• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Batting against the best (since 2000)

26 out of the top 50 match runs aggregates for India were acheived between 2000 and 2010.

Did India have a single bowler who averaged under 30 for the decade? (rhetorical - the answer is no, their best was Harbhajan who averaged a shade over 30 for the decade)

Aus, SA, Eng, Pak, SL, NZ and WI all had a minimum of two bowlers who averaged under 30 in the decade and Bangladesh had one. India couldn't manage any, which is why I think that for this discussion they should be removed.

India's strength is its batting. That has no real effect on their opposition's batting performance, therefore removing India from consideration is fair IMO.
I believe the exercise here is to look at how batsmen have done against the top 4 teams.If you are only going to consider top 4 bowling teams then Pakistan have had a better attack than England.Besides removing India also helps certain players move up the list which does not back up your assertion.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
26 out of the top 50 match runs aggregates for India were acheived between 2000 and 2010.
India have a good batch of batsmen. Why penalise them for that?

Did India have a single bowler who averaged under 30 for the decade? (rhetorical - the answer is no, their best was Harbhajan who averaged a shade over 30 for the decade)

Aus, SA, Eng, Pak, SL, NZ and WI all had a minimum of two bowlers who averaged under 30 in the decade and Bangladesh had one. India couldn't manage any, which is why I think that for this discussion they should be removed.

India's strength is its batting. That has no real effect on their opposition's batting performance, therefore removing India from consideration is fair IMO.
Thats irrelevant too, imo. India were bowling out sides all the same, they did make it to #1 by doing so. Someone or the other was picking up those wickets quickly enough to win matches. A team of 5 bowlers each averaging 33 does the job as well as a team of 5 bowlers averaging 29, 29, 40, 40, 40.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
India have a good batch of batsmen. Why penalise them for that?

Thats irrelevant too, imo. India were bowling out sides all the same, they did make it to #1 by doing so. Someone or the other was picking up those wickets quickly enough to win matches. A team of 5 bowlers each averaging 33 does the job as well as a team of 5 bowlers averaging 29, 29, 40, 40, 40.
I think the difference is that the hardest place to score runs in is not necessarily the hardest place to win in. Or conversely, the easiness of scoring runs doesn't necessarily mean an ease in winning matches. Essentially, you're talking about victories; stephan is talking about places where it's hardest to score runs.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
I think the real key to this being "interesting" is that India is included in the stats. India have had an extremely poor fast bowling attack and Kumble has been ordinary away from home, giving a number of players in this list a big advantage in the average stakes.

If we remove India and only stick to Aus, England and South Africa we get this list:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

This gives a far stronger indication IMO of who the most impactual batsmen have been (because let's face it, against India it's generally a batting war, with the bowlers that the Indian's face having far more impact on the result than the batsmen that get to plunder the Indian bowling lineup).
playing india in india is difficult for most batsmen. so keeping india among the countries and looking at "away" averages for opponents gives a fairer indication of a player's worth. so keep india in.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
playing india in india is difficult for most batsmen. so keeping india among the countries and looking at "away" averages for opponents gives a fairer indication of a player's worth. so keep india in.
You could say the same for Sri Lanka though. Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka has definitely been a bigger test for visiting batsmen than India in India since 2000, IMO.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
The English bowling averages have been almost the same as India's. So lets ignore them too :-o
 

Sir Alex

Banned
I think the real key to this being "interesting" is that India is included in the stats. India have had an extremely poor fast bowling attack and Kumble has been ordinary away from home, giving a number of players in this list a big advantage in the average stakes.

If we remove India and only stick to Aus, England and South Africa we get this list:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

This gives a far stronger indication IMO of who the most impactual batsmen have been (because let's face it, against India it's generally a batting war, with the bowlers that the Indian's face having far more impact on the result than the batsmen that get to plunder the Indian bowling lineup).
So obvious. :p

Methink away records in these four countries is the best filter among all these. Yes, india was **** for a major part overseas but never at home.

Ponting's record is obviously pulled down a lot by his non performance in India. And to some extent in England as well.

Also the list is slightly in favor of batsmen from the top 4 countries.

You could say the same for Sri Lanka though. Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka has definitely been a bigger test for visiting batsmen than India in India since 2000, IMO.
Excellent point.

Nicely done sir. Renders the entire thread up to this point entirely obsolete. New Zealand are statistically more difficult to bat against than England, Pakistan or India.
Lol, or did I miss the sarcasm there?

It has no relevance from the context of this thread. Those figures are including minnows/lesser test nations as well.

Assuming Australia, South africa, england and india are the top 4 'tourists', the home bowling averages of nations against these attacks would be a good indicator of which teams were difficult to deal with at home.

Regardless of two ashes series wins, I was not really suprised to see england way down the list. :ph34r:

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Away stats against the top 4 (ie excluding england from the above top 5)
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Lara!! Captures the guy's mercurial brilliance to get really going when the going gets tough.

Sachin's presence is well justified (and surprising considering he had his worst 4-5 years in this decade)

Hugely surprised by Ponting's average.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Nicely done sir. Renders the entire thread up to this point entirely obsolete. New Zealand are statistically more difficult to bat against than England, Pakistan or India.
No it doesn't. If teams are 4/420 against NZ and hit out and get to 8/461 it doesn't mean they are more difficult to bat against. Also as NZ make less runs then India especially, some batsman might slacken off a bit which makes the average per wicket drop a little. Also India are doing a better job at winning matches, so they sacrifice a few runs in search of a wicket.

Not having a go at NZ at all, just don't think that 1.5 difference per wicket makes the thread pointless.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No it doesn't. If teams are 4/420 against NZ and hit out and get to 8/461 it doesn't mean they are more difficult to bat against. Also as NZ make less runs then India especially, some batsman might slacken off a bit which makes the average per wicket drop a little. Also India are doing a better job at winning matches, so they sacrifice a few runs in search of a wicket.

Not having a go at NZ at all, just don't think that 1.5 difference per wicket makes the thread pointless.
1.5 runs per wicket is pretty significant considering the sample size. It's not significant enough to discount India and include New Zealand, but it's significant enough to call out those including India in the discussion but not including New Zealand.

Your criticisms don't really add up either. Every team takes wickets during a declaration charge, not just New Zealand. Are batsmen less inclined to score runs when the other side has made a small score? Because that goes completely against conventional wisdom which states that it's most difficult to bat when the other side have piled on 500+.

Marcuss did a much better job of rebuking the claim here:

I think what that basically means is Bangladesh(/Minnows) are easier to bowl at than other Test nations.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
But even then, New Zealand and India are averaging almost exactly the same with the ball. There aren't really any sound statistical grounds to include India but not New Zealand. You could say that we're discussing averages against the best teams rather than the best attacks, which is fair enough. But if you're ranking batsmen in terms of the difficulty of the bowling they faced then you have to include either both New Zealand and India, or neither.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But even then, New Zealand and India are averaging almost exactly the same with the ball. There aren't really any sound statistical grounds to include India but not New Zealand. You could say that we're discussing averages against the best teams rather than the best attacks, which is fair enough. But if you're ranking batsmen in terms of the difficulty of the bowling they faced then you have to include either both New Zealand and India, or neither.
Yeah, I wasn't the one who said India have a great bowling attack. Though the Bangladesh filter does address the England issue and arguably Pakistan, which you mentioned in your post I quoted.
 

Top