User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Interesting cricket stat

  1. #1
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Interesting cricket stat

    Quite an amazing cricket stat came to my attention today. It has been claimed by someone on radio, the following:
    Sechin Tendulkar has played 200 tests for a total of 15926 runs and 51 centuries.
    With the Australia and England test match currently being played, Michael Clarke and Alastair Cook are both playing their 100th test each, therefore 200 between them, both are captains and Alastair Cook has 25 centuries and Michael Clarke has 26 centuries, the same added together as Sechin Tendulkar, but also their aggregate total test runs is the same as Sechin Tendulkars! How amazing is that? Added to that, if Alastair Cook had scored any runs today instead of getting a first ball duck, then it would have thrown the stat out. This is the first duck anyone has scored in their 100th test.
    However, having done a little research, it seems that the claimant got it slightly wrong and the total runs scored seems to be slightly out. Sechin Tendulkar has actually scored 15921 runs and when Clarke, 7987 runs, and Cook's 7951, total runs are added together it adds to 15938, so, a 17 run difference. Still, the coincidence is still quite amazing even to be only out by 17 runs over all those tests and the fact that both captains are playing their 100th test, with similar runs and similar centuries to their names.
    Maybe someone else can verify my stats.

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular paulheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,017
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    id rather not mention the cricket..... me being a pom and all that
    long live
    www.paulheathphotography.com.au
    Canon 7D, and a lot of other bits and bobs


  3. #3
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,817
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You seem to have got the 15921 runs right Lance.
    And the rest must be true, it's on TV ..... http://www.in.com/news/sports/is-thi...2609-in-1.html

    A quite amazing statistic.

    And for Paul, cricket's wonderful
    About time the wheel turned.
    It's interesting how a good team covered their decline so well. They haven't scored over 400 runs in their last 21 innings. Bowlers don't deliver, it all falls down.

  4. #4
    Who let the rabble in?
    Threadstarter
    Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    However, if you look up Wikipedia for Michael Clarke, Alastair Cook and Sachin Tendulkar:
    Michael Clarke:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...28cricketer%29
    99 tests and 7940 runs add this test 23 and 24 runs = 7987 runs and 100 tests

    Alastair Cook:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Cook
    99 tests and 7879 runs add this test 72 runs = 7951 runs and 100 tests

    Total = 15938 runs, 17 more than Sachin Tendulkar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Tendulkar
    200 tests and 15921 runs

    If you look up ESPN Cricket info:
    Michael Clarke:
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/usa/cont...ayer/4578.html
    99 tests and 7940 runs add this test 23 and 24 runs = 7987 runs and 100 tests which is the same as Wikipedia.

    Alastair Cook:
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/...yer/11728.html
    99 tests and 7883 runs add this test 72 runs = 7955 runs and 100 tests which is 4 more runs than Wikipedia

    Total = 15942 runs, 21 more than Sachin Tendulkar

    Sachin Tendulkar:
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/usa/cont...yer/35320.html
    200 tests and 15921 runs which is the same as Wikipedia.

    Who is right?
    According to the article you linked to,
    http://www.in.com/news/sports/is-thi...2609-in-1.html
    Alastair Cook did score 7955 runs, the same as what ESPN Cricket Info has stated.
    It is Michael Clarke's score that doesn't seem to add up to what the article has said, 7966 runs, whereas both Wikipedia and ESPN Cricket Info state 7987 runs if you include his scores in this test - 7940 plus 23 and 24 runs.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Aug 2010
    Location
    shepparton
    Posts
    2,682
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    trouble is tendulkar a freak of the game
    clarke and cook might be in the game for that long and still scoring freely, but more likely than not slow down a fair bit as career lengthens
    there would not be many players that can or will keep going for as long and as freely as the great tendulkar, but they are pretty impressive stats
    cheers macca
    ps.. go the aussies

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    03 Feb 2012
    Location
    Swan Hill
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
    If Alastair Cook had scored any runs today instead of getting a first ball duck,
    I always thought that a first ball duck was a GOLDEN DUCK.

  7. #7
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by paulheath View Post
    id rather not mention the cricket..... me being a pom and all that
    Cricket .. cricket ... cricket ... cricket!



    (hey! we gotta lap it while we can before it all goes south on us .. then it's your turn again)


    ps. the crickets around here are making some wonderfully melodic music at the moment too ....










    ... I might take the time to go out there and reduce them all to ASHES!

    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Aug 2010
    Location
    shepparton
    Posts
    2,682
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    a kid was walking down the street and found a cricket ball, he turned around the next corner and found another cricket ball, he turned around the next corner and found a cricket with no balls
    cheers macca

  9. #9
    Formerly : Apollo62 ApolloLXII's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 2010
    Location
    Montmorency
    Posts
    489
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What would be amazing is if the cricket was actually worth watching these days. It all seems such a yawn and a far cry from the days of the truly greats like Lillee, Marsh, Chappell and Walters. I would hazard a guess that the reason Sachin Tendulkar has scored so many runs is due to the fact that he has faced a lot of crap opposition bowling.

  10. #10
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,817
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
    .......
    It is Michael Clarke's score that doesn't seem to add up to what the article has said, 7966 runs, whereas both Wikipedia and ESPN Cricket Info state 7987 runs if you include his scores in this test - 7940 plus 23 and 24 runs.
    Jeez google can be frustrating with so much rubbish information running around. It's like the screen shot of the equal runs is a fact now.
    Anyway, eventually found an believable explanation for the confusion Lance. And yes you'd be right.

    There was a comment on a site (comment # 3173 not quite that many);
    "Michael Clarke 100 tests 7987 test runs not 7966 a bit of an over site"
    And a response to that comment was;
    "you are right but that snap is taken at the time when the tally matched Sachin's total during Aus 2nd Inn while Clarke was batting"

    So there you go.

  11. #11
    Who let the rabble in?
    Threadstarter
    Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollo62 View Post
    What would be amazing is if the cricket was actually worth watching these days. It all seems such a yawn and a far cry from the days of the truly greats like Lillee, Marsh, Chappell and Walters. I would hazard a guess that the reason Sachin Tendulkar has scored so many runs is due to the fact that he has faced a lot of crap opposition bowling.
    You mean Warne, McGrath, Muralitharan, Akram? Hmmm, that's a big call.

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    25 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,125
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm just happy that we're smashing the Poms at the moment ... looking forward to Melbourne & Sydney ... 5 blot I reckon!!
    Canon 7D Mark II | Canon 16-35mm | Canon 24-70mm | Canon 100mm Macro | Canon 70-200mm ISii | Canon 100-400mm ISii | Canon 580EXII | RRS tripod & ballhead

  13. #13
    Who let the rabble in?
    Threadstarter
    Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yep, nothing like the boxing day test.

  14. #14
    D750 Shines cupic's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Oct 2009
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    782
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by paulheath View Post
    id rather not mention the cricket..... me being a pom and all that
    Your forgiven but only just

    cheers




    Nikon D750,D700,D300s,Coolpix P7700
    Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR, Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR, Nikkor 70mm-300mm VR, 35mm DX f/1.8, 50mm D f/1.8, 85mm D f/1.8, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tokina 100mm f/2.8, Tamron 60mm f/2 , Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC Di

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •