The irrational value of a century

[The Falcon Strike]

I should preface this by saying I get it - scoring a ton is one of the great feats in cricket. (One I haven't done, if you don't count belting my then 4 year old around on the driveway)

However in a team sport, the century mark often puts the individual fairly and squarely ahead of the team.

I've read articles that show stats where scoring slows before a century and quickens after. Adam Voges in his century overnight chose to take a single early in the over to claim his century, something he hadn't done prior to that. (not bagging adam - i love the guy)

The team reality of making 99 as opposed to 102 is no different to scoring 77 or 80. It is still 3 runs different. A team score of 440 made up of 3 century makers or zero is exactly the same.

Often in footy you might see blokes try and spot up a teammate for his 10th goal, but they wouldn't be going out of their way to do so if the game was on the line. Yet in ODI cricket you often see blokes start taking more singles, less risk in the 90's. Perhaps it is simply that cricket, moreso than most sports is a team sport compiled of individual players playing largely independently.

Anyway - am I the only one that thinks this way?

 

[Weagleman]

Players take more risks getting to 100 than 30, they call it the nervous ninetys for a reason. It's hard to judge a guy in his first test of going for a single when everyone does it, and good luck trying to change that mentality, everyone wants a centuary.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

OP is one of those people who goes around on New Year's Eve telling everyone it's just another day.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Not at all - I fall victim to it as well

I flock to a TV to watch the lads make their tons. Sat on the edge of my seat, or listen on the radio to hear smarsh and North make their debut tons

That doesn't change that in the context of a team sport - the actual number 100 is no more meaningful than 101

 

[The_Reaper]

Adam Voges actually let Josh Hazlewood take the strike for a few overs early in his innings.

He only really started farming when Hazlewood got hit on the grill

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Adam Voges actually let Josh Hazlewood take the strike for a few overs early in his innings.

He only really started farming when Hazlewood got hit on the grill

That's how I saw it too. Once Haze got badged, Voges started holding on to the strike, till the fourth or fifth ball.

 

[The Passenger]

I have posted this quite often but what irks is when a guy gets his hundred he is absolved of any sort of "throwing away his wicket" responsibility... A guy who throws his wicket away on 86 (Hi Mark Waugh) is rightfully admonished... A guy who does the same on 103 in the same innings is given a free pass. Its only an extra 17 runs and most likely not going to be the difference in winning, losing or drawing a game.

The judgement on throwing away a wicket and not properly cashing in is entirely match dependant. There have been some hard fought 70's and 80's over the years that are every bit as impressive as a 150+ score... And there have been plenty of blokes who have passed the 100, got out in stupid fashion when another 50 or 100 runs was in the offing and a chance to completely bury the opposition.

 

[Glenno23]

Often in footy you might see blokes try and spot up a teammate for his 10th goal, but they wouldn't be going out of their way to do so if the game was on the line. Yet in ODI cricket you often see blokes start taking more singles, less risk in the 90's. Perhaps it is simply that cricket, moreso than most sports is a team sport compiled of individual players playing largely independently.

Anyway - am I the only one that thinks this way?

If a bloke is lining up for his 10th, chances are the game is in junk time by this stage and they can try and hit them up without the game being on the line

In Cricket, i think it's psychological. It's been in grained for 140 odd years that making the 100 mark is the be all and all of a batsmen and they play accordingly. Batsmen who can't convert their 70's, 80's and 90's into 100's are scolded and called mentally weak. So they change it up to ensure they give themselves the best chance they get there. Plus the more successful a record they have, the more a chance they are if getting a cushy job after their playing days are over.... so they play it safe

But from a deep down POV, you are right

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Not at all - I fall victim to it as well

I flock to a TV to watch the lads make their tons. Sat on the edge of my seat, or listen on the radio to hear smarsh and North make their debut tons

That doesn't change that in the context of a team sport - the actual number 100 is no more meaningful than 101

 

[Glenno23]

Not at all - I fall victim to it as well

I flock to a TV to watch the lads make their tons. Sat on the edge of my seat, or listen on the radio to hear smarsh and North make their debut tons

That doesn't change that in the context of a team sport - the actual number 100 is no more meaningful than 101

Well 101 is more valuable than 100..... At the end of the day, the more runs you make for the team, the better. And as long as you don't cost your team victory by taking 20 overs to move from 90-100, you'll be ok

In Tests, you have 5 days to win, so you can take that little bit longer (if needed) to score a personal record.

But i think those days are somewhat over now. Since T20 (and even OD cricket) the runs have been scored at a faster and faster rate, so there is less "time" you are costing your team

Cricket is pretty unique in that it has a very individual aspect to the overall team success that not a lot of other spots have too. A team of 11 can only have 2 players out there at any 1 stage. You need successful individuals to have team success

 

[Mkcaptain]

I've often wondered how many more runs batsmen would score if there wasn't such an emphasis on a century. So often you see a batsmen get himself out in the 90s because they are focused on getting the ton or they change the way they've been playing. Or they just stop concentrating after they get their ton.

But then again maybe having the 100 to aim for gets more runs out of batsmen because they have something to focus on.

 

[worbod]

Not at all - I fall victim to it as well

I flock to a TV to watch the lads make their tons. Sat on the edge of my seat, or listen on the radio to hear smarsh and North make their debut tons

That doesn't change that in the context of a team sport - the actual number 100 is no more meaningful than 101

What if you're chasing 101 to win a game? If you get bowled out for 100 it's a tie.

 

[ioppolo]

Cricket is a rather individual game. Has been forever. When someone hits that century or takes a 5-for, the stadium and everyone else stands up and applauds what that individual has just achieved.

 

[Belnakor]

I have posted this quite often but what irks is when a guy gets his hundred he is absolved of any sort of "throwing away his wicket" responsibility... A guy who throws his wicket away on 86 (Hi Mark Waugh) is rightfully admonished... A guy who does the same on 103 in the same innings is given a free pass.

Warner seems to have developed a habit for doing this, going the slog when is essentially well set.

There was a big push by the English team awhile back to get "daddy hundreds" which means 150+. Getting from 100->150 should be a hell of a lot easier than 0->50. Its purely mental at that point.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

The farce that is the one day cricket format at the moment, the size of bats and smaller boundaries has devalued the achievement of a century.

There has been more double hundreds in one day cricket than test cricket over the last 12 months.

Personally I think a 5 wicket haul is equivalent to 150 runs.

 

[The_Reaper]

Until the India series I thought Smith has a habit of getting small hundreds.

Clarke's probably the best of our batsmen that I can remember at making the real big hundreds. It's a testament to his great concentration and willpower.

 

[The Passenger]

Until the India series I thought Smith has a habit of getting small hundreds.

Clarke's probably the best of our batsmen that I can remember at making the real big hundreds. It's a testament to his great concentration and willpower.

I did an excel spreadsheet based upon a batsmen's score and expected win rate if his team.

I'll track it down or do it again sometime, but it basically showed the most valuable runs was converting 100 to 150. It increased both the win percentage and win-loss ratio quite significantly. Converting beyond that helped the win-loss ratio, but didn't have much change to win %, and at one point the win % starts decreasing as draws become prevalent. From memory no batsmen in the last 30 years scoring 250+ had been involved in a loss. But the win % of batsmen who scored 250+ was less than 50%.

Can't remember exact details. And I didn't factor in things like how high scoring a match was, countries, etc. That's a lot of factors

 

[The_Reaper]

I did an excel spreadsheet based upon a batsmen's score and expected win rate if his team.

I'll track it down or do it again sometime, but it basically showed the most valuable runs was converting 100 to 150. It increased both the win percentage and win-loss ratio quite significantly. Converting beyond that helped the win-loss ratio, but didn't have much change to win %, and at one point the win % starts decreasing as draws become prevalent. From memory no batsmen in the last 30 years scoring 250+ had been involved in a loss. But the win % of batsmen who scored 250+ was less than 50%.

Can't remember exact details. And I didn't factor in things like how high scoring a match was, countries, etc. That's a lot of factors

Would love to see this

 

[imadodgyumpire]

No problem for Brian Lara. Who only got slightly tense when approaching 200.

 

[Underarm]

we are trained to use 50 and 100 as milestones in most things in life.

And Batting tends to be a pretty individual activity, Batsman compete individually (except for running runs I guess) and at the end, they all get added up to make a team score.

 

[Stopher]

I have posted this quite often but what irks is when a guy gets his hundred he is absolved of any sort of "throwing away his wicket" responsibility... A guy who throws his wicket away on 86 (Hi Mark Waugh) is rightfully admonished... A guy who does the same on 103 in the same innings is given a free pass. Its only an extra 17 runs and most likely not going to be the difference in winning, losing or drawing a game.

The judgement on throwing away a wicket and not properly cashing in is entirely match dependant. There have been some hard fought 70's and 80's over the years that are every bit as impressive as a 150+ score... And there have been plenty of blokes who have passed the 100, got out in stupid fashion when another 50 or 100 runs was in the offing and a chance to completely bury the opposition.

Mark Waugh was a shocker for playing far more expansive shots once he got his hundred. He made 150+ just once, whereas his brother made one at least once against every Test playing nation. That's a huge difference in application and worth a couple of runs on a career average on that point alone.

 

[Omega Blue]

Mark Waugh's skill with Steves temperament would have made one hell of a Cricket player.

 

[Wallaby]

I did an excel spreadsheet based upon a batsmen's score and expected win rate if his team.

I'll track it down or do it again sometime, but it basically showed the most valuable runs was converting 100 to 150. It increased both the win percentage and win-loss ratio quite significantly. Converting beyond that helped the win-loss ratio, but didn't have much change to win %, and at one point the win % starts decreasing as draws become prevalent. From memory no batsmen in the last 30 years scoring 250+ had been involved in a loss. But the win % of batsmen who scored 250+ was less than 50%.

Can't remember exact details. And I didn't factor in things like how high scoring a match was, countries, etc. That's a lot of factors

I did quite a similar thing - (but only for Australian tests). Basically, I checked the likelihood of Australia winning, losing or drawing a test match if a batsman made a score greater than 100. I grouped it by 10s - ie: 100-109, 110-120 etc. Obviously, the more you score, the greater chance of winning, and/or drawing rather than losing. Exactly the same overall analysis as The Passenger.

Needless to say, I can't find my spreadsheet now. But I do remember that the biggest change was in the 130-140 range. Basically, if a player in your team scored any century, you had a good chance of winning. Higher it went, the better. The really big jump happened at 130-140 - if you had an individual score in one of your innings of 130+ it improved the win %age quite a bit over 120-130, and reduced the loss %age greatly.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I did quite a similar thing - (but only for Australian tests). Basically, I checked the likelihood of Australia winning, losing or drawing a test match if a batsman made a score greater than 100. I grouped it by 10s - ie: 100-109, 110-120 etc. Obviously, the more you score, the greater chance of winning, and/or drawing rather than losing. Exactly the same overall analysis as The Passenger.

Needless to say, I can't find my spreadsheet now. But I do remember that the biggest change was in the 130-140 range. Basically, if a player in your team scored any century, you had a good chance of winning. Higher it went, the better. The really big jump happened at 130-140 - if you had an individual score in one of your innings of 130+ it improved the win %age quite a bit over 120-130, and reduced the loss %age greatly.

That's interesting. I guess at that point it suggests it wasn't a lone innings, and other at least one other batsmen probably hung around and scored. An opener or number 3 can score 90 in an all out 170; scoring 140 suggests the team made a more competitive 260+ minimum (rough guesses at those totals, you get the idea though, the higher an individual score the more someone must have batted with them adding to the total themselves).

 

[greatwhiteshark]

A century is a century and should be acknowledged for what it is, I have more of an issue with the fact we put a five wicket haul as a comparison to a century when in fact it is clearly a far greater achievement than making a ton.
Taking 5 wickets is half the wickets, rarely does making a century end up being half the runs.
I will say I was a fast bowler and it used to shit me that incentives were paid to batsman making a hundred and fir a bowler only if you got a 5 wicket haul or better.
A lot of A grade pennant clubs did change this to a 4 wicket haul in the early 90's but not sure they stuck with it as I have been out of it for a while now.