General Cricket Discussion

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

He only faced 130 balls.

View attachment 269520

It's easy to see why he got dropped. Couldn't even statpad against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Now he's just pummeling Middlesex 3rds.

Scoring 51 runs in 5 matches is below par even in 2013 standards. This is after we won the 2011 WC and we had so many players competing. I know nobody is debating about it but I feel his statpadding in English circuit just means nothing. On the other hand his statpadding in FC means everything. Love Puji and his resistance in Test matches.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Scoring 51 runs in 5 matches is below par even in 2013 standards. This is after we won the 2011 WC and we had so many players competing. I know nobody is debating about it but I feel his statpadding in English circuit just means nothing. On the other hand his statpadding in FC means everything. Love Puji and his resistance in Test matches.

I suppose the impressive thing is his strike rate. Even against fairly weak opposition he could still take his time but he seems to be giving it a whack.

 

[asprin]

Incredible insights

I would be forever indebted to you if you can find a pattern for Kohli as well. Let's put an end to this slump now.

 

[Aislabie]

He only faced 130 balls.

View attachment 269520

It's easy to see why he got dropped. Couldn't even statpad against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Now he's just pummeling Middlesex 3rds.

Weird - a run of form like that would buy him a good year or so as England opener

 

[Slowcoach]

Can't stand Franchise cricket, it is Rashid Khan and the same 12 ageing West Indies players in every league regardless of where it is played.
Andre Russell is useless, averages 20 off 12 balls with the bat, concedes 20 off 12 with the ball, means his net impact on a game is zero.
Economy rate doesn't matter at all in T20s, if a team has wickets in hand they will score 15 an over at the death.
An economy rate of 7 compared to 8 only saves you 4 runs a game, hardly worth bothering about.
Spinners top all the rankings in T20 cricket due to economy rate, but you can only bowl them in the boring middle overs when a team is looking for 1s and 2s, I would do away with Economy rate in the rankings.
When did Average stop being important in T20 cricket?

 

[CerealKiller]

Can't stand Franchise cricket, it is Rashid Khan and the same 12 ageing West Indies players in every league regardless of where it is played.
Andre Russell is useless, averages 20 off 12 balls with the bat, concedes 20 off 12 with the ball, means his net impact on a game is zero.
Economy rate doesn't matter at all in T20s, if a team has wickets in hand they will score 15 an over at the death.
An economy rate of 7 compared to 8 only saves you 4 runs a game, hardly worth bothering about.
Spinners top all the rankings in T20 cricket due to economy rate, but you can only bowl them in the boring middle overs when a team is looking for 1s and 2s, I would do away with Economy rate in the rankings.
When did Average stop being important in T20 cricket?

I think you’re oversimplifying the situation. Yes, teams can chase big targets at the death, but it doesn’t happen in every match at all.
A good economy rate is as important, if not more important, than wicket-taking ability in T20s in my opinion. Ideally a lineup will have both economical and wicket-taking bowlers. An economical bowler will force the batters to attack other bowlers more, giving them more chances to get a wicket.

 

[Slowcoach]

Economy Rate is more important in Tests, an economy rate of 2.50 compared to 3.00 saves you 15 runs over 30 overs.
Nathan Lyon and Shane Warne have roughly the same strike rate of 60, same as most Test bowlers.
Acccurate bowlers like Mohammad Abbas, Wiaan Mulder, and Kyle Mayers do well in Tests, but their good Test length becomes the slot in T20s so they are useless T20 bowlers.
Legspinners are a liabilty in Tests, on a raging turner all you need is accuracy, finger spinners always do better in Tests.
Also in Tests, Strike Rate generally determines Batting Average, most batsman average about 100 Balls Per Dismissal.
Test stats are all determined by Strike Rate and Economy Rate.
T20 stats are all about Averages, the rest are all about the same over a 20 over innings.
Everything they told you about cricket stats is wrong.

 

[CerealKiller]

Economy Rate is more important in Tests, an economy rate of 2.50 compared to 3.00 saves you 15 runs over 30 overs.
Nathan Lyon and Shane Warne have roughly the same strike rate of 60, same as most Test bowlers.
Acccurate bowlers like Mohammad Abbas, Wiaan Mulder, and Kyle Mayers do well in Tests, but their good Test length becomes the slot in T20s so they are useless T20 bowlers.
Legspinners are a liabilty in Tests, on a raging turner all you need is accuracy, finger spinners always do better in Tests.
Also in Tests, Strike Rate generally determines Batting Average, most batsman average about 100 Balls Per Dismissal.
Test stats are all determined by Strike Rate and Economy Rate.
T20 stats are all about Averages, the rest are all about the same over a 20 over innings.
Everything they told you about cricket stats is wrong.

In the context of 20 overs, saving even one run is important.

 

[Slowcoach]

The percentage of close games in T20s, ODIs and Tests is about the same, T20s are rarely close, 4 runs makes little difference.

 

[icyman]

Can't stand Franchise cricket, it is Rashid Khan and the same 12 ageing West Indies players in every league regardless of where it is played.
Andre Russell is useless, averages 20 off 12 balls with the bat, concedes 20 off 12 with the ball, means his net impact on a game is zero.
Economy rate doesn't matter at all in T20s, if a team has wickets in hand they will score 15 an over at the death.
An economy rate of 7 compared to 8 only saves you 4 runs a game, hardly worth bothering about.
Spinners top all the rankings in T20 cricket due to economy rate, but you can only bowl them in the boring middle overs when a team is looking for 1s and 2s, I would do away with Economy rate in the rankings.
When did Average stop being important in T20 cricket?

Perfectly summed up. Would have 'positively repped' you had the old system still been in place

 

[Master Khan]

Perfectly summed up. Would have 'positively repped' you had the old system still been in place

They need to bring that back, It was quite fun lol, Also I agree with slowcoach, there is just too much franchise cricket now.
It's great for these young cricketers because they can make money and get to perform on big stage, but overall its ruining international cricket, especially test cricket

 

[mohsin7827]

Can't stand Franchise cricket, it is Rashid Khan and the same 12 ageing West Indies players in every league regardless of where it is played.

It was always going to be the case when franchise cricket expands.
All these players have availability and big ticket players for these leagues.
It would have been better if it can be gone football route where one player plays for one club or have one contract.
But it is hard to apply to cricket.
Best we can get is IPL owners have team all over the world say MI and again Pollard play for all of them. Which also eventually get boring as no regional values will be attached to the league.

 

[Paranoid Kendroid]

There's the Pujara we know

 

[Bigby Wolf]

ICC media rights: Star sublicenses TV rights to ZEE

The strategic licensing agreement, the first of its kind in the Indian media sports broadcast history, will remain for four years starting 2024

m.cricbuzz.com

So Zee Finally got the ICC rights to televise the games.

Although it is partly owned by Sony.

The whole battle of Essel Group (parent owner of Zee) with BCCI in the early 2000s was started because of the bidding rights of the ICC events which led to the forming of the rebel ICL.

So quite an Irony now.

 

[icyman]

ICC media rights: Star sublicenses TV rights to ZEE

The strategic licensing agreement, the first of its kind in the Indian media sports broadcast history, will remain for four years starting 2024

m.cricbuzz.com

The whole battle of Essel Group (parent owner of Zee) with BCCI in the early 2000s was started because of the bidding rights of the ICC events which led to the forming of the rebel ICL.

Yeah, ZEE getting the rights vindicates their owner Subash Chandra. They will finally be able to show live cricket( Although they held the BCCI rights briefly- for matches in Malaysia, foreign countries). Just wonder how much they are paying to Disney, who have already paid through the roof for these rights. I wouldnt be surprised if Disney picks up the rights for the Rest of the World and sub-licenses them as well.

Btw, just going to correct you on the highlighted area. The battle began in 2004 when ZEE won the rights for India home series, not the ICC ones. The, then BCCI helmed by Jagmohan Dalmiya hadn't expected ZEE to win and wanted the combine of ESPN-Star to do so. The rights process was eventually scrapped and was re-issued with a disclaimer stating that the bidding company needs to have a sports channel. This lead to Nimbus/ Neo Sports getting the rights.

The rebel ICL came up after ZEE won the BCCI rights for matches to be played outside India. The BCCI had an ambitious plan of taking India matches to places like Kuala Lumpur, Singapore ,Toronto ,Morocco, etc. Zee screwed this up by introducing the ICL- which led to a ban on them bidding for any BCCI property until mid of last year.