The irrational value of a century

[Howard Littlejohn]

A century is a century and should be acknowledged for what it is, I have more of an issue with the fact we put a five wicket haul as a comparison to a century when in fact it is clearly a far greater achievement than making a ton.
Taking 5 wickets is half the wickets, rarely does making a century end up being half the runs.
I will say I was a fast bowler and it used to s**t me that incentives were paid to batsman making a hundred and fir a bowler only if you got a 5 wicket haul or better.
A lot of A grade pennant clubs did change this to a 4 wicket haul in the early 90's but not sure they stuck with it as I have been out of it for a while now.

There are, theoretically, unlimited runs available to batsmen (OK, in limited overs games there is a limit, barring no-balls) but only ten wickets available to bowlers. Innings can, and do, occur where three or four batsmen score hundreds. That can't happen with 5-for. 5-for is significantly more difficult most of the time.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Great innings Warner, but the century mark came with a change to his play at the detriment to his team

It's irrational that in a team sport, one would let individual marks take precedence

 

[Hamingja]

Mitch Marsh join the club. Made them look like competent death bowlers.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Yep - even after his ton he seemed to have lost focus

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Great innings Warner, but the century mark came with a change to his play at the detriment to his team

It's irrational that in a team sport, one would let individual marks take precedence

It is irrational but it's sport, hard to think logically under pressure. If at all.

I've watched people do (and have done) utterly daft things on hockey fields that were to the detriment of the team's progress. At the time, you are just in the middle of it and reasoning isn't really at your disposal.

 

[MCE]

There are, theoretically, unlimited runs available to batsmen (OK, in limited overs games there is a limit, barring no-balls) but only ten wickets available to bowlers. Innings can, and do, occur where three or four batsmen score hundreds. That can't happen with 5-for. 5-for is significantly more difficult most of the time.

A bowler also has, theoretically, unlimited opportunities to take wickets. A batsman can make one mistake and be out whereas a bowler could bowl 6 pies in an over but still be allowed to continue bowling and taking wickets.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

A bowler also has, theoretically, unlimited opportunities to take wickets. A batsman can make one mistake and be out whereas a bowler could bowl 6 pies in an over but still be allowed to continue bowling and taking wickets.

He's still limited to ten in an innings, batsmen do not have such a limit.

 

[sherb]

There is nothing "irrational" about it.

It's arbitrary, like most numerical things in our life.

Which is why we have some speed limits set at 60, not 62.39.

And why gold records are awarded in the US for sales 500,000, not 484,739.

And so on.

Rounded numbers are both easy and appealing.

Getting to 100 when you are batting in cricket is an achievement. I only did it 5 times. Why not recognize it?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Getting to 100 when you are batting in cricket is an achievement. I only did it 5 times. Why not recognize it?

Because it often comes to the detriment of the team result.

As we saw with both Sharma and Marsh in the last 2 ODI's.

A team score of 350 with no century makers is just as good as 350 with 2 century makers.

It is a team sport and team's win and lose. A player's sole responsibility should be enhancing their team's chances of winning, not achieving personal milestones.

 

[PrideOf]

There is nothing "irrational" about it.

It's arbitrary, like most numerical things in our life.

Which is why we have some speed limits set at 60, not 62.39.

And why gold records are awarded in the US for sales 500,000, not 484,739.

And so on.

Rounded numbers are both easy and appealing.

Getting to 100 when you are batting in cricket is an achievement. I only did it 5 times. Why not recognize it?

This whole post was a set-up for you mentioning you've put 5 centuries on the board, wasn't it?

 

[the_interloper]

Because it often comes to the detriment of the team result.

As we saw with both Sharma and Marsh in the last 2 ODI's.

A team score of 350 with no century makers is just as good as 350 with 2 century makers.

It is a team sport and team's win and lose. A player's sole responsibility should be enhancing their team's chances of winning, not achieving personal milestones.

But the other way of looking at it is if you make a century, you've certainly helped your side win the match, as long as you don't deliberately run out teammates Boycott style. Cricket is a team sport but individual in a lot of ways.

 

[The_Reaper]

But the other way of looking at it is if you make a century, you've certainly helped your side win the match, as long as you don't deliberately run out teammates Boycott style. Cricket is a team sport but individual in a lot of ways.

Not necessarily because of runrates, slowing the game down in certain overs etc

 

[the_interloper]

Not necessarily because of runrates, slowing the game down in certain overs etc

Of course, but generally speaking the point is valid I think.

 

[sherb]

This whole post was a set-up for you mentioning you've put 5 centuries on the board, wasn't it?

Took me 25 years.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

But the other way of looking at it is if you make a century, you've certainly helped your side win the match, as long as you don't deliberately run out teammates Boycott style. Cricket is a team sport but individual in a lot of ways.

That isn't correct, particularly in white ball cricket - 99 of 72 balls is generally much better than 102 off 145 balls.

I don't have the exact figures - but sharma got his first 90 off about 70 balls and his next 10 off 20+ balls. He clearly slowed his scoring to achieve a personal milestone.

No doubt scoring runs is crucial and often the team and individual results are symbiotic. However it isn't always the case.

If a bloke was on 65 and they brought the field up to stop the singles, he'd try and belt it over their heads for 4/6. If he is on 99 - he looks to work a single.

 

[the_interloper]

That isn't correct, particularly in white ball cricket - 99 of 72 balls is generally much better than 102 off 145 balls.

I don't have the exact figures - but sharma got his first 90 off about 70 balls and his next 10 off 20+ balls. He clearly slowed his scoring to achieve a personal milestone.

No doubt scoring runs is crucial and often the team and individual results are symbiotic. However it isn't always the case.

If a bloke was on 65 and they brought the field up to stop the singles, he'd try and belt it over their heads for 4/6. If he is on 99 - he looks to work a single.

You're right I guess. But what I would say is that navigating through the 90s is a lot of pressure on a batsman, and if you can do so well it shows your ability to make runs under pressure. So if you're in a situation where you need runs to win a game you'd be more chance to do so if you can navigate the 90s easily.

 

[frankrizzo]

I don't like some of the over the top hate warner gets here but i felt he did slow down close to his ton due not to great bowling but maybe due to thinking about his newborn child, he clearly had a special celebration planned for the ton(rocking the cradle) and i can understand that may have impacted his mindset.

Not saying he is bad bloke for having that on his mind but it likely made that ton different to others and he did approach it differently than in past games.

 

[tehnoodnub]

I agree with the OP. I think it is most logical for a new standard to be set. For example, we applaud a milestone score when a batsman scores one standard deviation above the all time mean (in that form of cricket, at that level) in a number of deliveries equal to or fewer than one standard deviation below the average number of deliveries (in that form of cricket, at that level). Now that is an achievement which would certainly not be arbitrary and also ensure that strike rate is incorporated.

Ok, maybe not using all time means because that reflects bygone eras in which the game was played differently. Maybe keep it to the past ten years or so.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You're right I guess. But what I would say is that navigating through the 90s is a lot of pressure on a batsman, and if you can do so well it shows your ability to make runs under pressure. So if you're in a situation where you need runs to win a game you'd be more chance to do so if you can navigate the 90s easily.

That highlights the point ... it shouldn't be.

Moving from 90 to 100 or 120 to 130 still adds 10 runs to the team score. The fact there is "pressure" IMO is irrational.

As i said on the opening page, i fall victim to it as well - however as professionals, paid to win games of cricket - your job is to do what is best for the team. I struggle to think of a scenario where slowing your scoring in the 90s is good for the team. Where the scneario is such that is has little or no impact on the side, then sure - personal milestones are a nice reward.

 

[ioppolo]

Individuals are remembered in cricket for years to come. Everyone knows about Afridi's long standing record and AB DeVilliers going apeshit, but if they got out in the 90s no one would talk about it.

 

[Cainozz]

I think the pressures on players nowadays is a factor. The use of social media now has produced so many more armchair critics who have never played a game of cricket in their life but can apparently tell if a player is crap or not by judging them on the centuries column on their player profile. Shane Watson for example only scored 4 tons but how many times did he get out in the 90's & 80's? Watto was a pretty handy player for us and finishing his career with a batting average over 35 and a bowling average just over 30 which is rather decent for an all rounder. Not saying watson was a great player but he deserved to be aknowledged for what he did. Just because he didn't convert a few of those 90 scores into centuries he is just a 's**t player'. Can you imagine the pressures on any young batsman to perform straight away? It's why their obviously paid well but batsman have been trained to make centuries and if they can't make that then they are seen as a failure.

 

[The_Reaper]

Individuals are remembered in cricket for years to come. Everyone knows about Afridi's long standing record and AB DeVilliers going apeshit, but if they got out in the 90s no one would talk about it.

I'd argue that the obsession with Afridi's century has held back Pakistani batting ever since

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Individuals are remembered in cricket for years to come. Everyone knows about Afridi's long standing record and AB DeVilliers going apeshit, but if they got out in the 90s no one would talk about it.

Lara's 400* in test cricket - how'd the team go?

 

[ioppolo]

Lara's 400* in test cricket - how'd the team go?

5/751.

 

[ioppolo]

I'd argue that the obsession with Afridi's century has held back Pakistani batting ever since

If they kept him at 7 or 8 instead of making him open then all would've been good.