Teams MP W L NR T NRR PTS
Group A
Central Stags 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Chennai Super Kings 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Victorian Bushrangers 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Warriors 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Wayamba Elevens 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Group B
Guyana 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Highveld Lions 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Mumbai Indians 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Royal Challengers Bangalore 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
Southern Redbacks 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
The Great Little Master
Full name Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar
Born April 24, 1973, Bombay (now Mumbai), Maharashtra
Current age 37 years 3 days
Major teams India, Asia XI, Mumbai, Mumbai Indians, Yorkshire
Nickname Tendlya, Little Master
Batting style Right-hand bat
Bowling style Right-arm offbreak, Legbreak googly
Height 5 ft 5 in
Education Sharadashram Vidyamandir School
| Mat | Inns | NO | Runs | HS | Ave | BF | SR | 100 | 50 | 4s | 6s | Ct | St | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tests | 166 | 271 | 29 | 13447 | 248* | 55.56 | 47 | 54 | 55 | 104 | 0 | |||
| ODIs | 442 | 431 | 41 | 17598 | 200* | 45.12 | 20401 | 86.26 | 46 | 93 | 1927 | 185 | 134 | 0 |
| T20Is | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10.00 | 12 | 83.33 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| First-class | 268 | 422 | 45 | 22336 | 248* | 59.24 | 74 | 100 | 172 | 0 | ||||
| List A | 529 | 516 | 55 | 21150 | 200* | 45.87 | 57 | 111 | 169 | 0 | ||||
| Twenty20 | 40 | 40 | 5 | 1368 | 89* | 39.08 | 1065 | 128.45 | 0 | 10 | 181 | 20 | 17 | 0 |
| Mat | Inns | Balls | Runs | Wkts | BBI | BBM | Ave | Econ | SR | 4w | 5w | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tests | 166 | 130 | 3994 | 2299 | 44 | 3/10 | 3/14 | 52.25 | 3.45 | 90.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ODIs | 442 | 267 | 8020 | 6817 | 154 | 5/32 | 5/32 | 44.26 | 5.10 | 52.0 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| T20Is | 1 | 1 | 15 | 12 | 1 | 1/12 | 1/12 | 12.00 | 4.80 | 15.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| First-class | 268 | 7359 | 4191 | 69 | 3/10 | 60.73 | 3.41 | 106.6 | 0 | 0 | |||
| List A | 529 | 10196 | 8445 | 201 | 5/32 | 5/32 | 42.01 | 4.96 | 50.7 | 4 | 2 | 0 | |
| Twenty20 | 40 | 8 | 93 | 123 | 2 | 1/12 | 1/12 | 61.50 | 7.93 | 46.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Test debut | Pakistan v India at Karachi, Nov 15-20, 1989 scorecard |
| Last Test | India v South Africa at Kolkata, Feb 14-18, 2010 scorecard |
| Test statistics | |
| ODI debut | Pakistan v India at Gujranwala, Dec 18, 1989 scorecard |
| Last ODI | India v South Africa at Gwalior, Feb 24, 2010 scorecard |
| ODI statistics | |
| Only T20I | South Africa v India at Johannesburg, Dec 1, 2006 scorecard |
| T20I statistics | |
| First-class debut | 1988/89 |
| Last First-class | India v South Africa at Kolkata, Feb 14-18, 2010 scorecard |
| List A debut | 1989/90 |
| Last List A | India v South Africa at Gwalior, Feb 24, 2010 scorecard |
| Twenty20 debut | South Africa v India at Johannesburg, Dec 1, 2006 scorecard |
| Last Twenty20 | Chennai Super Kings v Mumbai Indians at Mumbai, Apr 25, 2010 scorecard |
Sachin Tendulkar has been the most complete batsman of his time, and arguably the biggest cricket icon as well. His batting is based on the purest principles: perfect balance, economy of movement, precision in stroke-making, and that intangible quality given only to geniuses, anticipation. If he doesn't have a signature stroke - the upright, back-foot punch comes close - it is because he is equally proficient in each of the full range of orthodox shots (and plenty of improvised ones as well) and can pull them out at will.
- Read More
- 119 not out v England, Old Trafford, 1990
- 114 v Australia, Perth, 1991-92
- 169 v South Africa, Cape Town, 1996-97
« Prev Showing 1 of 5 Next »
- The saint (Nov 1, 2003)
His purity of technique and image make him an icon with more than a touch of the divine - Mark 3 (Jun 1, 2006)
Not the wunderkind of 15 years ago, Sachin Tendulkar talks to Cricinfo about looking at life and his game with equanimity and stoicism - A ride with Sachin (Oct 1, 2004)
Tendulkar speaks about his 15 years in cricket and how the game, and his approach to it, have changed - Sachin Tendulkar (1997)
It was one brief moment in time - Sachin Tendulkar: Man, myth or product of the times? (Oct 16, 2000)
Sachin Tendulkar.. - A singular icon (Sep 1, 2002)
Like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, Sachin Tendulkar dominates his sport comprehensively, but unlike them he is the sole focus of an entire nation and its quest for identity - 'The best batsman I've bowled to' (Sep 1, 2002)
There's Steve Waugh and Brian Lara. And then, a notch above, there's Sachin Tendulkar
Duckworth–Lewis method
In the sport of cricket, the Duckworth–Lewis method (D/L method) is a mathematical way to calculate the target score for the team batting second in a one-day cricket or Twenty20 cricket match interrupted by weather or other circumstance. It is generally accepted to be a fair and accurate method of setting a target score, but as it attempts to predict what would have happened had the game come to its natural conclusion, it generates some controversy. The D/L method was devised by two English statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis.
Examples
[edit] Stoppage in first innings
In the 4th India – England ODI in the 2008 series, the first innings was interrupted by rain on two occasions, resulting in the match being reduced to 22 overs a side. India (batting first) made 166/4. England's target was therefore set by the D/L method at 198 from 22 overs.
This example illustrates how the D/L method sets a higher target for the team batting second when the delay occurs in the 1st innings. Because England knew they had only 22 overs the expectation is that they will be able to score more runs from those overs than India had from their (interrupted) innings. England made 178/8 from 22 overs, and so the match was listed as "India won by 19 runs (D/L method)"[2].
[edit] Stoppage in second innings
A simple example of the D/L method being applied was the first One Day International (ODI) between India and Pakistan in their 2006 ODI series. India batted first, and were all out in the 49th over for 328. Pakistan, batting second, were 7 wickets down for 311 when bad light stopped play after the 47th over.
In this example, Pakistan's target, had the match continued, was 18 runs in as many balls, with three wickets in hand. Considering the overall scoring rate throughout the match, this is a target most teams would be favoured to achieve. And indeed, application of the D/L method resulted in a target score of 304 at the end of the 47th over, with the officially listed result as "Pakistan won by 7 runs (D/L Method)"[3].
[edit] Examples in T20 Matches
During the 2010 ICC World T20, the D/L method was used in the group stage match between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka scored 173/7 in 20 overs batting first and Zimbabwe were 29/1 in 5 overs when rain interrupted play. Sri Lanka won the match by 14 runs according to the D/L method. [4]
On the same day, another group match between England and West Indies was also decided by the D/L method. England scored 191/5 in 20 overs, and rain interrupted play after 2.2 overs of the chase when West Indies had scored 30/0. According to the D/L method, West Indies were set a target of 60 runs in 6 overs, which they achieved with a ball to spare [5]. The then English captain Paul Collingwood heavily criticized the usage and appropriateness of the D/L method in T20 matches [6].
[edit] Theory
The essence of the D/L method is 'resources'. Each team is taken to have two 'resources' to use to make as many runs as possible: the number of overs they have to receive; and the number of wickets they have in hand. At any point in any innings, a team's ability to score more runs depends on the combination of these two resources. Looking at historical scores, there is a very close correspondence between the availability of these resources and a team's final score, a correspondence which D/L exploits.[7]
Using a published table which gives the percentage of these combined resources remaining for any number of overs (or, more accurately, balls) left and wickets lost, the target score can be adjusted up or down to reflect the loss of resources to one or both teams when a match is shortened one or more times. This percentage is then used to calculate a target (sometimes called a 'par score') that is usually a fractional number of runs. If the second team passes the target then the second team is taken to have won the match; if the match ends when the second team has exactly met (but not passed) the target (rounded down to the next integer) then the match is taken to be a tie.
[edit] Application
The Duckworth/Lewis method is relatively simple to apply, but requires a published reference table and some simple mathematical calculations. As with most non-trivial statistical derivations, however, the D/L method can produce results that are somewhat counterintuitive, and the announcement of the derived target score can provoke a good deal of second-guessing and discussion amongst the crowd at the cricket ground. This can also be seen as one of the method's successes, adding interest to a "slow" rain-affected day of play.
Applied to 50 over matches, each team has to face at least 20 overs before D/L can decide the game. In Twenty20 games, each side has to face at least 5 overs.
[edit] History and creation
The D/L method was created by two British statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. It was first used in international cricket in the second game of the 1996/7 Zimbabwe versus England One Day International series, which Zimbabwe won by 7 runs,[8] and was formally adopted by the International Cricket Council in 2001 as the standard method of calculating target scores in rain shortened one-day matches.
Various different methods had been previously used to achieve the same task, including run-rate ratios, the score that the first team had achieved at the same point in their innings, and targets derived by totaling the best scoring overs in the initial innings. All of these methods have flaws that are easily exploitable. For example, run-rate ratios do not account for how many wickets the team batting second have lost, but simply reflect how quickly they were scoring at the point the match was interrupted; thus, if a team felt a rain stoppage was likely, they could attempt to force the scoring rate without regard for the corresponding highly likely loss of wickets, skewing the comparison with the first team. Notoriously, the "best-scoring overs" method, used in the 1992 Cricket World Cup, left the South African cricket team requiring 21 runs from one ball (when the maximum score from any one ball is generally six runs). Prior to a brief rain interruption, South Africa was chasing a target of 22 runs from 13 balls – which was difficult but at least attainable – but the possibility of an exciting conclusion to the game was destroyed when the team's target was reduced by only one run, to be scored off 12 fewer balls.[9] The D/L method removes – or at least normalises – this flaw: in this match, the revised D/L target would have been four runs to tie or five to win from the final ball. [10]
[edit] Updates
The published table that underpins the D/L method is regularly updated, most recently in 2004, as it became clear that one-day matches were achieving significantly higher scores than in previous decades, affecting the historical relationship between resources and runs.
At the same time as this update, the D/L method was also split into a Professional Edition and a Standard Edition.[11] The main difference is that while the Standard Edition preserves the use of a single table and simple calculation – suitable for use in any one-day cricket match at any level – the Professional Edition uses substantially more sophisticated statistical modeling, and requires the use of a computer. The Professional Edition has been in use in all international one-day cricket matches since early 2004.
In June 2009, it was reported that the D/L method would be reviewed for the Twenty20 format after its appropriateness was questioned in the quickest version of the game. Lewis was quoted admitting that "Certainly, people have suggested that we need to look very carefully and see whether in fact the numbers in our formula are totally appropriate for the Twenty20 game."[12]
[edit] Criticism
The D/L method has been criticized based on the fact that wickets are (necessarily) a much more heavily weighted resource than overs, leading to the observation that if teams are chasing big targets, and there is the prospect of rain, a winning strategy could be to not lose wickets and score at what would seem to be a "losing" rate (e.g. if the asking rate was 6.1, it could be enough to score at 4.75 an over for the first 20–25 overs).[13]
Another criticism is that the D/L method does not account for changes in the proportion of number of overs during which field restrictions are in place compared to a completed match.
More common informal criticism from cricket fans and journalists of the D/L method is that it is overly complex and can be misunderstood.[15] For example, in a one-day match against England on 20 March 2009, the West Indies coach (John Dyson) called his players in for bad light, believing that his team would win by one run under the D/L method, but not realising that the loss of a wicket with the last ball had altered the Duckworth-Lewis score. In fact Javagal Srinath, the match referee, confirmed that the West Indies were two runs short of their target, giving the victory to England.
About Me
- Admin Computer's
- Deal in :- all new and old computers Services, Repair, Networking. AMC. Contact Mr. Balbir Rai Mobilr No 98883-69059
No comments:
Post a Comment