Interesting Question

[TheMailman]

How do you compare bowling and batting results to give man of the match?

For the 3rd test match Warner hit 180 and Hilfenhaus took 8 wickets. Obviously Warner wins in that situation but what about if Warner only hit 115? Hilfenhaus' 8 wickets is basically half of the 20 wickets required so when does it become equal to a century?

Sorry if this style of question has already been asked

[ossie85]

Is a good question!

I use this simple equation:

1 run = 1 point
1 wicket = 20 points

Usually is a decent indicator, but obviously situations and importance of runs/wickets dictate.

So, Warner = 180 points, Hilfenhaus = 160 points + whatever runs he scored.

But Warner's innings was spectacular, even if Hilf took 13 wickets, I'd have given it to Warner.


Hilf's a shoe-in for Man of the Series though, unless Siddle out-bowls significantly in the 4th test.

[c4v3m4n]

It's also dictated by strike rates as well.

For arguments sake, if Warner had of only scored 100 (off 69 balls) and Hilfy had of taken lets say 5/90, then I'd give it to Warner hands down.

However, if Warner had of only scored 100 (off 169 balls) and Hilfy had of taken 5/8, then you'd definitely give it Hilfy.

Personally, I feel that a 5-wicket haul is worth a bit more than a century, as 5-wicket hauls are a lot more uncommon than centuries.

But you had to give it to Warner for sheer dominance.

[ossie85]

Indeed, but the flip-side is that bowlers can make a mistake and try again the next ball. Batsmen make a mistake and they are gone.

[valkorum]

Indeed, but the flip-side is that bowlers can make a mistake and try again the next ball. Batsmen make a mistake and they are gone.

And thats the way it should be :P

[Hawka]

Yer C4 there mor valuable an unlimted amount of your 11 has the chance for a 100 were only a max of 2 can get 5 wickets

[ossie85]

Yer C4 there mor valuable an unlimted amount of your 11 has the chance for a 100 were only a max of 2 can get 5 wickets

And the bowlers have the (almost guaranteed) chance to make runs also :)

[Nails]

Warner's 180 as you said was obviously MOTM.

Keep in mind Warner's 180 was pretty much half our first innings score. If Warner got out for a duck, we'd have to bat a 2nd time.

I think when a player scores half a team's first/second innings score to lead them onto a win, I think you'd have to guarantee MOTM.

[Cruiseon]

The one thing I would add in a perfect world is an inidcation for bowlers for the quality of batsmen they get out.

Stats can be a bit unfair sometimes when Hilf gets 8 wickets but includes batsmen 8, 9 & 10 in the second innings whilst in Siddle's six wickets he has Sewag, Dravid, Laxman, Kohli (twice) and Dhoni. 

For the Melbourne test should Siddle get bonus points (ie wickets stats) for getting Tendulker out twice? Maybe the wicket taken is weighted for the batsmen's average. Could be done retrospectively which would be awesome.

(Cue Ossie to take this to inevitable new heights).

[ossie85]

I missed that cue Cruise :)

It is a fair point, but Hilf has his fare share of top-order batsmen also. At any rate you could argue some of the tailies are more valuable than the top order anyway lol

Shall we add economy rate to the equation? Siddle's been fantastic, but he still is expensive, perhaps without Hilf tying them down he'd be less likely to get a wicket?

Both have been fantastic though.

[Cruiseon]

But they already keep an economy rate stat (which is great) I think McGrath was 21, Warne 23 or 24.

If I use Tennis as an example, you beat a seed, you get extra ranking points. If you get out Viv Richards or Courtney Walsh it is considered exactly the same stat.

[TheMailman]

But then there's the question of form?

Plenty of bowlers would of been getting great ovations for getting out Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke a couple of years ago (Hayden was longer I just remember him doing badly towards the end of his career)

Sehwag and Dravid have had a rather forgettable series due to some poor technique. Do you give the bowlers extra credit for that?

[Cruiseon]

But then there's the question of form?

Plenty of bowlers would of been getting great ovations for getting out Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke a couple of years ago (Hayden was longer I just remember him doing badly towards the end of his career)

Sehwag and Dravid have had a rather forgettable series due to some poor technique. Do you give the bowlers extra credit for that?

Its a good point Mailman, but even now Ponting's wicket is far more valuable than say Hilf's or Lyon. There are plenty of variables which make it hard to model in addition to form such as breaking partnerships, use of the new ball, creating pressure from the other end, state of the match etc but I just thought it worthy of discussion.

[TheMailman]

Yeah there must be thousands of variables  :P

Stupid Maths

[Master Q]

There is no Maths equation  :P Simple as that  :P