Sanjeev Naik wonders here why a double-century shouldn't be counted in the records as two centuries, and a triple as three. Interesting point.
I suspect that decision must be one that would have been arbitrarily made at some point, after which it would have carried on as custom. Had it gone the other way, SRT would still be a bit behind DGB.
Comments
Amit dear
Martin Crowe once confessed to spending 10 minutes each day thinking about the missing run from his highest score - 299. Why add another 5 minutes to his daily ritual?
Posted by: Angshuman at December 16, 2005 12:29 PM
I wonder too.
Posted by: Anirudh at December 17, 2005 11:48 AM
Meh. Vaneisa Baksh pondered this recently when she was writing about Lara's double century against Australia in the fourth Test. The vast array of cricketing statistics will be convoluted into a nightmare then. A double century will then count as four fifties. Should all be accounted when determining the fastest fifty? If so, then why not going from a score of 30 to 80? I say leave it as it is. What can be done, however, is add columns for double and triple (and thanks to Lara, quadruple) centuries on the stats page. While SRT can claim more centuries than DGB, DGB can claim more doulbe and triple centuries than SRT.
Posted by: Pratik Shah at December 17, 2005 8:23 PM
Then you shoul count a century as two fifties....... and a three hundred as 6 fifties...
how about that.....
Posted by: Dr.Bruno at December 18, 2005 2:57 AM
The runs scored by a batsman in ANY ONE innings are reorded for the purpose of statistics. A "century" or a "fifty" (or "half-century") are the landmarks maintained for the purpose.
It makes sense to stick to these landmarks rather than to complicate the matters by incorporating 'other' landmarks (fastest fifty, etc.)
Posted by: Anup Kumar Das at December 18, 2005 12:32 PM
going by sanjeev naik's interpretation ....
TC-> Total centuries
4-> Quadraple
3-> Triple
2-> Double
NT-> New Total
Surely you cant compare a batsman starting a century on 0 N.O. and someone starting a century on 100 N.O. !
Posted by: Dipen S at December 20, 2005 5:17 PM
The deal here is not converting double centuries into smallest possible unit. Its more like converting it to a standard unit which happens to be a century against which batsmen are always measured. Batsmen are not measured based on how many fifties they scored, it's only for statisticians, So breaking it up to fifties kinda looks foolish.
Posted by: Praveen at December 21, 2005 5:42 AM
this thing difinetely worth giving a thought...i feel either add the double triple and quadriple column or add it in the centuries...it should be accounted for somewhere....
Posted by: Vivek Bansal at December 21, 2005 6:25 AM
Regarding my previous post, it was somehow swapped with someone called seshu's post. Would like to correct that...
Posted by: Dipen S at December 21, 2005 5:32 PM
100 means 100 or more statistically.
The amount of times a player scores can help decide various things.
For example, Tendulkar crosses 100 more times an inning than Lara while Lara scores double centuries more.
Tendulkar over his career has been the more consistent batsman.
Now the figures may not always prove some thing but more often than not they are indicative.
