Print

[Bats_Galore]

It occurred to me after the test match, how you would rate batting and bowing performances. For example would you be happier with a five for or a ton, what would a 50 equate to in bowling terms. Obviously the weighting will vary according to conditions, but as a starting point. And how does this vary according to format. For example would you rather a run a ball 50 in t20 or a 10 ball 25, or 5 for plenty compared to no wickets for 4 runs off 4 overs.

[well past my peak]

IMHO I have always place more importance with runs over wickets, generally much harder for a batsmen to score a ton than for a bowler to take a 5fa,
As a main bowler you would be expected to take at least 2.5 wickets a innings whereas a batsmen who scored a fifty each and every time he batted would be worth his weight in gold.

[smilley792]

50s and 100s worth more than 5for.


Why?


When you bowl, if you bowl a wide, a no ball, or a long hop. You just go back to your mark and have another go.

You can technically bowl several overs of filth and then get a nice 5for with a few good overs at the end.




Batsmen! Make a mistake, or get an absolute peach. Your generally back in the hut watching. I don't care if your a filthy slugger, or a 59 strike rate nudger or hurdler. It's not easy to get a 100 runs!
Even against (No Swearing Please) oppo you have to work hard to maintain concentration that long.

[edge]

In test matches, 5fers and tons are pretty equivalent. 5fers slightly harder to get as wickets are a finite resource - a batsman facing a poor attack on a flat deck has only himself to blame if he doesn't make a ton, whereas a bowler on a terror track has teammates competing for the wickets, so he could bowl out of his skin and knock the oppo over for 50 but only get 3 because the other bowlers took wickets too. As an example Anderson/Cook: both their country's leading all-time player, similar amount of tests (114 vs 124), 20 5fers for Jimmy and 28 tons for Cook. 3fer is probably the equivalent of a test 50?

t20 wickets are slightly less important as you're less likely to bowl teams out so economy is king. Runs are runs regardless of format, though of course it's harder to get the milestones in shorter games.

In amateur cricket, we all know the importance of tons, but 5fers are a hell of a lot more important/difficult to get than our batsman-dominated world gives them credit for! You can get gifted a few wickets yes, but you'll rarely get a 5fer without bowling bloody well. Limited overs obviously makes it more difficult too - even in ODIs the leading 5fer taker ever (Waqar) only has 13!

[edge]

50s and 100s worth more than 5for.

The standard argument for a ton being worth more than a 5fer I can see the merits of (even if I disagree and think it's mostly peddled by bitter batsmen ), but a 50 worth more than a 5fer? Come on.

Don't forget batsmen can play a crap shot and get dropped too - was it 6/7 times KP got dropped in his big knock vs Leicestershire? And batsmen rarely get a ton, even at test level, without a few mistakes and poor shots thrown in.

[potzy248]

Its so subjective.

Trent Boult took 8 wickets in a club game a couple of years ago and hit the stumps 14 times (No ball and free hits). Ive also seen guys smash 100s in lower grades where it looked like tee ball. Both are feats that should be celebrated, but who they came against and how would also be a major factor in deciding whether they were earned.

[KarlPennington]

Good question. I always value runs over wickets. I'm not sure there is anything more rewarding in sport than scoring runs in cricket. Baffles me why test cricket bowlers don't work hard on their batting considering they are full time professionals, maybe they have reached their optimum level of ability? I'm a more confident bowler but potentially a slightly better batsman. Do all rounders ever consider their 'net' IE hit 30 runs, conceded 35, Net -5 runs? One thing I know I never bat well and bowl well, always one or the other!!!

[jd163]

Getting a Ton is definitely harder.

[bruggers100]

Good question. I always value runs over wickets. I'm not sure there is anything more rewarding in sport than scoring runs in cricket. Baffles me why test cricket bowlers don't work hard on their batting considering they are full time professionals, maybe they have reached their optimum level of ability? I'm a more confident bowler but potentially a slightly better batsman. Do all rounders ever consider their 'net' IE hit 30 runs, conceded 35, Net -5 runs? One thing I know I never bat well and bowl well, always one or the other!!!

You might find that test bowlers would be batting in your 1XI top three at club premier league level.  They may not look the best at test level where you are playing the best bowlers in any particular country, but at club level they would be more than capable.  In the background they do work on their batting.

[trypewriter]

Very true - and the net bowlers would have you hopping about a bit too!