Better Test stats than FC stats

[GuyFromLancs]

I’v e been thinking about this since Friday – and here are mythoughts as to why this happens

1. The test career captures the brief time the player is on top of his game. In this case, kudos to the selectors for using them like lumps of meat and binning them before they go rotten

2. The player is motivated to punch above his weight in the higher arena


3. The player is bored of first class cricket and treats it like a bit of an amble in a park

There are no doubt a number of examples of 1.

2 could be said to apply to Michael Vaughan (Test average 41, FC 37) , Marcus Trescothick (Tests 43, FC 41 – although it hovered around 37 for a long time), Paul Collingwood (Tests 40, FC 35). Although with the latter, perhaps there is an element of 1.

Tony Greig averaged 41 with the bat in tests and 31 in FC.

3 is an interesting one, I only brought it up in reference to something I read about David Gower (Tests 44, FC 40), in that supposedly he treated FC cricket like a bit of an inconvenience to his life in general.

Other ones I’ve noticed include Sangakarra (Test 57, FC 49), Kallis (Tests 56, FC 54).

Anymore, and any opinions, greatly appreciated.

 

[ajdude]

patrick cummins

 

[BoyBrumby]

Warne averaged something like 35 per wicket in FC for Victoria; his overall FC average might be higher too.

Pretty sure Swann's bowling FC average is higher than his test one too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Barrington:
58 in Tests, 45 in FC
His is definitely a case where I think his slumps happened while he was playing FC and not tests. Tests are what matter, though

 

[Furball]

Michael Clarke is another one who has better Test (and ODI, iirc) stats than First Class and List A.

With players like Clarke, when they're selected young and on the basis of talent, they'll play so little domestic First Class cricket that if they develop and perform as hoped in the Test side, they won't play enough FC to "correct" their record.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Michael Clarke is another one who has better Test (and ODI, iirc) stats than First Class and List A.

With players like Clarke, when they're selected young and on the basis of talent, they'll play so little domestic First Class cricket that if they develop and perform as hoped in the Test side, they won't play enough FC to "correct" their record.

Yeah, and I get the impression that when they're test players at such a young age, on the occasions they do go back to their club, they hardly take things 100% seriously.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Warne averaged something like 35 per wicket in FC for Victoria; his overall FC average might be higher too.

Nah, just checked... Warne averages 26 in FC, pretty much the same as in Tests

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Warne averaged something like 35 per wicket in FC for Victoria; his overall FC average might be higher too.

Pretty sure Swann's bowling FC average is higher than his test one too.

Yeah you're right. Warne was marginally better in Tests (25 - to 26 in FC), wheareas Swann's is 28 in Tests and 31 in FC.

 

[fredfertang]

Barrington:
58 in Tests, 45 in FC
His is definitely a case where I think his slumps happened while he was playing FC and not tests. Tests are what matter, though

Kenny played the first 6 or 7 years of his career on Oval wickets prepared for Laker and Lock to bowl sides out twice as quickly as possible - a fifty on some of those was worth way more than most centuries

 

[Dan]

In the case of Sangakkara in particular (and Sri Lankan batsmen in general), they play on pretty terrible surfaces in domestic cricket (utter minefields going by stats alone), so that could be a cause.

Might see the same thing occurring in the West Indies in the not-too-distant future, given Nikita Miller's record is similar to SF Barnes'

 

[marc71178]

Nah, just checked... Warne averages 26 in FC, pretty much the same as in Tests

But that isn't what BB said - For Victoria, Warne did average 35

 

[Cabinet96]

And he also said his overall FC average may be more than his test one, which OS responded to...

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and he's also wrong in that response.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, and he's also wrong in that response.

Wait how?

 

[Viscount Tom]

Maurice Leyland and Bradman.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah you're right. Warne was marginally better in Tests (25 - to 26 in FC), wheareas Swann's is 28 in Tests and 31 in FC.

Cricinfo's FC stats include the player's test stats. Purely in FC his average was a clear few rungs below.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Cricinfo's FC stats include the player's test stats. Purely in FC his average was a clear few rungs below.

Not really, even if you remove tests, his pure FC average is still 26.9... Not a significant difference from his test average

 

[Spikey]

Barrington:
58 in Tests, 45 in FC
His is definitely a case where I think his slumps happened while he was playing FC and not tests. Tests are what matter, though

Before the modern era I think there's a fair few English guys who had better test batting averages than FC averages. Hobbs, Sutcliff and Hammond all have higher test averages iirc (I think Barrington's has by far the biggest difference though)

 

[Flem274*]

Scott Styris and Nathan Astle, because both decided part way through their FC careers to stop being medium pacers who could have a swing and start being batsmen who bowled a little bit.

 

[_Ed_]

Brendon McCullum is another - clearly a better Test record than FC, and his List A and ODI records are almost identical. That's kind of surprising, really, because he was selected way, way, way too early - particularly in ODIs.