/cric/ - the cricket

Poodia on pooicide watch
Pissrat Pooli on pooxposed watch
Pooshwin on walloped watch

Other urls found in this thread:

cricket.com.au/news/international-cricket-council-first-test-pitch-rated-poor-pune-india-australia/2017-02-28
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

ESPNcricinfo has learnt from sources that over the four days leading upto the Test, the pitch got only about half the water it gets before a usual first-class match. Brushes were used to remove the grass and rough the pitch up. Only 2mm grass was left. Information of highs of 37 degrees over the week was readily available on every weather forecast site.
The curators are now not accessible. Salgaoncar was not at the ground the day after the Test, and refused to meet at his residence in Pune. Daljit is back in Chandigarh, but calling his phone drew no response.
ESPNcricinfo understands that given the nature of the soil, a mix of two different black clays, the pitch needed some grass to hold it together in such heat. That it was too big a risk to leave it as dry as it was left. The curators had relayed this information to those in power, but were overruled and were asked to give in to the team's demands conveyed to them through the BCCI top brass.

>sources
I believe it

Based bcci

*dabs to the left*
*dabs to the right*

BCCI thought they could knock the sok

who /PeshawarZalmi/ here?

Neeshy mate you online?

got a spare dollar for the bus cunt?

Who will be the spinner in the Ashes?

N-no Kane, you took all my money and spent it at the canteen

Based

Just put $20 on NZ to win on Wed. AMA

>the state of this dead poomunity

Thanks for the input Raul but /cric/ posters have elite highly paid jobs to attend to and it's the middle of the workday

Does your family have a history of mental illness?

>A brazilian flag snuck through the 4ch-x filter

Fucking POORIOUS right now lads.

Cricket is basically a dumb and boring version of baseball. The amount of subtlety and tactical and athletic ability on display in baseball makes cricket looks like the shitty joke that it is.

Cricket will NEVER be able to match the tradition and history and folklore of baseball either.

And don't even get me started on attendance and revenue. Baseball attracts 75 million people annually just in the MLB. Further 25 million people attend Japanese baseball and add other millions in caribbean and other nations. On the other hand, if you add up all the cricket attendances worldwide, they would struggle to cross even 10 million ROFLOL.

And oh, MLB is a $9.5 BILLION annual industry! Cricket is not even 1/10th of that LMAO.

All in all, cricket can fuck right off.

Haha

#kek #btfo #howwillcricrecover

Just popped into bed when Australia won the toss, woke up and the match is over and India got blown out.
What'd I miss?

Just stopped watching cricket lads

What baseball team should I start following?

Pick either the Red Sox or the Cubs. They are the most historic ball clubs with the most passionate and loyal fanbases.

If you want to pick a west coast team for time zone reasons, pick the Dodgers or the Giants.

Wow, I'm never watching Cricket again. IM DONE WITH THIS. Who support now?

You're a strange person

What team is most like the Australian cricket team but obviously in a sport that doesn't suck lol

>most passionate and loyal fanbases

More like the most pink-hatted insufferable faggot casual fanbases

Slept for two and a half days lad?

Cricket is LITERALLY finished

>afghanistan scored 253 in 50 overs
>zimbabwe's d/l-target is 161 runs/22 overs
can anyone explain how the d/l-method works? how is it fair that a teams has to chase more than half of what the first batting side scored in less than half the overs?

That would be the Yankees, but they are a pathetic club to root for. And these days they are pretty shit too.

Literally no one has a clue

Well, they are historically underdogs but now they are winners but the fans still have that underdog mentality. Makes a great combination IMO.

That sounds more like India

Begins a limited number of wickets (10) means that you're allowed a higher level of aggression the shorter the amount of time you have to bat.

what?

Because, not begins. If you reduce it to absurdity it makes sense. If you had 200 overs to score 200 runs, but only 10 wickets to give, you'd be rather cautious. But if the other team had 2 overs to score 2 runs, but with 10 wickets to give, they'd be aggressive.
D/L has to account for that.

lads...

the summer of StraffGOD is over
What will YOU miss the most?

yeah, that kinda makes sense, i guess.

>Rahul Dravid was probably one of the last classical Test match batsmen. His progress into the national side may have been steady and methodical rather than meteoric, but once there, Dravid established himself at the vanguard of a new, defiant generation that were no longer easybeats away from home.
mfw

had a nightmare about this lastnight lads

Look at those sides, the 2000s were so good for cricket

Nangs are a helluva drug

Imagine being Renshaw

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

He'll be back

Pretty sure this happened before

Well, he managed to screen cap it and put it on his Instagoyim so he's working from a methodological place. The plan is proceeding.

I look forward to seeing the progression of the narrative

>Instagoyim

keke I'm stealing that

>tfw your twitter is insanely racist and would not last 5 minutes on Straffo's follower list

I'm sure all three of your followers still love you saxon

Poopindia BTFO

...

Talked to a girl from mackay at uni today lads. Told her I had a friend who lives there :)

>Australia won a Test match in India before GateNEET got a job
kek

KEK

K E K

which uni?

/rug/ rules /cric/ drools

UQ

wtf i love baseball now

>you will never ever watch any glorious VVS Laxman drives again
Why live lads

kek cricket BTFO

hello

seems like any dumb cunt can get into group of 8 uni's nowadays

QLD vs SA shaping up to be a good one lads

England are fucked lads

What's wrong with kane?

>my feet hurt

da fuck are the Redbacks doing not choking? it's SA tradition you dogs.

who do you reckon the biggest bully is? Probably Neeshit th

...

...

why are muslims so homophobic?

Test cricket is gay.

...

Abdul dropping some absolute truthies

How do I into swing bowling in Don Bradman 17?

For a while now, I've been pondering the question of how to define an "allrounder" in cricket. Clearly the term is meant to apply to someone with multiple skills - the vast majority of the time this is batting and bowling. But there's never been a clear way to identify who's an"allrounder" and who's just a batsman who occasionally bowls a few pies. What I'm going to try and do here is identify the problems with the current approaches, and then demonstrate a new way to think about allrounders that hopefully solves most of said problems.

>The Current Approaches

When you ask a cricket fan how, statistically, you figure out who an allrounder is, you generally hear one of two responses. Both of these responses, sadly, conflate the question "is this player an allrounder?" with the different question "is this player a good allrounder?".

>1. "You're an allrounder if your batting average is higher than your bowling average".

This is a clearly flawed approach. For the most obvious issue, look at the list of test players sorted by batting average minus bowling average. It has a certain Alastair Nathan Cook at the top, courtesy of three total overs bowled and the wicket of Ishant Sharma for seven runs. Awkward.
You can try to get around this by instituting minimum numbers of runs and wickets, but then you run into the problem that you start cutting players out entirely that only played a few tests. Plus, no matter what maximums or minimums you institute, you end up removing players like Dan Vettori (batting average 30, bowling average 34). If you were to ask a cricket fan to name some allrounders of the last 10-20 years, Vettori would be on most peoples' lists, so any metric that excludes him or similar players is probably pretty wrong.

2. "You're an allrounder if you've scored, say, 1000 runs and 50 wickets in your career."

Again, flawed. Right off the bat, this doesn't work for people that only played a few tests; also, this falls over in the case of bowlers with long careers. Warne scored more than 3000 test runs, Murali more than 1000, but it's extremely generous to call either of them allrounders.

>The new approach

What I therefore want is a metric that is scaleable - it measures "allrounder-ness" no matter how good a player you are or how much you've played. This is something I really hate; somehow someone can be an allrounder or not depending on performance, which think is ridiculous. It doesn't happen for other roles in cricket - Ishant does not somehow cease to be classified as a test bowler just because he sucks.

To do this, I'd like to take a step back slightly and think about not how much a player has contributed to each game but rather how much they've participated.

Think about a test match. Whenever a ball is bowled, there are really two important players on the field (the bowler,and the batsman) and a whole lot of irrelevant ones. What we can therefore do is try to measure, for each player, during their career, how much of their time (how many balls) they spent bowling; compared to how many balls they spent batting. This should give us a better measure of how much of an allrounder a player is.

Generally we can assume that the average test cricket team has about 6.5 batsmen including the wicketkeeper and about 4.5 bowlers. However, in a completed innings the bowlers bat as well, but for less time, maybe 1/3. I'd therefore suggest that a full time batsman spends about 1/8 of team time batting. Obviously a full time bowler would spend about 1/4.5 of team time bowling.

Let's take the case of the theoretical perfect allrounder, who puts in a full quota of overs and bats like a full time batsman. Doing the maths on the above, and assuming the whole team bats for about as long as they bowl, gives you a ratio of batting to bowling of about 56%. So, the "well-balanced allrounder" will spend a little over half the time batting as bowling; this makes sense given that the whole team shares the batting load but only half the team usually bowls.

What this gives us is a neat way to measure how a player has participated in games throughout their career, ie as a batsman or a bowler. I'll follow this up by posting a list of players sorted by batting to bowling ratio - you can very quickly see that it makes a lot of intuitive sense and doesn't give me too many silly results like putting Cook as the best allrounder of all time.

>The Results

This is test matches only. To calculate these as per above, I look up the player's total balls faced as a batsman and divide by the total balls bowled as a bowler. For example, Watson has faced 7094 balls as a batsman and bowled 5495 balls as a bowler. 6893/5321 = 129%, so Watson is unsurprisingly a batting allrounder.
I do need balls faced data for this, so I can't go back past the early '90s.

Do remember that this is a sliding scale and my categories are somewhat arbitrary and for color only.

Bunnies (batting to bowling ratio less than 10%)
Chris Martin (4%)
Murali (4%)
Glenn McGrath (5%)
Bowlers (batting to bowling ratio between 10 and 20%)
James Anderson (10%)
Shane Warne (12%)
Waqar Younis (12%)
Tim Southee (12%)
Dale Steyn (15%)
Ravindra Jadeja (18%)
Anil Kumble (16%)
Bowling allrounders (batting to bowling ratio between 20 and 40%)
Stuart Broad (20%)
Mitchell Starc (21%)
Mitchell Johnson (22%)
Ajit Agarkar (22%)
Ravichandran Ashwin (25%)
Jason Gillespie (26%. 23% without his final innings)
Dan Vettori (27%)
Vernon Philander (28%)
Chaminda Vaas (30%)
Shaun Pollock (30%)
Darren Sammy (31%)
Tim Bresnan (31%) *Adil Rashid (33%)
Irfan Pathan (35%)
Ian Botham (39%)
Heath Streak (40%)
Allrounders (batting to bowling ratio between 40 and 70%)
Andrew Flintoff (41%)
Derek Pringle (46%)
Lance Klusener (46%)
Chris Cairns (50%)
Shakib Al Hasan (50%)
Azhar Mahmood (57%)
Shahid Afridi (57%, but remember his test batting record is much better than his ODI record)
Moeen Ali (57%)
Craig White (61%)
Abdul Razzaq (67%)
Mitch Marsh (67%)
Dwayne Bravo (70%)
Batting allrounders (batting to bowling ratio between 70 and 150%)
Brian McMillan (76%)
Carl Hooper (83%)
Andrew Symonds (108%)
Shane Watson (129%)
Jacques Kallis (142%)
Part Timers(batting to bowling ratio between 150 and 800%)
Michael Bevan (153%)
Chris Gayle (168%)
Shoaib Malik (170%)
JP Duminy (171%)
Hansie Cronje (219%)
Angelo Mathews (231%)
Tillakaratne Dilshan (247%)
Virender Sehwag (280%)
Yuvraj Singh (352%)
Sourav Ganguly (451%)
Kane Williamson (475%)
Paul Collingwood (481%)
Joe Root (585%)
Michael Clarke (620%)
Steve Smith (684%)
Batsmen(batting to bowling ratio above 800%)
Simon Katich (840%)
Jonathan Trott (1130%)
Alastair Cook (23560 balls faced to 18 balls bowled gives 130,000%)
So you can see that this does place players in roughly the right order when it comes to "allrounder-ness".

shut up

Bit rude lad

Class act m8

BCCI about the receive the wet lettuce leaf flogging of their lives.

cricket.com.au/news/international-cricket-council-first-test-pitch-rated-poor-pune-india-australia/2017-02-28

elite investigation, britlad

why does Ausfalia love poo so much?

know your enemy

>I look up the player's total balls faced as a batsman and divide by the total balls bowled as a bowler.
I don't like this idea too much. It makes sense from a bowling perspective but places far too much emphasis on survivability in batting

what really has got me thinking is that Starc is universally considered a bowler, not even a bowler who can bat a bit, but yet he is currently in the ICC top 10 allrounders

What a man.

Fuck off nerd.

he's a big guy

why is there such a big fucking gap between these two tests?

Because India got the shit kicked out of them.

Md Abdullah kekekekeke

Behrendorff lads

for you

ama

yeah I guess but I think anyone would be impressed at his stature