Batsmen's highest / lowest / final averages

[Fusion]

Looking at consistancy, Javed Miandad's lowest average was 51.74 after his 45th Test (76 innings) and he retired with an average of 52.57 after 124 tests (189 innings)

However he averaged 57.41 after 100 tests before he dropped 5 runs in his last 24 tests.

WAG. He mentioned in his biography how proud he is that his average never fell below 50 his entire career.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Never knew that about me and dad.

Great player for us.

 

[Furball]

Ponting definitely hit 60 in late 2006. Was never the same batsman from 2007 onwards though.

If Ponting had scored 1 more run at Adelaide in the 2006/07 Ashes then he'd have had an average of exactly 60 at that point in his career.

 

[The Sean]

WAG. He mentioned in his biography how proud he is that his average never fell below 50 his entire career.

I think that he and Herbert Sutcliffe are the only two players in history (with more than a handful of Tests) to have done that.

 

[aussie tragic]

I think that he and Herbert Sutcliffe are the only two players in history (with more than a handful of Tests) to have done that.

Yes, Sutcliffe's lowest average was 60.73 which was in his last of 54 Tests (averaged 69.80 after his 40th Test).

Frank Worrell was very close though with 49.48 after 51 Tests. He had 53.40 in his 47th and then 50.01 in his 50th before droppping below in his last Test.

 

[Coronis]

Yes, Sutcliffe's lowest average was 60.73 which was in his last of 54 Tests (averaged 69.80 after his 40th Test).

Frank Worrell was very close though with 49.48 after 51 Tests. He had 53.40 in his 47th and then 50.01 in his 50th before droppping below in his last Test.

And yet people seldom rate Sutcliffe in the same bracket as Hobbs/Hutton.

 

[Jono]

Lack of surname starting with H the main issue imo.

 

[Dan]

Sutcliffe is always in contention in English (and overall) ATG sides. It's just Hobbs had the added longevity and the greater reputation, and Hutton's runscoring feats were to difficult to ignore.

Sutcliffe is third on that list of English openers by a mile, and he's in the top 5 of all-time by my reckoning.

 

[Coronis]

Sutcliffe is always in contention in English (and overall) ATG sides. It's just Hobbs had the added longevity and the greater reputation, and Hutton's runscoring feats were to difficult to ignore.

Sutcliffe is third on that list of English openers by a mile, and he's in the top 5 of all-time by my reckoning.

Yep, thats the problem for me, most rank him 3rd! I mean, being considered the 3rd best opener of all time isn't bad at all, but, a batsman of his quality can't even make it to his countries all-time XI in most peoples eyes =/. Personally I rank him between Hobbs and Hutton, with Gavaskar 4th.

 

[kyear2]

Sutcliffe was always the second fiddle to the main act that was Hobbs, and that was because for people who watched them Hobbs was the better batsman and that master. Sutcliffe simply batted very slowly, even more slowly than Hutton and Hutton played againts vastly better bowlers and had a magnificant technique. Sutcliffe was also helped by the presence of Hobbs as Hobbs scoring freely at one end would have taken the pressue off of Sutcliffe and Hobbs seems to have made all who opened with him better including Rhodes.
I would rank them Hobbs/Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe and a drop off there after. Boycott, Greenidge, Morris, Simson, Hayden (?) ect all included in the next group.

 

[Slifer]

Awta

 

[steve132]

Sutcliffe was always the second fiddle to the main act that was Hobbs, and that was because for people who watched them Hobbs was the better batsman and that master. Sutcliffe simply batted very slowly, even more slowly than Hutton and Hutton played againts vastly better bowlers and had a magnificant technique. Sutcliffe was also helped by the presence of Hobbs as Hobbs scoring freely at one end would have taken the pressue off of Sutcliffe and Hobbs seems to have made all who opened with him better including Rhodes.
I would rank them Hobbs/Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe and a drop off there after. Boycott, Greenidge, Morris, Simson, Hayden (?) ect all included in the next group.

No love for Barry Richards? I know he didn't play much Test cricket, but he had an impeccable technique and was a brilliant strokeplayer as well. Many who saw him play would rank him above either Hutton or Gavaskar, and certainly well ahead of his Hampshire opening colleague, Gordon Greenidge, who IMO was the finest opener ever produced by the West Indies. I have very fond memories of watching Richards-Greenidge partnerships in the 1970's.

 

[fredfertang]

No love for Barry Richards? I know he didn't play much Test cricket, but he had an impeccable technique and was a brilliant strokeplayer as well. Many who saw him play would rank him above either Hutton or Gavaskar, and certainly well ahead of his Hampshire opening colleague, Gordon Greenidge, who IMO was the finest opener ever produced by the West Indies. I have very fond memories of watching Richards-Greenidge partnerships in the 1970's.

You and me both mate

 

[Xuhaib]

Wow. If he retired after 100 tests, would he have been rated higher than he is? One wonders...

I think after 1990 he started having back problems and that slowed his output. Feel he gets under appreciated because there is a belief in some circles that he benfitted from home umpiring however his away record in nothing to sneeze at had two very good tours to England aced it against Windies in his only trip to windies shores during his prime scored double hundreds against Hadlee in NZL and almost averages 40 in Australia with couple of hundreds, miles away our best batsman ever.

 

[Plumbinfront]

I think after 1990 he started having back problems and that slowed his output. Feel he gets under appreciated because there is a belief in some circles that he benfitted from home umpiring however his away record in nothing to sneeze at had two very good tours to England aced it against Windies in his only trip to windies shores during his prime scored double hundreds against Hadlee in NZL and almost averages 40 in Australia with couple of hundreds, miles away our best batsman ever.

That is because he was nowhere near as good when Shakoor Rana wasn't there. No denying thathe was a very good batsman but you're cherry picking his best series. He was awful in the West Indies overall; don't think he averages much more than early twenties there. He got screwed by Lillee repeatedly in Australia. He did play Hadlee well though, I'll give you that. The huge disparity in his home and away averages (60s vs 30s IIRC) should tell you all that needs to be told. Very good batsman, a definite Pakistani great. To bracket him along with Kallis or Ponting is an insult to them, though. Nowhere close to those two.

 

[Teja.]

That is because he was nowhere near as good when Shakoor Rana wasn't there. No denying thathe was a very good batsman but you're cherry picking his best series. He was awful in the West Indies overall; don't think he averages much more than early twenties there. He got screwed by Lillee repeatedly in Australia. He did play Hadlee well though, I'll give you that. The huge disparity in his home and away averages (60s vs 30s IIRC) should tell you all that needs to be told. Very good batsman, a definite Pakistani great. To bracket him along with Kallis or Ponting is an insult to them, though. Nowhere close to those two.

His away average is actually 45.8, which happens to be ****ing excellent for the 80s.

Nice try though.

 

[SJS]

This is a very interesting one for stats buffs. Normally one will find that the greatest of batsmen have a relatively settled (low fluctuation) average over their careers. Basically because, invariably, once they settle into their careers, they tend to have prolonged peaks and during this period they accumulate so much that the odd blip does not bring their averages down by much. But one can still see some interesting statistical differences. Here are six of the top players over time and most of them appear in most people ATG sides.

[B]Batsman    	Tests	Highest	Lowest	Career	Diff H/L	Diff %[/B]

Bradman   	52	111.9	89.6	99.9	22.3	22.3
Sobers      	91	65	52.5	57.8	12.5	21.6
Hammond  	85	66.6	54.9	58.5	11.7	20.0
Sutcliffe	54	70.5	60.7	60.7	9.8	16.1
Hobbs       	61	61.3	56	57	5.3	9.3
Tendulkar 1	194	59.2	37.4	54.3	21.8	40.1

[B]Tendulkar 2	194	59.2	49	54.3	10.2	18.[/B]8

This needs some explaining.

1. The Diff H/L column shows the difference between the lowest and the highest averages obtained after the end of the 20th Test. This shows wide fluctuation - from Hobbs' 5.3 to Bradman's 22.3. But then Bradman's average is almost twice that of the others - hence the next column which converts this difference to a % of the career average. Now the range is between 15 to 22 which is reasonable except for two players, Hobbs(9.3) and Tendulkar (40.1)

2. Hobbs's fantastically low variation in the average is nothing but a reflection of his remarkable consistency over such a long career - that too as an opener in an era of uncovered wickets. There is absolutely no doubt as to why this man is on everyone's ATG list and why there are those who consider him, technically as well as in adverse conditions, the superior of the Don himself.

3. Tendulkar's figures show a bit of a problem with the eligibility criteria of minimum 20 Tests. For most of the others the 20 tests represent a very large chunk of their career tally. From 22 percent for Sobers to nearly 40 percent for Bradman. For Tendulkar, however, these represent just over 10 percent of the matches he has played so far.Even if this 20 Test limit was made 30 in his case, the figures become more like everyone else's (Tendulkar 2) barring Hobbs of course. Although 30 Tests still represent just 15 % of his Test tally against 22-40 that 20 represents for the others.

What we are really saying is that the young Tendulkar in his teens was not the finished product and too far from his prime for this not to affect his figures for that period vis-a-vis what he was to achieve over the next two decades.

So it is obvious that the top batsmen over time will have a low and high average differential of between 15 to 20 % of their career figure. However, there will be those who will have made much bigger strides or fallen much more sharply in their careers. I am sure they are out there but when you find them you will find that they would not be of the caliber of these giants or their career averages will be in a much lower range, or their career spans will be lower or a combination of these factors.

I would like someone to find a world class player with a long career, a world class career ending average but with a really big difference between the highest and lowest averages.

That should be fun to discuss.

 

[Coronis]

Viv Richards
Tests: 121
Highest: 64.14
Lowest: 49.93
Overall: 50.23
Difference: 14.21
Diff %: 28.3

For his last 40 or so Tests, his average was in a pretty steady decline. He only scored 5 centuries in those last 40 Tests, in about a 3rd of his tests, of 24.

Adam Gilchrist
Tests: 96
Highest: 61.83
Lowest: 47.60
Difference: 14.23
Diff %: 29.9

 

[Flametree]

Some other batsmen who began their careers with a bang... (using 15 tests as the minimum requirement)

Mike Hussey 86.2 after 18 tests
Jimmy Adams 84.4 after 15 tests
Javed Miandad 75.8 after 17 tests
Doug Walters 74.0 after 17 tests
Arthur Morris 70.4 after 15 tests
Neil Harvey 69.1 after 15 tests
Everton Weekes 68.5 after 15 tests
Frank Worrell 67.5 after 15 tests
Thilan Samaraweera 65.9 after 15 tests
Mark Taylor 65.2 after 16 tests

On the other hand.. Laxman's average after 16 tests was 24.07

 

[The Sean]

Bradman's case is interesting there in that the highest and lowest points after his 20th Test came so close together. The Don's highest average - 111 - actually came in his 20th Test (in fact his highest ever average of 112.29 was reached in the previous Test, his 19th) and yet by the 26th it had fallen to 89.55 after the worst run of form of his career - a six Test stretch where his scores were 8, 66, 76, 24, 48, 71, 29, 25, 36, 13, 30. Bradman's 27th Test produced a score of 304 and the upward trajectory started again.

As for SJS's question of which great batsman with a very high average has such a gap between his highest and lowest points after 20 Tests, I haven't crunched the numbers yet but I'd suggest possibly Kallis? He took quite a long time to really get going as a Test batsman, but when the runs started flowing his average really exploded.