First Class Averages

[sqwerty]

With all the talk about FC averages that people use on this website to justify one players selection over another surely a bit of perspective has to be put on things.

FC averages are absolutely meaningless when comparing players of different nations.

Don't mean to be biased here but I believe FC averages in Australia mean more than anywhere in the world. With only 5 sides comprising the national competition of the Number 1 cricketing nation, the standard has got to be higher and therefore good FC averages harder to attain.

Anytime someone tries to argue that a player from one nation is better than one from another based on FC averages I automatically ignore it because it's irrelevant.

There are players at second division club level in Sydney that would have better first class averages than most Bangladesh test players if they played in Bangladesh's national competition.

 

[archie mac]

Don't mean to be biased here but I believe FC averages in Australia mean more than anywhere in the world. With only 5 sides comprising the national competition of the Number 1 cricketing nation, the standard has got to be higher and therefore good FC averages harder to attain.

I know Tassi have never won the comp. but leaving them out is a bit rough

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can't disagree too much with any of that. I will say tho that as selcetion decisions obviously come down to players of the same nation who would tend to play most of their cricket in the same domestic FC comps, comparsion between them has at least some validity.

I do think the standard of the county championship is going up tho, thanks in no small part to Kolpaks & EU-passported players. Until quite recently a potential English test player's FC stats were not the greatest guide to how they would get on at the highest level. It's an old point, but both Hick & Ramprakash have murdered county attacks for the better part of two decades (and continue to do so), whereas Trescothick & Vaughan both had averages of around the 30 mark when selected.

 

[SJS]

The best use of first class averages is to compare players who havent had the opportunity to display their talents at the international stage.

Expecting more out of them, more often than not, can lead to erroneous conclusions.

 

[Pratters]

FC averages are immaterial in comparing players of different countries. That point has already been made.

FC averages are also deceptive in comparing players of the same country for international selection. A team existing in a weaker or stronger zone can effect the averages but I am not speaking of that as the most important point.

FC averages may be deceptive even for players who have played against the same opposition over a period of time and are in the same team if we are speaking about players being upto the task for international cricket. Ultimately what matters is whether you have the technique, temperament and of course talent to hold your own in international cricket.

A Vikram Rathour or Devang Gandhi would not be international cricketers despite their FC records. What we may see is if a player is averaging very low at FC cricket comparitive to other players there may be some problem. But that may not always be necessary. A player despite not a superb average may be put in if the selectors feel he will be upto the task - the real criteria. A superior average means nothing more often than not.

 

[SJS]

FC averages are immaterial in comparing players of different countries. That point has already been made.

FC averages are also deceptive in comparing players of the same country for international selection. A team existing in a weaker or stronger zone can effect the averages but I am not speaking of that as the most important point.

FC averages may be deceptive even for players who have played against the same opposition over a period of time and are in the same team if we are speaking about players being upto the task for international cricket. Ultimately what matters is whether you have the technique, temperament and of course talent to hold your own in international cricket.

A Vikram Rathour or Devang Gandhi would not be international cricketers despite their FC records. What we may see is if a player is averaging very low at FC cricket comparitive to other players there may be some problem. But that may not always be necessary. A player despite not a superb average may be put in if the selectors feel he will be upto the task - the real criteria. A superior average means nothing more often than not.

Mostly true.

Look at today's head lines in Indian papers. Ganguly's 81 not out is claiming screaming headlines. Who said Ganguly isnt capable of scoring runs in Ranji Trophy. But thats not a criteria for selection to the Indian team for him. How come most people havent noticed Jaffer svored 257 yesterday in another Ranji match against a stronger Delhi side ?

FC averages , at least in India, are seen as a devious method to support poor selection (or non-selection). I think it is better used in England and Australia, for example. I dont hear people comparing the Haydens and Langers with the youngsters knocking on the door with their FC performances but when the talk starts of dropping Hayden due to his poor run, we start hearing these names. Thats how it should be.

 

[GotSpin]

Was that on the front page of the whole newspaper, or just sport?