Cricketing Queries

[ZoraxDoom]

It's not described as how many hundreds you score. It is how many times you cross 100.

So when you cross 100, and go on to score 455, you've still crossed 100 only once.

What confuses me is why a 100 isn't considered as crossing 50 as well.

That means fifties are the number of time you score 50 runs...but then a 100 should count as 2 fifties by that definition. Not to mention that definition goes against the definition of a 100.

So yea, bit unclear on that.

 

[used2bcool]

With fifties, there's another (greater) milestone that is officially counted (i.e. hundreds), so hundreds are not counted as fifties.

Basically, they count the number of times you passed a particular milestone without passing the next milestone. For hundreds, there is no next milestone, it's just the number of times you crossed hundred. For fifties, it's the number of times you passed fifty without getting to hundred.

You'll see the same thing in bowling. Sometimes people count 4-wicket hauls and 5-wicket hauls separately in OD cricket. It's done the same way. The 4-wkt number is the number of times you took 4 but didn't take the 5th, and the 5-wkt number is the number of times you took 5 or higher (as no higher milestone exists).

 

[sohum]

The definitions of the milestones aren't consistent:

- Fifties measure the number of innings that you score between 50-99 runs
- Hundreds measure the number of innings that you score >= 100 runs

Well... I guess it is consistent.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

It's not consistent, which annoys me

 

[sohum]

It's not consistent, which annoys me

It is consistent. Your definition that a hundred is the number of innings a batsman crosses 100 is inaccurate. It is in fact the number of innings a batsman has scored between 100 and infinity runs. Using that definition, the definition for a 50 is the number of innings a batsman has scored between 50 and 99 runs. Yes, the ranges for 50 are more discrete.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

It is consistent. Your definition that a hundred is the number of innings a batsman crosses 100 is inaccurate. It is in fact the number of innings a batsman has scored between 100 and infinity runs. Using that definition, the definition for a 50 is the number of innings a batsman has scored between 50 and 99 runs. Yes, the ranges for 50 are more discrete.

<_<

50 <= 99
100 <= Infinity

Still seems inconsistent to me
It works, but is annoying.

It could be:

50 <= 99
100 <= 199
200 <= 299
300 <= 399
400 <= 499
500 <= 599

And end it there since no batsman will ever score a 600. But it's not like it's ever going to change.

 

[sohum]

LOL I'm going to stop here.

 

[pcfan123]

Here is an interesting question, say if you consider a 300 as 3 separate hundreds, who is then the leading "century" scorer in Test cricket? is it still Tendulkar?

 

[Cricketman]

Might've been answered already, but if you run 4 runs is it considered a '4'/Boundary??

 

[pcfan123]

I think so because there is one Boycott innings where he never hit a boundry and got a 100. He ran four once and under his innings it's shown as a "4" , even though it never crossed the boundary.

 

[AbhishekS]

Here is an interesting question, say if you consider a 300 as 3 separate hundreds, who is then the leading "century" scorer in Test cricket? is it still Tendulkar?

Yes

Yudi added 16 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...

Why is Hughes suddenly being termed as "Australia's Sehwag"?

 

[iridescentt]

Batting style, if I'm to be mistaken, Sehwag and Hughes are/or had a:

* Really good cutters of the ball through the off - side
* Lack thereof footwork
* Tendency to get out generally when cramped for room; was a similarity in their early careers (ie. Shorter deliveries)
* Attacking style of play
* Certain disregard for match situations
* Chancy and adventurous

Obviously their is one major difference today, Sehwag actually fulfils and by far exceeded his potential. Bit shallow but Hughes needs to get his head straight first. Also, Sehwag improved his play a lot against the bouncer, decreasing his susceptibility to the delivery - a difference now, but could be a similarity after.

 

[sohum]

Here is an interesting question, say if you consider a 300 as 3 separate hundreds, who is then the leading "century" scorer in Test cricket? is it still Tendulkar?

I'm assuming then you also count a double-hundred as 2 hundreds. In this case (current number in parentheses):

Tendulkar - 55 (49) +6
Lara - 46 (34) +12
Ponting - 44 (39) +5
Bradman - 43 (29) +14
Gavaskar - 38 (34) +4
Kallis - 37 (37) +0
Dravid - 36 (31) +5
Jayawardene - 35 (28) +7
S. Waugh - 33 (32) +1
Hayden - 33 (30) +3
Sangakkara - 31 (24) +7
Hammond - 30 (22) +8
Sehwag - 30 (22) +8
Border - 29 (27) +2
Sobers - 29 (26) +3
Miandad - 29 (23) +6
Inzamam - 28 (25) +3
G. Chappell - 28 (24) +4
Yousuf - 28 (24) +4
V. Richards - 27 (24) +3
Langer - 26 (23) +3
G. Smith - 26 (22) +4
Azharuddin - 22 (22) +0

--

Unsurprisingly, Bradman benefits the most from this stat, followed by Lara. Interestingly Sehwag/Hammond come in tied for third. But Tendulkar still has a big lead (9 hundreds compared to the traditional statistic which he leads by 10 hundreds).

 

[Ollie_H]

Does that mean I'm wrong in saying that if you score 200 it goes down as 1 hundred rather than 2 separate ones? I always thought that was how they did it.

 

[pcfan123]

NO Ollie you are right, a 200 is only 1 hundred. We are just seeing who would have been the leader if it counted as 2.

Thanks for that Sohum