Black Caps v Pakistan
-
@Bovidae said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Hooroo Sadly, Nathan was restricted from bowling too many of his dangerous medium pacers.
@Snowy There could be others but none of usual suspects for all-rounders accomplished this feat.
Shakib Al Hasan
https://www.espncricinfo.com/bangladesh/content/player/56143.html
-
-
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Wasim Akram is in the 200/10 club too
Jason Holder does, Stokes doesn't but might get a 10fer yet.
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Wasim Akram is in the 200/10 club too
Jason Holder does, Stokes doesn't but might get a 10fer yet.
Snap.
-
-
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
-
The other thing to consider is that a double requires one massive effort in a single innings, whereas 10fers (almost always) require sustained excellence over 2 innings.
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
The other thing to consider is that a double requires one massive effort in a single innings, whereas 10fers (almost always) require sustained excellence over 2 innings.
A double century is a set standard though. It usually means you have batted a day and a half, seen of one or two new balls and taken fresh spells from all the oppositions best bowlers without making an error (or in the case of Pakistan having them drop you five times on the way).
10fers vary so much in quality between the mix of tail enders, game situation etc. 10fers are more a function of luck and opportunity - which is why you have so many seriously average spin bowlers on that list with 10fers like Krezja, Steve O'Keefe, Craig, Michael Bevan, Allan Border (vs 1980s West Indies of all teams) etc
Jamieson's 10fer stood out because he gutted their top order twice - most 10fers rely on clearing the tail at least once if not twice.
-
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
I agree with you. He just stopped a batsman cheating. Mankad sounds like an impressive player too.
"the MCC, the arbitrators of laws of cricket, have stressed that it is a legitimate dismissal and a "very necessary provision."
Even Bradman said this:
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?"That was after the Aussie press had a go at Mankad and "drew the line" as they are wont (yes that is the correct term) to do. They have a bit of a habit of shifting that line about "the spirit of the game" and "laws" to suit themselves.
-
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
I agree with you. He just stopped a batsman cheating. Mankad sounds like an impressive player too.
"the MCC, the arbitrators of laws of cricket, have stressed that it is a legitimate dismissal and a "very necessary provision."
Even Bradman said this:
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?"That was after the Aussie press had a go at Mankad and "drew the line" as they are wont (yes that is the correct term) to do. They have a bit of a habit of shifting that line about "the spirit of the game" and "laws" to suit themselves.
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
I agree with you. He just stopped a batsman cheating. Mankad sounds like an impressive player too.
"the MCC, the arbitrators of laws of cricket, have stressed that it is a legitimate dismissal and a "very necessary provision."
Even Bradman said this:
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?"That was after the Aussie press had a go at Mankad and "drew the line" as they are wont (yes that is the correct term) to do. They have a bit of a habit of shifting that line about "the spirit of the game" and "laws" to suit themselves.
Upvote for "wont"
-
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
I agree with you. He just stopped a batsman cheating. Mankad sounds like an impressive player too.
"the MCC, the arbitrators of laws of cricket, have stressed that it is a legitimate dismissal and a "very necessary provision."
Even Bradman said this:
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?"That was after the Aussie press had a go at Mankad and "drew the line" as they are wont (yes that is the correct term) to do. They have a bit of a habit of shifting that line about "the spirit of the game" and "laws" to suit themselves.
Upvote for "wont"
-
Okay, had some time to look over the stats for 10fers and double tons, and it confirms what we were thinking before, that doubles have got easier and 10fers have got harder. Wasn't 100% sure where to split the years, but these felt about right.
The early period 10fers come every 2.5 games, while doubles are only 1 in 27 - more than 10 times as often. More or less as expected with uncovered pitches.
It's interesting that the double rate drops so dramatically in the interwar period; I'd attribute this, in the most, to the Don. The 30s in particular were the pinnacle of his career, and he accounts for more than a quarter of the doubles scored in this time period.
From the end of WWII to 2000 doubles get harder. I split out the 80s and 90s, since that felt a bit different; I think the 80s in particular look like a bit of an outlier, and I'd attribute that to the great fast bowlers that were around then.
There's an a significant increase in frequency since 2000 - presumably this is the result of flat pitches we've come to expect. Sehwag, Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Ponting, Kohli and Younis Khan are all in the top 10 all time double century makers. It's interesting because 3 (+ Kohli if he keeps performing at his current level) of them would be strong contenders for the all time first XI, while 3 of them are great test players, but a step down from that level. So maybe not entirely down to flatter wickets. Also interesting that the rate of 10fers has actually been fairly consistent since the 20s onwards.
