Sri Lanka in India, 2022

[prasen9]

Why is lower variance better at the cost of overall production? What is par for a keeper? About 1.5 to 2 dismissals per innings. So, six to eight dismissals is about at par performance. Average or very slightly better than average. Maybe if you want to use about 1.7 dismissals per innings, then it is one dismissal more than par. Gilchrist and Healy were above 2/innings while Dhoni was about 1.7. However, the par for average bowlers is much less than 4.5 pr match. So, Jadeja overperformed greatly than an average bowler.

So the question at the end is would you want a lower variance than someone whose performance is bunched up. Typically, if I get some who consistently scores 40 runs/inning without fail, that person perhaps impacts a game much less than say someone scoring a century. We call those match-winning innings. There is something to be said about someone who is somewhat consistent and someone who is too inconsistent. Does anyone know how to evaluate the impact of variance on batting performance and the team winning systematically rather than axiomatically saying that more consistent is better?

[Rajkumar Sharma]

In upcomming Manchester test, we might see a change. Mayank's place might be in doubt as he has just one 50+ score in last 5 test. Rohit, Rahul, Gill & Panchal will be the opening probables. Sarfaraz Khan might get drafted in place of Mayank keeping in mind future middle order.Eye will be on Vihari & Iyer's performance in overseas. English bowlers specially Archer & Wood have a vicious short ball that will test Iyer. To be honest, Sri Lanka did'nt had tear away quick after Kumara got injured who could have bowled targetting Iyer's weakness.Once Iyer gets success in overseas india will get some high class replacement of Rahane as he looks top , treat to watch when he is on full flow.

[SaniaFan]

Why is lower variance better at the cost of overall production? What is par for a keeper? About 1.5 to 2 dismissals per innings. So, six to eight dismissals is about at par performance. Average or very slightly better than average. Maybe if you want to use about 1.7 dismissals per innings, then it is one dismissal more than par. Gilchrist and Healy were above 2/innings while Dhoni was about 1.7. However, the par for average bowlers is much less than 4.5 pr match. So, Jadeja overperformed greatly than an average bowler.

So the question at the end is would you want a lower variance than someone whose performance is bunched up. Typically, if I get some who consistently scores 40 runs/inning without fail, that person perhaps impacts a game much less than say someone scoring a century. We call those match-winning innings. There is something to be said about someone who is somewhat consistent and someone who is too inconsistent. Does anyone know how to evaluate the impact of variance on batting performance and the team winning systematically rather than axiomatically saying that more consistent is better?

Didn't realize you responded. My take would be if you perform great in one game and poorly in a other, you can win a MoM for the match you won. But if you perform above average in both the matches with some breath taking performance (like fastest 50 ever) you may not win MoM in any but can win MoS.

[prasen9]

Yes, I understand that is what has happened and that is how people think. But, if we want to look at things more objectively, is a more streaky performance better? Certainly, the fastest 50 is just showmanship and completely useless in most matches with respect to wins and losses. SR largely does not matter except if you have few last innings overs.

[SaniaFan]

Certainly, the fastest 50 is just showmanship and completely useless

Not necessarily. On a difficult pitch such a inning can sow doubts in bowlers mind and can make them change their line and lengths. It does have psychological value.

[prasen9]

Maybe. But, this innings was largely inconsequential when India were already on the top and there was no pressure on us. Usually, when someone attacks like that temporarily bowlers get off their line and length but when the hack is gone because such hitting cannot be sustained for long (usually. I am not saying Pant is a hack. He is a proper batsman in tests), the bowlers are back to their line and length again. Anyway, I am okay to agree to disagree on this.

I am more interested in the more fundamental question. Assuming their average is the same, say 40, would you want a batsman with a more consistent pattern, i.e., around 40 always, or would you want someone who has more variation and scores a 100 once in a while and a 20 and a 0 next. Context matters. But, let us ignore that to simplify the situation. I would like to see if anyone has any logical arguments or if anyone has done any statistical analysis to see which is more valuable to a team wrt winning and losing more often.

[SaniaFan]

I think if the average is higher the consistent batsman will be more valuable. If average is lower then mercurial one would be better.

[prasen9]

Interesting.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Scoring @4 an over is latest template of test cricket and good thing is its started by Indian Team and Aussies are very much following it.

[Omkara]

Scoring @4 an over is latest template of test cricket and good thing is its started by Indian Team and Aussies are very much following it.

The Aussies under Steve Waugh started it and we are following it. But the Aussies could do it because of their depth in batting ( remember langer, harden, slater, pointing, mark and Steve waugh and then gilchrist) and world class bowling (McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and then Bret Lee/Kasproiwitch) ....


One can follow it if they have a team like that.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Scoring @4 an over is latest template of test cricket and good thing is its started by Indian Team and Aussies are very much following it.

The Aussies under Steve Waugh started it and we are following it. But the Aussies could do it because of their depth in batting ( remember langer, harden, slater, pointing, mark and Steve waugh and then gilchrist) and world class bowling (McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and then Bret Lee/Kasproiwitch) ....


One can follow it if they have a team like that.

Yes. Aussies started but it was 3 or 2.5 @over. Whatever, but this modern template looks awsome for saving test cricket as the approach is result oriented.

[prasen9]

Most cases teams do not bat at 4 an over and my anecdotal impression is that about half the teams bat at less than 3 an over or around that. We still have results in 90% of the tests. I will run the numbers later on but the results happening in tests is due to pitches, due to over-rate punishments, and due to players these days being a lot more aggressive while batting having grown up with T20 cricket etc. Run rate is rather inconsequential in most tests because rarely do tests not end with a result these days. And, a draw is actually a perfectly fair result between close enough teams instead of an artificial win by a team by one wicket or a few runs. If teams are about the same, I prefer seeing a draw. Results are overrated.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Drawing a test match looks exciting only when one team is dominating and the other one has to save the game with 4th or 5th day pitch doing alot for the bowlers else test matches should be result oriented to have full house in the grounds. Test format is the pure format of the game and investments should be made so that people can have interest like Odis & T20Is

[prasen9]

I doubt people will be as interested as ODIs and T20Is but I agree that we should make it as interesting as possible while maintaining its essence. One option would be to make it 100 overs maximum per team. Or 120 or something like that. Yes, pitch preparation is paramount in order to make the game interesting. Flat batting pitches should be deducted points and/or given bans just like dangerous pitches are.

[SaniaFan]

Anyway, I am okay to agree to disagree on this.

Otherwise, what would have you done? Killed me?