/I identified and noted that the sample data is limited, well this is a single tournament, not a world cup or 15 series match.

3/ This thread isn't about our bowling, we never bowled 1st innings in the first place.

u cant compare indian batsmen with ours, thats a joke

Sorry I didn't go to clown college, please explain the funny..?

Russell2k7
January 13, 2010, 06:28 PM
eh pointless... SRL WON despite averaging 213 batting 1st lol and with lowest total posted.

cricman
January 13, 2010, 06:30 PM
As good as Kohil and Dhoni is, and Vuvi did nothing ...

Were About to go into Top order of Sewhag, Gahmbir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni, Yuvraj

And Gahmbir is the best Batsmen of that Lot

The ODI's mean nothing now

al Furqaan
January 13, 2010, 06:37 PM
definitely positive signs...and once we get our bowling together...england, NZ, are in for some testing times.

Purbasha T
January 13, 2010, 06:55 PM
eh pointless... SRL WON despite averaging 213 batting 1st lol and with lowest total posted.

Read the pre-match sentiments of a guy planning to watch the Ind-SL final:


So let’s have no more negative talk about this immensely significant, if ever so slightly damp, competition. I have enjoyed every minute of the Isosceles Cup and I have already planned my schedule for the final on Wednesday:

07:40 Secure my seat in front of the television
07:45 Cheer the arrival of the titles sequence
07:50 Whoop enthusiastically as the captains trudge out to the middle
07:52 Shout ‘Heads!’ or ‘Tails!’ as the mood takes me
07:52 Gaze open-mouthed in suspense as the coin hangs in the air
07:53 Listen intently as Dhoni (or it may be Sangakkara) utters those now familiar words, “I think we’ll have a bowl.”
07:54 Turn off television and go back to bed.

From: = http://blogs.cricinfo.com/thelonghandle/triseries_in_bangladesh_200910/]

That's all what it was like mate throughout the series, that's all it was like.

godzilla
January 13, 2010, 07:09 PM
ur stats are misleading since india never batted first against us, nor did srilanka. maybe they would have score much more , had they batted first? they only had to make what bd made in first innings. u cant compare indian batsmen with ours, thats a joke. but i think our batsmen are pretty par with the srilankans overall,it just the bowling and fielding that are making the difference

you probably don't know much about math if you came to a conclusion like this so fast without understanding what the guy did. anyways his analysis makes sence ... good job

Purbasha T
January 13, 2010, 07:13 PM
ur stats are misleading since india never batted first against us, nor did srilanka. maybe they would have score much more , had they batted first? they only had to make what bd made in first innings. u cant compare indian batsmen with ours, thats a joke. but i think our batsmen are pretty par with the srilankans overall,it just the bowling and fielding that are making the difference

if i take your point, then i'd have to say neither did BD batsmen bat against BD bowlers. The stats that Nafi showed are a summary of the runs scored by the teams batting first in all the matches.

Ind twice batted first against SL, so did we. And we were almost on par with them in that regard.

SL batted once first against Ind, we did twice. SL failed in that only occasion, but in both cases of ours we put excellent (296) and (247) good scores.

beshideshi
January 13, 2010, 08:01 PM
definitely positive signs...and once we get our bowling together...england, NZ, are in for some testing times.

I dont think our bowling is as bad as it looked in the tournament, we have a spin heavy attack and the dew made it incredibly difficult for the spinners, given the right conditions I am sure our bowlers can perform much better.

Russell2k7
January 13, 2010, 08:13 PM
Read the pre-match sentiments of a guy planning to watch the Ind-SL final:


From: = http://blogs.cricinfo.com/thelonghandle/triseries_in_bangladesh_200910/]

That's all what it was like mate throughout the series, that's all it was like.
I have no idea what you have just said. I took this thread to be on the sarcastic side rather than on the serious side. According to his analysis SL had the weakest batting lineup, and if IND were to bat second today then they would have the strongest lineup lol.

In truth, what those stats tells you is that our batting has improved a lot under JS. While back after 95/5 we would have never gotten close to 250. Thats about as far as those stats goes.

Purbasha T
January 13, 2010, 09:25 PM
I have no idea what you have just said. I took this thread to be on the sarcastic side rather than on the serious side.

Oops then I dint catch your sarcasm...see that's why BD men are so bad at fielding. They just don't catch it. :-p

According to his analysis SL had the weakest batting lineup, and if IND were to bat second today then they would have the strongest lineup lol.


Oh well, the analysis was about runs scored by batting first. And if SL were to bat first today, their score (depending on whether it'd be over 250 or less than) would've made a difference to this analysis.


In truth, what those stats tells you is that our batting has improved a lot under JS. While back after 95/5 we would have never gotten close to 250. Thats about as far as those stats goes.

Well, more or less that's what it is. If we batted so well (better than the other two) in conditions which helped the bowlers a bit (at least more than it did at night), then we certainly could expect us to fare even better had we batted at night.

chol_bd123
January 13, 2010, 09:34 PM
How many of the BD batsmen made a century NAFI ??

Purbasha T
January 13, 2010, 10:04 PM
Just love Tyagi's look at Shakib after he got hit for four at the end of 2:12 - 2:46 in this video :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6-4mRvyb9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6-4mRvyb9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

arsenalsri
January 14, 2010, 03:48 AM
Disregard the 2nd innings they mean bullshit, ok!

Compare the first innings posted by SL, India's and BD's batting line ups

Sri Lanka had only one batting performance (allbeit without Dilshan) where they performed the worst out of the three nations

Bangladesh's performances were on par with Indian batting during this tournament being on marginally close concerning inning totals and run-rate and beating them significantly regarding Batting averages/keeping wickets intact.

Bangladesh batting > Indian batting > Sri Lankan Batting

According to this tournament. (statistics don't lie)



Correction: Bangladesh First Innings batting was better than India and Sri Lanka's first Innings batting in this tournament. Thats what your stats say. It probably suggests that Bangladesh should bat first ALWAYS in WC11.

Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts.

nahaz
January 14, 2010, 04:06 AM
Nafi, I absolutely agree! In fact, I would have posted this thread had you not done so. Think we have three of the highest first innings totals out of the 7 games..65,14*,80,44,0*,10,1*. The 14 and 1 are India's opening partnerships, and the duck is Lanka's. Our lowest is ten.Amazing, huh?

Doesn't mean we're better than them in general, just means our standards are way higher now. But the batsmen batting second do lose credibility for their rus scored.

And since when did our 3 opening partnerships read 65, 80 and 44? Let's wait for the test series now...this would be much harder..

simon
January 14, 2010, 06:08 AM
I was saying that before,we surely batted well than these 2 teams.
With all their exprnce & big names Ind & Sri didn't do better than us.
Thnks to JSddns.

cricket_king
January 14, 2010, 06:19 AM
Correction: Bangladesh First Innings batting was better than India and Sri Lanka's first Innings batting in this tournament. Thats what your stats say. It probably suggests that Bangladesh should bat first ALWAYS in WC11.

Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts.

Considering the fact that all teams batting second had won, and Bangladesh had to bat first in all matches, Nafi's claim makes sense - we're also known to be better chasers - so sorry buddy, your little mini skirt analogy fails to obscure your flawed theory.

cricket_king
January 14, 2010, 06:21 AM
I was saying that before,we surely batted well than these 2 teams.
With all their exprnce & big names Ind & Sri didn't do better than us.
Thnks to JSddns.

Batting-wise yes. Bowling-wise, albeit under poor bowling conditions, we looked like Afganistan.

simon
January 14, 2010, 07:36 AM
Just love Tyagi's look at Shakib after he got hit for four at the end of 2:12 - 2:46 in this video :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6-4mRvyb9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6-4mRvyb9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And also Dhoni's look at Tyagi after SAkib played the scoop one.:-*

Tigers_eye
January 14, 2010, 10:26 AM
How many of the BD batsmen made a century NAFI ??
How many SL and Ind batsmen averaged over 190, heck 106? They are the bestestestest batsmen in the world. Names include Viru, UV, Mr. Cool Dhoni, Dillu, Attorney Sangakkara, Boss Jayawardene, THE MAN GAMBHIR etc.. Thousands and thousands of run scorers. Yet how come couldn't topple a puny almost a rookie from BD?

AsifTheManRahman
January 14, 2010, 12:05 PM
Tiger bhai, are you saying mah man MahMan > BradMan?

Tigers_eye
January 14, 2010, 12:09 PM
Tiger bhai, are you saying mah man MahMan > BradMan?
(not overall but in this tri-series) Yes, had Bradman played in this tri-series, heck with Steve Waugh and Ponting and co. they wouldn't be able to average more than 190. Did anyone average more in any tri-series? Anyone in the history of the game?

Shobhon
January 14, 2010, 01:53 PM
Just love Tyagi's look at Shakib after he got hit for four at the end of 2:12 - 2:46 in this video :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6-4mRvyb9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6-4mRvyb9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Shakib's shot at 4.20 does not warrant his place as No 1.. :D

arsenalsri
January 14, 2010, 02:07 PM
(not overall but in this tri-series) Yes, had Bradman played in this tri-series, heck with Steve Waugh and Ponting and co. they wouldn't be able to average more than 190. Did anyone average more in any tri-series? Anyone in the history of the game?

Mohammed Yousouf - 405.00 - but this was not triangular series
A Jadeja (India) 354.00 Pepsi Triangular Series (Australia, India, Zimbabwe in India), 1997/98
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;templat e=results;type=batting;view=series

:doh:

Mahmudullah is the best for Bangladesh followed by Athar Ali Khan - 122 and Shariar Nafees - 121.

Tigers_eye
January 14, 2010, 02:13 PM
Mohammed Yousouf - 405.00 - but this was not triangular series
A Jadeja (India) 354.00 Pepsi Triangular Series (Australia, India, Zimbabwe in India), 1997/98
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;templat e=results;type=batting;view=series

:doh:

Mahmudullah is the best for Bangladesh followed by Athar Ali Khan - 122 and Shariar Nafees - 121.
Great find. Thanks but they don't count. :) My rules. Against top 8 teams only. :)

De Silva is not human so he don't count.
Bevan actually has 194.5 avg. :(
Riyad second with 193.

Purbasha T
January 14, 2010, 02:13 PM
Shakib's shot at 4.20 does not warrant his place as No 1.. :D

Mistakes happen. And it's good that even great men do mistakes, so general men like us have hopes of reaching the greatness despite our mistakes. :)

arsenalsri
January 14, 2010, 02:20 PM
Considering the fact that all teams batting second had won, and Bangladesh had to bat first in all matches, Nafi's claim makes sense - we're also known to be better chasers - so sorry buddy, your little mini skirt analogy fails to obscure your flawed theory.

The World Cup is going to be Feb-Apr and not early Jan as was this tri-series. Dew is likely to be less of a factor then and if there are day games, dew will be a non-factor. Also remember that if the team bat first and put a good total on the board, the team chasing will always be under pressure. Going by this stat if BD can consistently put a score of 275+ and the game not being decided by the toss it will always be a challenge for the team chasing second.

Russell2k7
January 14, 2010, 02:31 PM
So SL had batting strength of 213. Damn their bowling strength must have been like 160-170 for them to win the tourney, hehe.
PS1: IND effective run rate is 5.24
PS2: I can't believe this thread is still going on.

Spitfire_x86
January 14, 2010, 11:37 PM
Great find. Thanks but they don't count. :) My rules. Against top 8 teams only. :)

De Silva is not human so he don't count.
Bevan actually has 194.5 avg. :(
Riyad second with 193.
Jadeja's 354 has to count. Back then you could rank Zimbabwe as Top 8. They whitewashed England 3-0 in an ODI series.

Zimbabwe's performance in that series and our performance in this tri-series are very similar. Both team posted good scores in all 4 matches, but failed to win any. In 2-3 years, that Zimbabwe team earned a position in the Super Six of WC1999, and beat Pakistan in a 3 test away series.

Neel Here
January 14, 2010, 11:59 PM
zim at the time was a very strong team, a batting composed of the flower brothers, alistair campbell and murray goodwin and pace attack led by heath streak was quite formidable.

nahaz
January 15, 2010, 02:59 AM
Tiger bhai, are you saying mah man MahMan > BradMan?

Or what you are actually asking is.,..is Riyad > Tendulkar?:)


P.S: Haha, now you'd face the wrath of Tandulkar fans:P

Tigers_eye
January 17, 2010, 06:22 AM
Jadeja's 354 has to count. Back then you could rank Zimbabwe as Top 8. They whitewashed England 3-0 in an ODI series.

Zimbabwe's performance in that series and our performance in this tri-series are very similar. Both team posted good scores in all 4 matches, but failed to win any. In 2-3 years, that Zimbabwe team earned a position in the Super Six of WC1999, and beat Pakistan in a 3 test away series.
Could doesn't count. They were #9 simple.
+++
Anyways, I think if we can wrap this over tomorrow early, we will have a better chance to show which team has a better batting lineup. ;)