• 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.

Batsmen versus Tail-enders stats

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
T20Is started on 17-Feb-2005. I was studying how batsmen (top 6) and tail-enders (8-11) perform in various formats on average since that day. I excluded number 7s from this analysis to avoid complexities.

I wanted to see strike rates and balls per dismissal for them (they are two components of average : multiplying them and dividing by 100 gives you average). Here is how the aggregate data looks.

Balls per dismissal Strike Rate
Top 6 T20 19.4 119.8
Top 6 ODI 42.2 79.5
Top 6 Test 78.0 51.2
Balls per dismissal Strike Rate
8 to 11 T20 10.1 101.5
8 to 11 ODI 18.4 75.8
8 to 11 Test 32.1 51.0

There are no surprises in the balls per dismissal data. Tail-enders get dismissed much more often than batsmen. Also, players get dismissed more often in shorter formats for obvious reasons. They also score faster in T0Is than in ODIs, and much faster than in Tests.

However, if you look at how the strike rates compare between batsmen and tail-enders, it gets a little more interesting. While the difference is considerable for T20Is (120 versus 102), in ODIs the difference is not so pronounced (80 versus 76). And in test matches there is no difference. Overall, the difference in SRs (0-20%, depending on format) is nowhere comparable to the difference in balls per dismissal (90-150%, depending on format). Since there are no differences in strike rates for tests, can we attribute at least a part of the difference for limited overs cricket to the fact that tail-enders don't get to bat in power-plays? Can we say that the boundary-hitting ability is not drastically different between batsmen and tail-enders? ...and the real difference lies in how often they get dismissed?

Also, overall what does the above data tell you? Do you have any other observations?

Edit: In fact, if you remove 1 from balls faced per dismissal, the difference in scoring rate becomes more miniscule. For example, if we say that tail-enders get dismissed once in every 10.1 balls that means 1 of those 10.1 deliveries is being consumed for getting out. So, he basically scores all his runs in 9.1 deliveries.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
props for gathering the data. Tbh I can't really see anything interesting at all to be garnered from it though, all seems pretty predictable and unsurprising.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
It suggests to me that an important part of batting skill is reflected in the ability to increase the strike rate when necessary. As it is very rarely necessary in Tests there is no difference. As it is sometimes necessary in ODIs there is some difference and as it is usually necessary in T20s there is a big difference.

I have a suspicion that T20s break the ODI rule of thumb that higher SR = lower average and vice versa. It seems to me that the best T20 batsmen have both a higher average and a higher SR.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It suggests to me that an important part of batting skill is reflected in the ability to increase the strike rate when necessary. As it is very rarely necessary in Tests there is no difference. As it is sometimes necessary in ODIs there is some difference and as it is usually necessary in T20s there is a big difference.

I have a suspicion that T20s break the ODI rule of thumb that higher SR = lower average and vice versa. It seems to me that the best T20 batsmen have both a higher average and a higher SR.
That's not a rule of thumb at all. It's not even a thing.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
I've always thought it interesting that a lot of decent tail-end sloggers in test matches, such as Broad and Southee, have had absolutely no success when it comes to batting at the death in ODIs. I think these stats kind of prove that that's an actual thing, but I'm not sure it really helps explain why.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In ODIs their SR is probably similar only because majority of the time the tail is in, it's towards the end of the innings and when they're looking for quick runs. If you compare top 6 SRs vs bottom 4 SRs over the last 10 overs of an ODI for example, I'm thinking they'll be significantly different.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
That's not a rule of thumb at all. It's not even a thing.
Guys striking over 90 who have played a decent amount of ODIs as batsmen (Afridi, Maxwell, Buttler, Sehwag, Gilchrist, McCullum, Raina, Warner, Jayasuriya) all have averages of well under 40.

DeVilliers, de Kock, Symonds, Watson and Viv are the only ones with averages of 40+ and a SR of 90+ to have played a decent amount of cricket (I think). Kohli close enough to count as well.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
It suggests to me that an important part of batting skill is reflected in the ability to increase the strike rate when necessary. As it is very rarely necessary in Tests there is no difference. As it is sometimes necessary in ODIs there is some difference and as it is usually necessary in T20s there is a big difference.
Ya good point - a batsman with SR 80 in ODIs is likely to be slower in accumulation phase (<70) and faster in attack phase (>100). But a tailender wth SR 76 generally can't change his game much with match situation

I have a suspicion that T20s break the ODI rule of thumb that higher SR = lower average and vice versa. It seems to me that the best T20 batsmen have both a higher average and a higher SR.
I think the higher SR=lower average thumb rule is applicable only for the same batsman, e.g. if ABDev has to score faster he is likely to get out more often...You can't apply that thumb rule between 2 batsmen to say just because Sachin Tendulkar has a better SR than Dinesh Mongia, Dinesh is likely to have a better average.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
I think the higher SR=lower average thumb rule is applicable only for the same batsman, e.g. if ABDev has to score faster he is likely to get out more often...You can't apply that thumb rule between 2 batsmen to say just because Sachin Tendulkar has a better SR than Dinesh Mongia, Dinesh is likely to have a better average.
Agree. I think though that it's also applicable for batsmen of roughly the same level of skill. Tendulkar and ABDV are just too good to be measured on the same scale as most other batsmen. Viv, Kohli also.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Guys striking over 90 who have played a decent amount of ODIs as batsmen (Afridi, Maxwell, Buttler, Sehwag, Gilchrist, McCullum, Raina, Warner, Jayasuriya) all have averages of well under 40.

DeVilliers, de Kock, Symonds, Watson and Viv are the only ones with averages of 40+ and a SR of 90+ to have played a decent amount of cricket (I think). Kohli close enough to count as well.
That's a very specific set of players you're looking at there though. I guarantee there's a plethora of batsmen with lower averages and lower strike rates who just weren't as successful players
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
That's a very specific set of players you're looking at there though. I guarantee there's a plethora of batsmen with lower averages and lower strike rates who just weren't as successful players
Of course there are. But kiwivictor's point was that generally in ODIs, a higher SR will often mean a lower average. The fact that there are guys with lower averages AND lower SRs means nothing.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Of course there are. But kiwivictor's point was that generally in ODIs, a higher SR will often mean a lower average.
As I said though, that's not actually a thing. You could pick a bunch of players that fit your 2 groups, one with higher averages, lower strike-rates and vice versa, but don't pretend that it actually means something.

The fact that there are guys with lower averages AND lower SRs means nothing.
Actually, it means everything. It completely disproves any thoery that "higher averages means lower strike-rates" and vice versa. Which is absurd.

Unless you're looking at the same player in different circumtsances or players of very similar skill level, where obviously scoring at a higher strike will generally mean a lower average, then it's just not a thing.

Edit: In fact I'd say that for similar batting positions (ie those specified in the OP) the general "rule of thumb" would be that the better players have both a higher SR & a higher Average than the worse players --> taking all players into account, not just a select few or the very best
 
Last edited:

Top