Message Board Archives

West Indies and very recently England batting, appear to subscribe rigidly to this batting principle quoted above.

This principle states basically, that in response to a stimulus, all the muscle fibres within the unit will contract at the same time, and to the maximum possible extent.

Our batting unit concentrates on either hitting a six or a boundary at the expense of rotating the strike at reducing the dot ball percentage. This batting policy has the West Indies achieving the distinction as the playing unit in international cricket, of the worst dot ball percentage in international cricket. We need hitters but we also need someone who could bat deep and rotate the strike.

No wonder Evin Lewis, Lendl Simmons, Chris Gayle, Nicholas Pooran, Jason Holder, Keiron Pollard, Fabian Allen are all inconsistent in their game. They play the all or nothing game...high risk, inconsistent reward.

In reply to Courtesy

A six or a boundary? Isn’t a six a boundary?

But you are quite right in your assessment.

Why did JHo slogged that ball?

I thought that is where we lost that match.

Wasn’t he informed by how he finished off the previous match?

As a corollary to my post above, CWI/WICB has become lazy or incompetent to deal with the problem. Let's face it, our cricket skills in playing against spin have been withering away for as long as I can remember. Even when we dominated world cricket spin bowling was our achilles' heel.

So it begs the question as to why the persons who hold the levers of power have not developed a regional plan of action to deal with the problem? The obvious answer is they are either lazy or incompetent.

Administrators are put in positions to solve problems. The fact that CWI/WICB administrations have failed to rectify this simple problem for over three decades is an indictment on the lack of quality leadership all these years.

Over to you Director of Cricket.

In reply to sudden

In the nuanced cricket minds, fours are categorized as boundaries.

Btw, JHO was lucky to have survived a simple drop catch in the first match which may have cost Sri Lanka the match.

In reply to Courtesy

I will profer a statistical analysis of 5 players albeit from ODI cricket to show 6's,4's and scoring rates off non-boundary balls sometime later today.Stay tuned.

In reply to Dukes

Can we just simply watch a table with the ICC Top 5 ODI batsmen or is your statistical analysis more nuanced?

In reply to Courtesy

5 West Indian batsmen.

ICC top 5 ODI batsmen...none are six ball hitters.

I see Shai Hope at number 12. The next West Indian is Shimron Hetmyer at number 29.

In reply to Dukes

OK. I will await your usual nuanced stuff.

The supporters too

Wednesday they all in predicting Asian wash
Friday they all in depression

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

ASian White wash


I did not, at the beginning of Narps wagon yesterday , I noted my concern.

SL is a cunning team, they had a bad first game.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

The supporters are indeed a funny lott. From Herro to Zero in no time flat. Lol

But how long has this been the mentality

In reply to Courtesy

HERE GOES

I am featuring 5 WI batsmen

2Veterans-Gayle and Pollard

2 Rising stars-Pooran and Hetmyer

1 Regular-Evan Lewis
Here are their overall ODI records

LEWIS 1610 Runs off 1919 Balls Scoring rate 83.90

GAYLE 10,480 Runs off 12,019 Balls Scoring Rate 87.20

Pollard 2496 Runs off 2637 Balls Scoring rate 94.65

Pooran 932 Runs off 875 Balls. Scoring rate 106.51

Hetmyer. 1430 Runs off 1338 Balls Scoring Rate 106.88

Here are their boundaries i.e Fours and Sixes

Gayle 1,128 Fours and 331 Sixes a total of 6,498 runs

Pollard 157 Fours and 125 Sixes a total of 1,378 runs

Lewis 166 Fours and 43 Sixes a total of 922 Runs

Pooran 87 Fours and 30 Sixes a total of 528 Runs

Hetmyer 108 Fours and 52 Sixes a total of 744 Runs


We next look at number of non-boundary balls and non boundary runs and that scoring rate

Gayle 3,982 runs off 10,560 Balls Scoring rate 37.71

Lewis 688 runs off 1710 Balls Scoring rate 40.23

Pollard 1,118 Runs off 2355 Balls Scoring rate 47.47

Pooran 404 Runs off 758 Balls Scoring rate 53.29

Hetmyer 686 Runs off 1178 Balls Scoring rate 58.23

Those are some interesting stats and they can be used to analyze why some people have the overall scoring rates that they have.As you can see the determinative factor for overall scoring rate is largely what you do with the balls you do not hit for 4 or 6.At International level there are much less balls that can be dispatched to or over the boundary so your scoring rate is determined by these balls.As a result dot balls are extremely important and to a lesser extent the ability to turn easy singles into hard run twos.

More analysis can be done by looking at ratio of fours to sixes.You will note Pollard hits almost as many sixes as he hits fours and actually in T 20 he has hit more sixes than fours overall.(85 to 77)

BTW Virat has a non-boundary scoring rate of 58.12 in ODI's and an overall scoring rate of 93

I await your studied response.

In reply to Dukes

Not trying to make you do more research, but I would like to see how Shai numbers compare!

In reply to Dukes

I think scoring rate is important but it can be overstated. I feel it has to tie in to batting average.

Reminds me of the debate in tennis about aces: is it speed of serve or placement of serve. Big servers almost always get beaten by placement servers.

Back to cricket. Pollard or Russell can face 10 balls and score 25 runs easily. Gayle can make 100 in 100 balls. Which set of players get you more often to a winning position?

In reply to Dukes

Thanks Dukes. Hetmyer is undoubtedly the most efficient West Indian and comparable in efficiency to Virat Kohli.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

The finer metrics to be allow for the scrutiny of productivity need to change. SR and average are too crude.

The importance of rotating the strike cannot be overemphasized in terms of improving efficiency. It also decreases the chances of a bowler from setting up a batsman as well as in a left-right batting combination it can upset the bowlers' rhythm.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

The simple solution to that is to multiply the scoring rate by the average.

Pooran. 5224
Hetmyer 3919
Gayle 3298
Lewis 3001
Pollard 2460

In reply to Dukes

I like where you are going with this. I think that strike rate fails to fully capture a batsman's performance or rather lack thereof.

In reply to Dukes

There's no way Pooran and Hetmyer's contribution is greater than Gayle's. The inherent weakness in relying on stats only without context.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

I did not state whose contribution is greater.I merely stated pertinent facts.You say I am relying on statistics so my question to you is what are you relying on?

Stats but placed in the appropriate context.


10 aces might get you pass top20 players but not against the top 3

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

In what area is my statistics bereft of context?

In reply to Dukes

Sir I am not challenging you. I am making the point that stats without understanding the context can be misleading

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

BUT BUT BUT
I am still awaiting you to inform me as to what CONTEXT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!

In reply to Dukes

I thought I already did.

Use shai hope vs Hety or Pooran

Most would say even though hope has the better average Pooran and Hety are better suited because they have better strike rates.


We often hear Hope should up his strike rate but never hear Pooran and Hety should up their average.


And if a place is up the accumulator goes and the hitters stay...because of strike rate...and we get bowled out within the overs.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

I counter that by saying
1.The purpose of playing ODI's is to WIN

2.Which of those players performances most directly/largely/incontrovertibly result in WI winning ODI's?

Now if you answer question 2,assuming you agree with the declarative statement at the top,I would be grateful

In reply to Dukes

As I said. What gets you an ace: speed or placement or both?


It your scenario we lose with the accumulator as well as with the hitters


Btw. That's my last shot...no winners

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Hope has 9 ODI centuries.The WI won only 4 of those games.He won MOM in only 2 of those games,Bangladesh and Afghanistan.In the other 2 matches, one against Ireland there was no award and Campbell scored the same amount of runs off fewer balls and then the match against India where somebody else scored more runs at a rate 63.58 per 100 balls faster.

Now you put the above in context!!!!

In reply to Dukes

Yuh obviously nuh have nutten fe do today.....and plenty of time to do it

Go cook some pepperpot to rass man..



P.S. Be careful who you are seen engaging in debates with....

In reply to newdread

Heavy rainfall so nutting to do and all day to do it!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In reply to newdread

I would advise him to spend more time running cpl so as not to fail like with wicb/ wipa

The next time you see me (since you know who I am) please identify yourself and call me a failure to my face...and if you can't manage that, then just keep hiding behind your computer screen and chatting fuckery.

In reply to newdread

Internet Badman!!!!

ROTFLMFAO

In reply to newdread

Man stick to ox tails please

In reply to Dukes

Fuzzy has put forward a reasonable argument.

I will flesh it out later but Fuzzy has outlined it- accumulator v big hitters.

There is a place for both

In reply to newdread

Excuse me sir I was speaking with sir Dukes. Why are you so upset. I'll get powen to put a lash in yuh tail next time in 3Ws.

Wow!!! a lot has taken place.

I would suggest strongly that a metric which can be used is SR x Ave x reciprocal of dot ball percentage.

In reply to sudden

In reply to sudden

In reply to Courtesy

I am unsure whether great minds think alike or fools seldom differ is applicable here!!!!!!!

In reply to sudden

Well we seem to be all in agreement so why the push back when first posited by Fuzzy?

In reply to Dukes

In reply to sudden

Fuzzy left out an important stat - the dot ball percentage which throws an entirely different picture of the lay of the land.

In reply to Courtesy

..nor did Dukes. That's what prompted my intrusion. Pardon me

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Dukes dot ball percentage is partially hidden here in his post:

In reply to Courtesy

Let me say this right now. The dot ball thingy whilst a good stat to quote etc is a red herring.

It is like saying that a bowler would have taken 5 wickets if he had 5 catches dropped from 5 different batsmen.

Think about cos if I have to explain I will be disappointed

In reply to sudden

In reply to Courtesy

First of all we view dot balls during and at the end of a game. We look at the number of boundaries scored, the scores of each player and the number of ball each batsman did not score off ( dot balls).

However what we do not take into consideration is if a single was taken at a particular juncture would the game have proceeded as it did. For instance if a batsman had taken a single would the batsman facing been bowled and therefore the trajectory of the game changed?

Regarding a bowler getting 5 wickets if the 5 catches were taken from 5 different batsmen- only one can be true to a certainty and that is the first. If the first batsman was caught it is highly unlikely that the particular bowler would have bowled to the other 4 batsmen

In reply to Courtesy

Dot ball correlation or dot ball causation?

In reply to sudden

In reply to Courtesy

That does not address my contention. He speaks to how they approach run getting. We all do it differently.

I doubt WI score would improve even if we limited dot balls. Firstly we may not have the type of batsmen to rotate the strike and secondly some may say because of that we play block and swipe cricket.

That notwithstanding I think we would still end up around where we are now. All teams that make big scores in limited over cricket do it by scoring a high percentage of boundaries.

So one can argue that WI simply do not score enough boundaries as high percentage as it is for the type of batsmen we have.

Hence that is why we need accumulators and big hitters individually if some batsmen cant do both as the game progresses

You have not addressed the changing dynamics of the game if a run is taken at a particular juncture and the bowler issue

In reply to sudden

Root:

In reply to sudden

I am convinced that no one has ever"won" a debate with you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In reply to Courtesy

The English perspective is to take losing out the game first, then the draw, then the win. In Tests from prehistoric times. Englishmen think if you hit a boundary you should then get off strike next ball with a cowardly single. Englishmen think you should make just over the run rate for the over and take it easy because you already got enough for the over. They poked to a double Test loss today.

Now translated into limited overs where that mentality is a losing one, this is why they have one just one major tournament win, and drew the other to gain a trophy.

In other words, they sound like they know what they are doing, and will fool some of the lesser nuanced students of the game.

If you can hit 36 in an over, do it.
6,1,1,4,1,1 doesn’t cut it in LO cricket.

If you cannot hit 3 sixes an over then of course you will try to minimise dot ball percentage. Simple compensatory maths.

Your argument has become an all or nothing one. Which is ironic.

In reply to Dukes
Correct but sometimes I give in to keep life interesting and balanced

Besides I don’t argue unless I can see a way of winning.

It is like negotiating from a position of weakness. Never do it

In the end tho, arguments of this nature aren’t won or lost. They are a free expression of ideas

In reply to Dukes

That's rich coming from you

In reply to Halliwell

ICC Men's ODI Team Rankings.

Any comments?

In reply to Courtesy

Yes. That is more paper trophies.
Is your name NineMiles?

Let me tell you about ratings. ENG always in FIFA top 5. And don’t make it out of group stages.

I know that you know better

In reply to Halliwell

In reply to Courtesy

WI must enhance its strengths whilst working with some assiduity on weaknesses (dot balls or as I would put it strike rotation).

One thing I am pleased with in this T20 series is our fielding- it has been v good

In reply to sudden

In reply to Courtesy

Where we have issues is in the margins