[quote author=ketchim link=topic=77282.msg479368#msg479368 date=1360268622]
Can U post the Economics equation from yout Link
so we can examine its credibility ....thanks boqui
[/quote]
Soon come.
Quote:[size=1.45em]19.3
Nazmul Hossain to O'Brien, SIX, short and pulled to square leg, Chanderpaul lets it go through his hand, all counts[/size]
Is when dis happen. Shiv need to put in a call to Polly ASAP. He could give Polly some batting pointers for ODI and Polly could help he out wid dis boundary fielding ting.
[quote author=Mail link=topic=77282.msg479359#msg479359 date=1360268085] My concern is the assumption for consistency.
If a batsman scores 47 for each of 10 innings, he averages 47.
However if a batsman scores 470 runs in 5 innings and followed by 5 ducks, then is he more consistent?
No.[/quote]
Mail:
Batting Average = Total runs scored by tortal innings played---adj for not outs
Batting Consistency = scores over fifty divided by innings played--exp as a %
Conversion Rate = number of fifties converted into hundreds
Now mail, if you can find a better guage of batting consistency---please present it on the forum.
Remember, the conversion rate keeps the batting consistency honest----a batsman can have 28 fifties and 7 hundreds in 100 innings played---that's an excellent batting consistency of 35%((28+7)/35)----but that batsman's conversion rate is only 20%(7/35).
RE: YOUR EXAMPLE
* A batsman scores 47 in each of 10 innings----that's an average of 47; a consistency of 0% and a conversion rate of 0%
* A batsman scores 470 in 10 innings with 5 hundreds and 5 ducks---that's an average of 47; a consistency of 50% and a conversion rate of 100%
Who is the more productive batsman ?
Clearly batsman #2---whenever he scores he scores big---whenever he fails his teammates can pick him up---cricket is after all a team sport.
A batsman with a 47 average, a 50% consistency and a 100% conversion rate will always be superior to a batsman with a 47 average only.
I merely pointing out that others have proved that Tendulkar is better than Bradman, so it must logically follow that Shiv is better than Bradman and hence the greatest of all.
[quote author=boquiesse link=topic=77282.msg479390#msg479390 date=1360269597]
No no no, I cannot argue with the numbers.
I merely pointing out that others have proved that Tendulkar is better than Bradman, so it must logically follow that Shiv is better than Bradman and hence the greatest of all.
I FULLY accept that.
[/quote]
Others have not proven that Tendulkar is better than Bradman---they have just expressed an opinion.
CHECK THIS:
In innings #4(the final innings of a test) Sachin Tendulkar has been woefully lacking. These are his numbers:
In 57 innings(innings #4) Tendulkar has averaged an ordinary 37.86 with 3 hundreds and 7 fifties--a consistency of only 17.5%
When his team needs him the most---usually in innings #4---Sachin goes missing in action.
CHECK INNINGS #4 FOR SHIV, PONTING AND DRAVID.
CONCLUSION:
[size=12pt]Sachin cannot be the greatest batsman ever with an ordinary average of 37.86 and a poor consistency of 17.5% in innings #4.[/size]