Cricket thread

[matticus]

Stat-oid from a Grauniad reader:
“The last time England’s top four made fifties was 2013 against New Zealand in Dunedin,” says Richard O’Hagan. “One of the four was Steven Finn, who made 56 as nightwatchman. Don’t ask me the last time they all got 60, though.”

 

[JBGooner]

Another 100 for Root

Is he England's greatest ever?

 

[jowwy]

Another collapse again….from 350-3 to 383-7

 

[matticus]

Another collapse again….from 350-3 to 383-7

I know it's still a massive lead ...
But was it wise to go so mad so quickly? (I'm thinking after Barstow came in.) Don't we just want to bat once, bat big, give the bowlers 2 days to get em out, while they're daunted by a massive deficit?

 

[jowwy]

I know it's still a massive lead ...
But was it wise to go so mad so quickly? (I'm thinking after Barstow came in.) Don't we just want to bat once, bat big, give the bowlers 2 days to get em out, while they're daunted by a massive deficit?

bairstow got done with a good ball to be fair, but buttler and moen just dont seem to know how to defend their wicket, they seem to want to play shots all the time…….the art of the front foot defence seems to have gone from the english middle order

yeh its a huge lead and i dont think india got a chance, but 500+ on the board would have made sure of that and it was achievable

 

[Dave7]

A question for you experts..does anyone KNOW ie not guess......what causes a normally good team to collapse ?
eg......over recent year we have seen a good England** side demolished for few runs.
I can understand 1 maybe 2 or 3 players having an off day but for the whole side to (seemingly) capitulate ?
**boot was on the other foot yesterday so, again, why ??

 

[matticus]

A question for you experts..does anyone KNOW ie not guess......what causes a normally good team to collapse ?
eg......over recent year we have seen a good England** side demolished for few runs.
I can understand 1 maybe 2 or 3 players having an off day but for the whole side to (seemingly) capitulate ?
**boot was on the other foot yesterday so, again, why ??

[my bold]
No, of course they don't know.

Because it's multiple factors.

 

[Dave7]

[my bold]
No, of course they don't know.

Because it's multiple factors.

Well go on then.

 

[matticus]

Well go on then.

Do you want a guess??

:-)

 

[Dave7]

Do you want a guess??

:-)

Well my OP did specify anyone who KNOWS.
Do you KNOW ?

 

[Dayvo]

Well my OP did specify anyone who KNOWS.
Do you KNOW ?

Yes!
Nerves, pressure, expectation, the actual occasion, playing for your place/reputation/country etc.

The number of times after two batsmen have shared a BIG partnership and one gets out, the incoming batsman, and often the one following him, too, invariably falls cheaply. Also once the bowling side have taken that partnership-breaking wicket, it gees them up considerably and spurs them on.
Sitting padded-up for several hours, unable to relax, not eat or drink too much (toilet breaks), trying to gauge the pace and bounce of the wicket, the movement or turn of the ball, checking the bowlers’ form on the day, field placings etc.
But cometh the hour, cometh the man. 🏏👆

 

[matticus]

Well my OP did specify anyone who KNOWS.
Do you KNOW ?

Nope.

(and as I said, I don't think anyone knows. Which is answering your exact question (even though it may not be the answer you wanted :-) )

 

[Dogtrousers]

I can understand 1 maybe 2 or 3 players having an off day but for the whole side to (seemingly) capitulate ?

Possibly a misunderstanding of stats too. We tend to expect random events (like players having an off day, or coin tosses coming up heads) to be evenly distributed but they are much more clustery in real life.

We expect Heads/Tails to go HTTHHTHTHHTHTH but they are actually more likely to have long runs of HHHHHH or TTTTTT than we tend to expect.

A mathematical modelling of test match collapses may show them to be more frequent than we expect, and may be more in line with what actually happens.

Add that to the other explanations such as mass hysteria spreading through the batting lineup, bowlers becoming mysteriously invincible, pitch and athmospheric conditions becoming batting-hostile.

 

[matticus]

I think human innate inability to understand natural randomness is really interesting, and especially so in cricket.
(As it happens, I think there are more physical/mental factors in batting collapses. But I don't know for sure :P)

My hunch is that luck/chance affects cricket more than most popular sports because of the critical nature of a wicket; once you're out, you can't bat better to make up for your mistake.
If a football team concedes an early goal, it's no worse than a late goal - the result is determined by the total goals over 90 minutes.

 

[nickyboy]

Possibly a misunderstanding of stats too. We tend to expect random events (like players having an off day, or coin tosses coming up heads) to be evenly distributed but they are much more clustery in real life.

We expect Heads/Tails to go HTTHHTHTHHTHTH but they are actually more likely to have long runs of HHHHHH or TTTTTT than we tend to expect.

A mathematical modelling of test match collapses may show them to be more frequent than we expect, and may be more in line with what actually happens.

Add that to the other explanations such as mass hysteria spreading through the batting lineup, bowlers becoming mysteriously invincible, pitch and athmospheric conditions becoming batting-hostile.

Chances of 6 consecutive tosses the same is only 1/32 which is the same odds as a captain winning the toss in every game of a 5 test series

Much of collapses relates to the impact of a quick flurry of wickets on the mental state of both the incoming batsmen and the bowlers/fielders