Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15th February 2008, 23:19   #101
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 774 Wagner 118 TCurran 5 SCurran 0 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,014
It's hard to believe that only 18 England batsman have more than 2000 ODI runs. Today Bell became number 18. I wonder if Vaughan will end his ODI career on 1982 runs or will Trescothick and Strauss play in ODIs again. Players still playing in bold -

1 Stewart - 4677
2 Trescothick - 4335
3 Gooch - 4290
4 Lamb 4010
5 Hick - 3846
6 Knight - 3637
7 Collingwood - 3458
8 Gower - 3170
9 Flintoff - 2989
10 Pietersen - 2447
11 Smith - 2419
12 Thorpe - 2380
13 Hussain - 2332
14 Strauss - 2239
15 Botham - 2113
16 Gatting - 2095
17 Fairbrother - 2092
18 Bell - 2038

19 Vaughan - 1982
20 Atherton - 1791
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2008, 18:15   #102
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,625
I think someone said that Pietersen was the quickest England player to reach 2000 runs.*

Fairbrother took 71 innings to make his 2092. Bell should shortly overtake him, although he has so far played only 60 innings. Harvey was one of our best ODI players, and the reason he didn't make more runs is that he was our finisher, coming in at 4, 5 or 6 and notched up 18 not outs.

*Edit. Have just checked and KP achieved 2000 ODI runs during his 45th innings, at Barbados in the World Cup 21/407 (where he made a century).

Last edited by Michelle Fivefer : 16th February 2008 at 18:29.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 14:55   #103
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion View Post
It's hard to believe that only 18 England batsman have more than 2000 ODI runs. Today Bell became number 18. I wonder if Vaughan will end his ODI career on 1982 runs or will Trescothick and Strauss play in ODIs again. Players still playing in bold -

1 Stewart - 4677
2 Trescothick - 4335
3 Gooch - 4290
4 Lamb 4010
5 Hick - 3846
6 Knight - 3637
7 Collingwood - 3458
8 Gower - 3170
9 Flintoff - 2989
10 Pietersen - 2447
11 Smith - 2419
12 Thorpe - 2380
13 Hussain - 2332
14 Strauss - 2239
15 Botham - 2113
16 Gatting - 2095
17 Fairbrother - 2092
18 Bell - 2038

19 Vaughan - 1982
20 Atherton - 1791
Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 15:00   #104
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.
Yes, interesting that. He's where you'd expect him to be based on appearances. He has had the chance to build big innings, batting mostly at 3 with a few goes at opening. He did bat at 9 once too, mind you.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 15:03   #105
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Yes, interesting that. He's where you'd expect him to be based on appearances. He has had the chance to build big innings, batting mostly at 3 with a few goes at opening. He did bat at 9 once too, mind you.
So also have most of that list as well, with the only exceptions Collingwood, Fairbrother and Flintoff.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 15:16   #106
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
So also have most of that list as well, with the only exceptions Collingwood, Fairbrother and Flintoff.
Flintoff has had his chances, even if he's not batted in the top order much, mainly being at 5 or 6. I suppose England generally doesn't take long to lose 3 or 4 wickets. Similar applies to Collingwood. More seriously though, you wouldn't expect middle order players to accumulate as many runs, nor to manage as high an average. Their SRs ought perhaps to be a bit higher though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 16:03   #107
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.
Where can I find the appearances list? I can only see most runs, averages, strike rate, etc.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 16:10   #108
zxb
Posting God
 
zxb's Avatar
Just biding my time...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Team(s): England and the Bangas
Age: 34
Posts: 12,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Where can I find the appearances list? I can only see most runs, averages, strike rate, etc.
My invoice is in the post
__________________
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato

"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Eisenhower

"The Pie will soon be mine" - Weebl
zxb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 16:26   #109
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 774 Wagner 118 TCurran 5 SCurran 0 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,014
Most players to play over 100 ODIs

24 - Pakistan, West Indies, India
21 - Australia
18 - Sri Lanka
17 - New Zealand
15 - South Africa
12 - England
6 - Zimbabwe
4 - Bangladesh

I was surprised to see West Indies had 24 players who had played over 100 matches.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 16:33   #110
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,330
I'm surprised England had that many. Colllingwood looks set to become England's most capped ODI player over the next year or two
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northantsfanone View Post
Speaking to Geoff Cook today they may released Mark Wood from Durham. He rates him but the kid has had an operation and maybe one too many bowlers on the books type deal.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 16:51   #111
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxb View Post
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.
Having looked at the list, I don't think this is particularly relevant or significant information. Of the batsmen ahead of him in matches played and runs scored, only Robin Smith (71) and Pietersen (67) are within near range of Bell's 62.

From his next 16 matches he needs an average of only 12.63 to overtake Strauss's total of 2239 from 78. To overtake Thorpe's 2280 from 82 matches the average would be 12.1. For Hussain's 2332 from 88 matches, 11.35. Obviously he should achieve these targets well before playing that number of matches as he wouldn't keep his place with an average around 12!

Sterner targets are Nick Knight and the other batsmen with over 100 ODIs, and he would have to be very good to reach Knight's 3637 from exactly 100 matches. The batsmen with over 120 matches and over 4000 runs are in a class of their own.


Edit: NB the Cricinfo list of most matches quotes matches not innings. So I should point out that Bell has played 62 matches but only 60 innings. I used 60 in the earlier post but 62 in this one, as per the listing.

Last edited by Michelle Fivefer : 18th February 2008 at 17:27.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2008, 17:20   #112
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Flintoff has had his chances, even if he's not batted in the top order much, mainly being at 5 or 6. I suppose England generally doesn't take long to lose 3 or 4 wickets. Similar applies to Collingwood. More seriously though, you wouldn't expect middle order players to accumulate as many runs, nor to manage as high an average. Their SRs ought perhaps to be a bit higher though.
Id have thought they'd have a good chance of a decent average with the not out opportunities - a la Bevan.

Although, of course, we are talking about England here.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 13:58   #113
zxb
Posting God
 
zxb's Avatar
Just biding my time...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Team(s): England and the Bangas
Age: 34
Posts: 12,297
94 extra in 50 overs. That has to be a record.
__________________
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato

"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Eisenhower

"The Pie will soon be mine" - Weebl
zxb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 16:05   #114
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
Id have thought they'd have a good chance of a decent average with the not out opportunities - a la Bevan.

Although, of course, we are talking about England here.
Bevan was an exception though. Generally the lower order guys get out having a low percentage flog more often than the upper order batsmen.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 16:45   #115
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Bevan was an exception though. Generally the lower order guys get out having a low percentage flog more often than the upper order batsmen.

Not sure about that FS - Colly's 28 not outs in 128 ODIs compared to Bells 4 in 60 for example. But there may be other interpretations of those figures and I doubt either of us are interested enough in this to get into it.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 16:48   #116
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
Not sure about that FS - Colly's 28 not outs in 128 ODIs compared to Bells 4 in 60 for example. But there may be other interpretations of those figures and I doubt either of us are interested enough in this to get into it.
Oh I don't know. Of course the lower in the order a batsman is the more likely he is to be not out but the compensating disadvantage is that he doesn't get to take advantage of getting in to the same extent. A good look at the stats might be regarded as a bit pointless because of course one would expect the top order batsmen to be the better players and hence have the higher averages but even so, I think not outs are a bit of a red herring. After all, despite many fewer not outs, Bell has a higher ODI average than Colly, doesn't he?
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 17:06   #117
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Oh I don't know. Of course the lower in the order a batsman is the more likely he is to be not out but the compensating disadvantage is that he doesn't get to take advantage of getting in to the same extent. A good look at the stats might be regarded as a bit pointless because of course one would expect the top order batsmen to be the better players and hence have the higher averages but even so, I think not outs are a bit of a red herring. After all, despite many fewer not outs, Bell has a higher ODI average than Colly, doesn't he?

I know. Delicious isnt it? The compensating disadvantage of being more likley to be not out is facing fewer balls so being unable to get more runs Id have thought. And you would have to be a better mathemetician than me to weigh up the relative importance of these factors. Being not out 21% of the ime (Colly) as opposed to 6% of the time (Bell) may or may not compensate for fewer balls faced but "red herring" seems a bit strong.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 17:07   #118
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
I know. Delicious isnt it? The compensating disadvantage of being more likley to be not out is facing fewer balls so being unable to get more runs Id have thought. And you would have to be a better mathemetician than me to weigh up the relative importance of these factors. Being not out 21% of the ime (Colly) as opposed to 6% of the time (Bell) may or may not compensate for fewer balls faced but "red herring" seems a bit strong.
I suspect there are too many variables for a robust statistical analysis.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 17:17   #119
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I suspect there are too many variables for a robust statistical analysis.
Thank Christ for that.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2008, 18:05   #120
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
I know. Delicious isnt it? The compensating disadvantage of being more likley to be not out is facing fewer balls so being unable to get more runs Id have thought. And you would have to be a better mathemetician than me to weigh up the relative importance of these factors. Being not out 21% of the ime (Colly) as opposed to 6% of the time (Bell) may or may not compensate for fewer balls faced but "red herring" seems a bit strong.
One-day cricket is about a trade-off between average and run-rate.

You'd expect your top order batsmen to average more, but slower, and your lower order batsman to average fewer, but quicker.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:43.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org