• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
International Cricket 2016
<<
<
40 of 284
>>
>
mimik1uk
13-02-2016
at close he is 176 not out and is averaging a hair over 100 now

would need another 96 runs tomorrow to keep his average above 100 if he gets out

australia 280 ahead in the game with 3 full days left so doubt we will see them declare any time soon
Nova21
13-02-2016
Originally Posted by swingaleg:
“that one had me thinking......

when he caught it the batsman at the bowlers end was well out of his crease........could he have claimed the catch then ran the non striking batsman out ?

or is the ball dead when a catch is taken ?

(I know you can run out both batsmen off the one delivery but not sure if you can do a catch and run out double ?)”

You can't run out two batsman on one delivery
Bhaveshgor
13-02-2016
Well he does average 556 against West indies.
Voges stats isn't actually that great when you consider a lot of them were scored against West indies and at home.
Although saying that he is a decent player and is capable of averaging around 40s and bring experience to the side basically another Rogers.

Question for Australian selectors is if he can do ok in Sri lanka next summer.
Can't really see him touring India or England again which kind of makes you think why they didn't pick joe burns.
Rogers was understandable since they did tour India, Double Ashes, SA in a 18 month period so did need the experience but with Voges they mostly playing WI and no real challenging tour compared to what Rogers encountered. it would be awkward if Voges fails when Australia finally faces SA, Eng and India again.
jo2015
13-02-2016
It's embarassing that Voges is averaging 100 and I'm not even an Aussie. It completely devaules test cricket.

The West Indies have been worse than England at their worst in the 90s.

Perhaps they should bring in some sort of 'handicapping'? If you score lots of runs against a crap team, there's some sort of Mathematical formula to decrease it.

Voges scored runs in a losing cause at Trent Bridge and on a flat pitch at the Oval. He was lucky not be dropped last summer.
mimik1uk
13-02-2016
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“Well he does average 556 against West indies.
Voges stats isn't actually that great when you consider a lot of them were scored against West indies and at home.
Although saying that he is a decent player and is capable of averaging around 40s and bring experience to the side basically another Rogers.

Question for Australian selectors is if he can do ok in Sri lanka next summer.
Can't really see him touring India or England again which kind of makes you think why they didn't pick joe burns.
Rogers was understandable since they did tour India, Double Ashes, SA in a 18 month period so did need the experience but with Voges they mostly playing WI and no real challenging tour compared to what Rogers encountered. it would be awkward if Voges fails when Australia finally faces SA, Eng and India again.”

at no point did i suggest he would sustain those sort of numbers over an extended period and i think how he did in the ashes is probably a better reflection of his actual ability , but the numbers themselves are impressive
Bhaveshgor
13-02-2016
I did say he was a decent player.
Bhaveshgor
14-02-2016
Poor cricket from pant.
alfamale
14-02-2016
I'm not one into meaningless cricket stats, especially those types "highest 7th wicket partnership on this ground versus this opposition on a tuesday" rubbish. But i do like those straightforward quite perceptive ones, like how a bowler goes at home vs away.

Which leads me to my frustration of a couple of stats that don't even exist in 2016, stats that would change how i might view certain individual incidents in a game. These being:
- Percentage of catches held (both overall, by fielding position and by individual player)
- Percentage of stumping chances converted
- Percentage success of throws at stumps (run out attempts)

At present we have no idea how good/bad certain wicketkeepers and fielders are, compared to an overall baseline and say compared to some of the alleged greats.

I was reading a cricket website that said when chatting to an ex Eng test analyst (part of backroom staff) in Test cricket 70% of slip catches are held. Yet when watching live coverage 95%+ of chances are counted as a miss and the fielders named constantly if the batsman goes on to make a score. Yet in effect its impossible for humans to catch the lot

And regard stumpings i'd be surprised if the success rate is any higher than slip fielders. Adam Gilchrist took 20 stumpings off Warne, and 37 in total for his whole Test career. He played from 1999-2008, of which Warne (when not banned or injured) played 1993-2007, so there must be a fair few stumpings missed in that 8 year (70+ tests?) overlap. Yet Gilchrist seemed a competent keeper to me. So who knows how much stick we should be giving an inexperienced test wicketkeeper when he misses a stumping chance?
Bhaveshgor
14-02-2016
Are you sure the 70% figure is correct, thought the figure was close to being 55-60%.
Remember reading the top slip fielders have around 70% but the average was lower than that.

I have to admit this was based on Star Sports figures during the india vs England series in 2014 when India and england both had a brand new slip team.
During that series no one had a better catching record than 50% but they did compare the record to the best slip catchers and they did have records close to 65-70% but I doubt that is the norm, the average should be around 55-60%.

Cricket is so far behind in Cricket stats, which is annoying since Broadcasters and people have been collecting all the stats for at least 5-10 years.

The ex england cricket stat guy is now running Cricprof which is an interesting software but it does lack one thing it doesn't allow you to choose the stats and doesn't even explain how it got the data but if you read the blog or the tweets it does generally have stats like that.

For a sport that is very number based it is in the stone ages when it comes to presenting data in stats.
the fact they still use Averages says something.
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
It's been raining and the covers have just come off so it may be a bowl first day
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
Morgan loses the toss and AB invites us to bat

England unchanged

One change for South Africa with Rousseau replacing Duminy

No cricket for Bairstow or Taylor
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
Spreads calling England runs at 285 - 295

Seems a bit high listening to the pundits, the dodgy weather and the scoring history at the ground

No involvement from me as I fancy going lower but also want to cheer on England!
davethecue
14-02-2016
Hales going for his 5th successive ODI 50 and trying to emulate, amongst others, G Boycott
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
Tahir on to bowl the 5th over under seamer friendly conditions.....
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
...and he gets a wicket

Roy plays back to a quicker one and is LBW to complete a disappointing series
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
Well thats a mad 10 minutes

A wicket followed by 23 runs off the next 8 deliveries
davethecue
14-02-2016
What a drop by Amla
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
Amla drops a sitter to give Root a life
davethecue
14-02-2016
He missed that by miles
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
What an awful decision from the umpire

Successful review for Hales
jcafcw
14-02-2016
That was a shocking "decision" by the umpire. Are they just giving them out to be safe and leaving the reviews to sort of the difficult decisions?
mimik1uk
14-02-2016
didn't realise this was an early start today
mimik1uk
14-02-2016
Originally Posted by dtcdtcdtc:
“What an awful decision from the umpire

Successful review for Hales”

and yet another poor decision

that was extremely plumb
jcafcw
14-02-2016
Once again - why wasn't that given out straight away?

Looked out before the hawkeye.
dtcdtcdtc
14-02-2016
Another awful decision

That looked plum
<<
<
40 of 284
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map