Discussion Board

Cricketonomics? Crickex?


Total 26 messages Pages < Newer  | 1 | 2
samir sawant
Cricketonomics? Crickex?
by samir sawant on Nov 07, 2005 09:01 PM

Interesting Analysis.....


But I guess , it's in the way the cricket is being played than human behaviour or psychology.

Maximum runs are scored in the form of 1, 2, 4 and 6 in cricket. And very very less runs are scored in the form of 3s and 5s..

This iteself gives a chance for scoring runs with even and /or whole number of strike rates for cricketers.

Though i do agree, certain amount of psychology has it's role too...

Thanks,

Samir



    Forward  |  Report abuse
Ankur
Logic works here also
by Ankur on Nov 07, 2005 08:57 PM  | Hide replies

Okay Uday, I am very sure in case of strike rate of 50, the person has not scored more than 4-5 runs in any case. The biggest possibility being single on the first ball and out on second thus getting a strike rate of 50. Please check for all those cases and you might find an answer to your query...

    Forward  |  Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
uday
RE:Logic works here also
by uday on Nov 17, 2005 08:50 PM
It holds for every batsman except Kaif. It is all tabulated in the table. I don't know why the table did not appear in the onilne versions. But check out the print version (in Business Standard, Monday, 7th November)

Uday

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Abhishek Mathur
Interesting ,,, but
by Abhishek Mathur on Nov 07, 2005 08:56 PM  | Hide replies

I wonder why you would pick up tailenders to illustrate your point. I wonder if the same is true for regular batsmen like openers Sachin, Sehwag, Dravid. And it would also be interesting to see if your theory could be extended to other playing nations also - like Australia, Zimbabwe, etc.

At times it does make sense, because in cricket, players are typically playing at "run-a-ball" theory and hence the high percentage of 50 and 100 as the strike rate.

I would not bank on it as much from the data and the examples you have used so far, unless it can be extended to other players and other teams as well.

    Forward  |  Report abuse
uday
RE:Interesting ,,, but
by uday on Nov 14, 2005 11:28 AM
It holds for every batsman except Kaif. In fact, I don't know why the table did not appear in the onilne versions. But check out the print version (in Business Standard, Monday, 7th November)

Uday

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Kaushik
RE:Interesting ,,, but
by Kaushik on Nov 17, 2005 09:05 PM
If you have a copy of the print article, could you post the entry for Tendulkar or Dravid? I would be very interested to see it.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Total 26 messages Pages: < Newer  | 1 | 2
Write a message