zimcricketforums.com

Jemisi wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:55 am

Time for an actual stats quiz question. Here is an easy point to win:

Q41: Which Zim batsman has made the most 90s in international cricket?

Without cheating & checking Id have to say it has to be Grant Flower

Second guess would be Campbell

Correct! Grant Flower with 10!

Interesting considering his 12 tons and 43 other fifties. He was close on quite a few occassions. Sometimes left not out.

Scores

CrimsonAvenger : 10
foreignfield : 9
cricket_22001 : 6.5
rusty17: 4.5
Jemisi : 3
jaybro : 2
grant : 1.5
MidWest Rhinos, eugene, brmtaylor.com admin : 1

Zimdoggy it turns out that the Zim 50 Problem has a long heritage. Here are the Rhodesian batsmen with more than 2000 FC runs:

Davison : 100s - 53 50s - 148 50+ - 201 Conversion Rate - 26.36% Batting Ave - 39.96 Inn/50 - 3.81

Bentley : 100s - 5 50s - 35 50+ - 40 Conv. Rate - 12.5% Ave - 32.84 Inn/50 - 4.3

R Gripper : 100s - 7 50s - 17 50+ - 24 Conv. Rate - 29.17% Ave - 30.44 Inn/50 - 6.42

Robertson : 100s - 3 50s - 28 50+ - 31 Conv. Rate - 9.68% Ave - 33.15 Inn/50 - 4.61

Lewis : 100s - 8 50s - 11 50+ - 19 Conv. Rate - 42.11% Ave - 28.16 Inn/50 - 7.68

Heron : 100s - 5 50s - 13 50+ - 18 Conv. Rate - 27.78% Ave - 26.2 Inn/50 - 6.28

Birrell : 100s - 3 50s - 13 50+ - 16 Conv. Rate - 18.75% Ave - 26.58 Inn/50 - 5.94

Mitchell : 100s - 0 50s - 13 50+ - 13 Conv. Rate - 0% Ave - 24.81 Inn/50 - 7.15

Ullyet : 100s - 4 50s - 6 50+ - 10 Conv. Rate 40% Ave - 26.53 Inn/50 - 8.2

Interestingly the guys with the best conversion rates have poor Innings per 50 rates.

Bentley and Robertson have shocking rates of turning 50s into 100s, in line with some modern offenders.

I will look at Zim players of last century and then ones of this century in separate posts.

Very interesting. Is there an approved benchmark for conversion rates? Something like a FC average of 40?

In the case of Rhodesia the numbers, including the rather middling averages (allowing for the generally lower batting averages of the time which are reflected in the often rather healthy bowling averages of the Rhodesians with 100+ wickets), reflect the fact that their Currie Cup side depended for its batting a lot on SA and English county imports. I believe Rhodesia's strength lay in their allrounders and bowlers.

foreignfield wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:36 pm

Very interesting. Is there an approved benchmark for conversion rates? Something like a FC average of 40?

That was going to be my question too

This study will not be complete without the average conversion rates across all the players for each test playing nation to see if it is just a Zimbabwean syndrome or do people suffer this the world over.

Conventional wisdom would say a conversion rate of 33% and a batting average of 40.

So 5 hundreds to every 10 fifties in 15 50+ scores.

50% conversion is very good.

25 % really is not great. 5 hundreds to 15 fifties in 20 50+ scores.

20% is poor and south of that really sucks. 2 hundreds to 8 fifties in 10 50+ scores.

And you really need to be taking less than 5 innings to get each score of 50+.

I'm looking forward to the full stats, Jemisi.

I reckon Andy Flower, with a conversion rate of 39.5 %, and Murray Goodwin with 42 % will figure near the top, reflecting their status as Zimbabwe's best bats pre 2003.

But BT has an even better rate, at close to 50 %.

I think there is some merit in Zimdoggy's argument for a culture which values 50s too highly. But seeing that the real world class batsmen are not affected by this trend, what we see might also simply be the result of a FC system with too many 'batsmen' à la Maruma who would be considered tailenders in other countries; and if you can't really bat, a fifty is some achievement. As for the Hami's, Ervine's, Williams' of this world (all around the 30 % mark, I think), not to mention the great AC with his paltry 22 % -- I don't think either of them would have played Test cricket anywhere else, and therefore no one would worry too much about their conversion rates.

Jemisi wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:58 am

Conventional wisdom would say a conversion rate of 33% and a batting average of 40.

So 5 hundreds to every 10 fifties in 15 50+ scores.

50% conversion is very good.

25 % really is not great. 5 hundreds to 15 fifties in 20 50+ scores.

20% is poor and south of that really sucks. 2 hundreds to 8 fifties in 10 50+ scores.

That sounds like a good convention to go by. Awaiting the full analysis. That should be good...

After seeing the discussion on how there's never been any 300s in the Logan Cup, who can name all of the players to have made 250+ in a Logan Cup innings?