DesiPundit

The Overlord demands more innovative statistics from IPL.

In my opinion, counting the number of centuries in the T-20 format is essentially meaningless. Firstly, there usually isn’t enough time to hit a 100. A team score of 200 is considered pretty good in T-20. By that measure, a good batsman would need to play about 50% of the deliveries bowled to get a 100. That’s a very difficult thing to do in any format. In contrast, a good batsmen only needs to play about 33% of the deliveries to get a 100 in ODIs (the figure was higher till people started playing ODIs differently from Tests). If you apply this standard to T-20s, the number to watch out for is 67. Lets round it off to 70 and start counting the number of times a batsmen crosses that figure in T-20s.

The professor takes the debate forward,

As cricket becomes more professionalized, with lots more players and lots more matches, and with the availability of ball-by-ball accounts and videos available in the archives, our ability to slice and dice a player’s every move and extract all kinds of statistical measures will only improve. As of now, Twenty-20 is a very young format, with even experienced players having played just a few tens of games. But Vivek’s larger point is valid: this format cries out for new, more meaningful statistical yardsticks.