Strange Statistics

[GuyFromLancs]

I always wondered why Michael Slater was so poor in ODIs (average 23 and 0 centuries) when he was such an aggressive batsman in tests. In the today's game the same could be said of Matt Prior.

Are there any other instances that spring to mind?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I was having a think about this the other day and wondered whether it might be something to do with dot ball percentage.

Slater (and Vaughan is anothe good example) scored quickly in Tests by hitting boundaries through the offside. When these got tied up by sweeper fielders, these money shots became singles, and the fact that they chewed up a lot of dot balls (to my interpretation, which could easily be all wrong) then counted against them.

I don't know if Cricinfo has sufficient stats to go back that far.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

It certainly seems like some batsman prefer batting to aggressive, wicket-taking fields seen in tests, rather than a defensive fields seen in ODIs. Perhaps players like Slater, and as you mention, Vaughan, prefered the former quite significantly.

Another player to note regarding this would be Brian Lara. Sure, his 19 centuries, average of 40, and strike rate of 79 in ODIs isn't bad, but still far less than you would expect of a player of his batting style in tests and ability.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I was having a think about this the other day and wondered whether it might be something to do with dot ball percentage.

Slater (and Vaughan is anothe good example) scored quickly in Tests by hitting boundaries through the offside. When these got tied up by sweeper fielders, these money shots became singles, and the fact that they chewed up a lot of dot balls (to my interpretation, which could easily be all wrong) then counted against them.

I don't know if Cricinfo has sufficient stats to go back that far.

It's a good point you make about dot balls. It's as if some player's arch for hitting the ball is quite small, but when they do they really score from it.

For example, Hayden compares well with Gilchrist in terms of power and technique but doesn't put his bat through the same amount of balls.

Perhaps this is reflected by the fact that Hayden (somehow) was out of favour with the selectors in ODIs for a while despite having very decent technique and the power to land the ball in another time-zone.

 

[NUFAN]

It certainly seems like some batsman prefer batting to aggressive, wicket-taking fields seen in tests, rather than a defensive fields seen in ODIs. Perhaps players like Slater, and as you mention, Vaughan, prefered the former quite significantly.

Another player to note regarding this would be Brian Lara. Sure, his 19 centuries, average of 40, and strike rate of 79 in ODIs isn't bad, but still far less than you would expect of a player of his batting style in tests and ability.

Are you serious? Lara goes close to making heaps of all time ODI sides, his record is very good, you have to take into account that for half of his career he was playing in an era where 75 was a great SR not 85 or so as it stands now.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I meant compared to Tendulkar or even Ponting whose ODI stats are proportionate to their Test stats.

 

[Top_Cat]

This one has come up a few times, actually. Related to Neil's point is also that Slater's technique was geared towards hitting the ball along the carpet as all good NSW openers do. He struggled to lift the ball over the in-field in the first 15 so his scoring rate would dip, he'd get out, game over.

Interestingly, he had a good chip-and-run game down the order in OD's, NSW used him as such later in his career and he played his last few ODI's batting around 5 or 6 I think and hit a couple of really top 50's. Looked like it suited him quite a bit too, less pressure to score boundaries from the get-go, etc.

Don't remember why he was finally dropped from that spot. Dunno if it was because of the rise of all-rounders like Harvey, Symonds, etc. Reckon he was just generally out of favour (was out of the Test side at that point I believe).

 

[Himannv]

Another player to note regarding this would be Brian Lara. Sure, his 19 centuries, average of 40, and strike rate of 79 in ODIs isn't bad, but still far less than you would expect of a player of his batting style in tests and ability.

Disagree with you there. Lara has a very good ODI record and those numbers are far from shabby. I mean, Ponting averages around 43 and Tendulkar averages around 45 compared to Lara's average of 40. Not a very big difference IMO. Similar issue for the strike rate. Lara strikes at 79 while Ponting is at 80 and Tendulkar is at 86. His position in the overall table isn't as high as it should be which is my only complaint. If you actually compare the numbers though, its not that much of a difference.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

there was a point around 1998 when Lara averaged 47 in Odi's, with over 5000 runs scored, but from about 1999 his Batting in ODI's went down hill and he ended up with an average of just over 40

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Disagree with you there. Lara has a very good ODI record and those numbers are far from shabby. I mean, Ponting averages around 43 and Tendulkar averages around 45 compared to Lara's average of 40. Not a very big difference IMO. Similar issue for the strike rate. Lara strikes at 79 while Ponting is at 80 and Tendulkar is at 86. His position in the overall table isn't as high as it should be which is my only complaint. If you actually compare the numbers though, its not that much of a difference.

Out of the "golden triangle" of batsman in the past 15 years, Lara is the most destructive and gifted from a purely attacking perspective IMO. For some reason this did not transfer wholly into ODIs, I don't think.

I am not saying Lara wasn't a great one-day batsman, he was, just that he didn't fulfil his potential in the ODI arena like Tendulkar and Ponting did/are.

 

[King Pietersen]

Ian Bell

Team first innings: 2585 runs at 51.70 with 9 centuries and a best of 199
Team second innings: 1133 runs at 29.81 with 1 century and a best of 110
England win match after fielding first: 679 runs at 113.16 with 4 centuries and a best of 162* in 8 matches.
Batting position 2-4: 1662 runs at 33.91 with 2 centuries
Batting position 5-7: 2056 runs at 52.71 with 8 centuries
Batting position 5-7 away from home: 824 runs at 58.85 with 3 centuries
Batting position 5-7 and fielding first: 782 runs at 65.16 with 3 centuries
Batting position 5-7 and fielding first after losing toss: 622 runs at 103.66 with 3 centuries

Not sure how strange they are, but certainly interesting that Bell seems to thrive when England field first. If we lose the toss and field first in every match, then Bell > Bradman. The Don only averaged 84.17 in that situation, rubbish.

 

[Sir Alex]

Sachin's inability to buy a run on the most notorious flat track of all grounds the
ARG!

 

[vcs]

Ajit ****ing Agarkar has a century at Lord's and Sachin doesn't.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ajit ****ing Agarkar has a century at Lord's and Sachin doesn't.

All hail AA!

 

[Himannv]

Out of the "golden triangle" of batsman in the past 15 years, Lara is the most destructive and gifted from a purely attacking perspective IMO. For some reason this did not transfer wholly into ODIs, I don't think.

I am not saying Lara wasn't a great one-day batsman, he was, just that he didn't fulfil his potential in the ODI arena like Tendulkar and Ponting did/are.

I think SaeedAnwar had a fairly accurate explanation for this. He wasn't in the best of form during the latter part of his career in ODI's.

 

[marc71178]

Ajit ****ing Agarkar has a century at Lord's and Sachin doesn't.

Ajit's middle name is Bhalchandra, not ****ing - please use his correct name in future.