This case presents an enigma about a very talented Indian opener.
1. Indian innings (player’s name blacked out)
2. Australian innings
Can you solve this case?1
0 of 2 questions completed
You have already completed the case before. Hence you can not start it again.
Case is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the case.
You have to pass the previous Module’s case in order to start this case
0 of 2 questions answered correctly
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
The blacked-out player seems to be indeed a talented batsman (opener)–as reflected by dots 1, 3, and 4. He seems to be in top-league.
But dot 5 raises a big question: in 38% of the cases when he scores a century, India looses!
But, his century-rate is good, and his strike-rate is also not that bad. This is understandable. Had his strike-rate been like that of Gavaskar’s, he would have been thrown out of the ODI team!
So, how can we deductively sensemake that this batsmen is a key reason behind India’s loss in that match, and in general in 38% of the cases?
Well the key thing to note here is that this guy is an opener. His strike rate is not that low, but also not that great either. He can play long innings, but he plays slow.
But, how can we say that this guy plays slow, when his strike rate in the given match was 104.9!
Well, this is where you would need the skill of imagination!
Below is what we are able to imagine:
His strike rate of 104.9 seems high in the absence of the context of that pitch. What if that pitch was such that a strike rate of 120 was possible? What we are seeing in front of our eyes is the the result of an interaction of a lot of factors. For instance, Australian strike-rates are also not too different. But this is likely because Australians were chasing a decent total, and hence did want to take many risks. May be if they had batted earlier, they would have scored 350 or so!
But, then how come Dhawan and Kohli have much lower strike rates? Should be not blame them–esp. Kohli?
Well, this is another instance where the end-results can project a very different picture, than the actual sequence of events! Here is what would have happened:
- Both Dhawan and Blacked out player start slowly
- After 8 overs or so, Dhawan falls. The score reads 20 runs for 1 in 8 overs. Kohli walks in
- Now, since the first 2 players have set the tone for a cautious batting, Kohli also plays cautiously
- They both play at a similar rate until very late (say until the 40th over). The score reads ~210 in 40 overs for 1 wicket
- The above score clearly shows that not many risks have been taken by the batsman
- Kohli sees this and starts taking risks–and hence gets out caught
- Now, the blacked out player also changes gears (perhaps after his century) and starts playing fast. And so do the batsman who come later
If you take a step back, you will see that it was the blacked player who set the tone for a slow-than-needed pace of batting. To make things worse, he batted for a long time, and either negatively influenced the pace of other batsmen, or frustrated them such that they took risks and got out.
I would not not such a theory with just the first 2 dots. But, when you look at all the 5 dots–esp the 5th one, the theory starts looking good.
The blacked out player is Rohit Sharma.
1. Question10 point(s)
Which of the following statements best ‘sensemakes’ the above information?CorrectIncorrect
2. Question10 point(s)
3. Century-rate (centuries scored per match) of top batsmen
4. Strike rate of top batsmen
5. Match-winning % (where the player scored a century) of top batsmen
Which of the following statements best connects all the case dots?CorrectIncorrect